Speculative Punts: Premier League Review 2012/13

This Barclays Premier League season has already been exhaustively reviewed by greater minds that I, so, in a moment of supreme unconventionality, I have decided to post a brief review of next season...

May 22nd 2013:

As Eddie Newton prepares to lead his Chelsea team out onto the Wembley turf, for their second Champions League final in two years, it is worth us taking the time to look back over what has been another extraordinary season in the Premier League.

And let us begin with Chelsea, and their interim manager's meteoric rise: the season's unlikely success story. If the cameras were to pick out Newton physically pinching himself on the touchline on Saturday evening, it would not come as a surprise.

For a start, Chelsea's failure to beat Bayern Munich in last season's final had left the club facing up to the unpalatable prospect of Thursday nights on ITV4. But when the Greek champions, Olympiakos, were forced to withdraw from the Champions League - following a financial meltdown in their home country that left them unavailable to pay their players with anything other than pieces of scrap paper with Euro symbols drawn on them - Chelsea won the lottery of Europa League qualifiers to join Tottenham, Arsenal and both Manchesters, in the world's premier club tournament.

It was stagnant league form that did for Roberto Di Matteo, as much as anything else, and when a delegation of Chelsea executives were unable to persuade Pep Guardiola to cut short his sabbatical, Newton was installed as interim manager and charged with reviving the clubs short-term fortunes. League form stabilised, and fifth place was secured, but it was in Europe that Newton's charges really excelled.

Roman Abramovich's stated goal since buying the club has been to win this competition. Could Eddie Newton, of all people, finally be the man to deliver European glory to his Russian paymaster?

And how will John Terry feel, missing his second Champions League final in succession, after elbowing Tottenham's Emmanuel Adebayor in the semi-final first leg. Despite his entirely convincing protestations that he had merely raised his elbow in order to cup his ear - so that he might better hear the instructions Newton was shouting to him - and that Adebayor had run into his arm (breaking his nose in the process) in a deliberate attempt to get him sent off, UEFA did not see fit to rescind the card and he will, yet again, miss out the opportunity to lift the trophy he has coveted for so long.

If Newton is perhaps manager of the year, then Manchester City are surely the team of the year, after deservedly winning the title by six points. Their spending in the summer surprised many, again topping £100 million, but their neat circumvention of FFP by securing a new £200 million shirt sponsorship deal - with an Abu Dhabi investment company in no way affiliated with Sheikh Mansour - ensured Roberto Mancini could strengthen as he saw fit.

The footage of Carlos Tevez dancing on a mocked up grave, marked with Sir Alex Ferguson's name, on the concourse outside Eastlands, took some of the shine off City's celebrations, but Tevez's spokesman insisted that the player didn't understand what he was dancing on and in no way meant to cause any offence to a man he deeply, deeply respects.

Player of the year is surely Robin Van Persie. The Manchester City forward forged a prolific partnership with the dynamic Sergio Aguero, which made City the top scorers in England, and won the Dutchman Europe's Golden Boot. His picture perfect, game winning volley against former club Arsenal (from a misplaced lofted back pass from Alex Song) was as spectacular as it was galling for supporters of the London club to witness. At least Gunners fans could console themselves with the fact that he didn't really celebrate the goal. And third place in the the league, of course.

Van Persie's volley was not destined to finish up goal of the season, however, as Peter Crouch scored a back heel from forty yards, for Stoke, away at Norwich. He insists that he meant it.

A close second for player of the year must be Andy Carroll, the highest English scorer in the league. Kenny Dalglish signed six wingers in the January transfer window, in the hope of providing the Geordie show pony with better service. Unfortunately, none of them could cross the ball, least of all Stuart Ripley who is well into his forties. Dalglish denied charges that he was out of touch with the modern game, but was forced to change his system somewhat. As a result, a revitalised Steven Gerrard was pushed out wide, and he provided the majority of the assists for Carroll's goals.

Liverpool finished ninth in the table, which is sure to disappoint some fans, however another victory in the Carling Cup final ensures Dalglish will keep the job for life. Mike Newell is rumoured to be a summer transfer target.

Tottenham enjoyed a good run in Europe but disappointed in the league, finishing a lowly sixth. Speculation about Harry Redknapp replacing Roy Hodgson as England boss seemed to unsettle the team, and their league challenge fell away. England's World Cup qualifying campaign has certainly faltered, but sections of the media seem intent on driving Hodgson out of the job regardless of results and it could be that, come August, Spurs will be looking for a new manager. It appears certain now that Gareth Bale and Luka Modric will leave White Hart Lane, so even if Redknapp does stay, he will have much rebuilding to do.

Sir Alex Ferguson is sure to have a busy summer. Mind you, that is what most pundits thought last year and very little business was done. His arthritic midfield is in desperate need of new blood. It seems he has persuaded Ryan Giggs and Paul Scholes to stay on for yet another season, but their effectiveness has been diminished by age. Michael Carrick remains a shadow of the player he never actually was but did appear to be for some time. Anderson is still injured. Ferguson insists there is no value in the market, but Newcastle and Everton's transfer dealings continue to suggest otherwise. He still rates Park Ji-Sung.

Michael Owen seems to be destined to leave United after he, like Anderson, spent almost the entire season injured. The former England man made only one substitute appearance, in the club's final home game, which led to the United fans chanting "Are you Louis Saha in disguise?" at him for the full 17 minutes he was on the pitch.

Second seems a reasonable result for Manchester United, given their squad, but how much longer will the formerly outspoken Wayne Rooney tolerate the club's perceived lack of ambition in the transfer market?

Alan Pardew's French revolution continued to bear fruit, as Newcastle secured fourth place ahead of Chelsea. They will be praying, like Spurs last season, that Chelsea do not win the Champions League and take their place in next year's competition. Pardew himself spent much of the year ruling himself out of jobs that most pundits felt that he wasn't in the running for.

At the bottom of the table it is with a heavy heart that we bid farewell to West Bromwich Albion and their manager Alex McLeish, who has now guided west Midlands clubs to relegation from the Premier League on three occasions. Aston Villa last year were, of course, very nearly the fourth. Rumours continue to circulate that he is a Walsall fan.

West Ham are again relegated and, in a bizarre twist, "Big" Sam Allardyce and Steve Kean will swap places, just as they did last season; Kean having marshalled Burnley to the summit of the Championship following his sacking at Christmas by Blackburn Rovers. Anthony Modeste, Burnley's top scorer, will be a forced in the Premier League next year. Definitely one for your fantasy league team.

QPR are also facing up to a season in the Championship, however Mark Hughes was not proved wrong in his bold statement of last year that the club would "never face this situation again in my time here" following his sacking back in January.

Abramovich's Power Play Bucks The Trend For "Flat-Packed" Stadia

On Friday, Chelsea launched an audacious bid to make, what would undoubtedly be, the most significant acquisition of the Roman Abramovich era.  The club have offered to buy Battersea Power Station, the grade-two listed landmark on the banks of the Thames, with a view to developing it into a 60,000 seater stadium.

For a number of years Chelsea have been looking to increase their match day revenues.  The Emirates Stadium, home to London rivals Arsenal, has a capacity of over 60,000. Manchester United's ground, Old Trafford has a capacity of 76,000.  Stamford Bridge, Chelsea's home since 1905, is much smaller in comparison, having a capacity of only 42,000.  More seats means more cash; a simple equation.  With seeming little potential to develop Stamford Bridge further, Chelsea have been looking into the possibility of relocating to a new stadium, and had previously expressed an interest in purchasing the Earl's Court Exhibition Centre.

With the implementation of UEFA's “Financial Fair Play” regulations looming on the horizon, the need to balance the books has never been greater for the west London club, who have essentially been bankrolled by Russian oligarch Abramovich's billions, since his takeover in 2003.  When the FFP rules are in place, clubs will not be allowed to repeatedly run at a loss.  (Stadium development is exempt from FFP rules, meaning clubs are free to invest in infrastructure.)  Maximising ticket revenue is, therefore, crucial to cementing the club's position in the upper echelons of European football.

In the last twenty years, many English clubs have found that they have outgrown their stadiums.  Others have found that time has simply caught up with their grounds; they have become tired, dilapidated.  Despite the years of history, these clubs have had no choice but to move.

This has given rise to a phenomenon that I believe is a blight on the modern game in this country: the “flat-packed” stadium.

The great stadiums have character: Anfield, Old Trafford, Goodison Park, White Hart Lane.  Each has personality, each is different.  There are quirks, irritations, obstructed views, but all of these things add to the distinctness of the ground, and have contributed to building the identity of the club that plays its football there.

So many of the new stadiums that have sprung up across the country lack character; they are devoid of personality, and, worse, they all look the same.  It looks as if the plans have been drawn up by the same architects (in some cases they have) and there is a “mass-produced” feel about them.  Take a look at pictures of the King Power Stadium, Pride Park, the Riverside and St. Mary's and you'll see what I mean.

Football clubs are important to the towns and cities they call home, and their stadiums are local landmarks.  Clubs have a responsibility to contribute to their home towns aesthetically as well as commercially, and too many of these new grounds do not fulfil that brief.  They are “off the peg,” “flat-packed” stadiums, placing function and - you suspect - profit above all else.

Often, moving to a ground with no history presents an opportunity for a club's board to generate income from the stadium's naming rights.  Sometimes the club's owners do not even wait for a move.  The Premier League “tour” now takes in the Etihad Stadium, Manchester, the Sport's Direct Arena, Newcastle and the Britannia Stadium, Stoke-on-Trent, amongst others.

Championship club Leicester City are becoming serial offenders.  Their home for more than a hundred years was Filbert Street.  Then there was the Walkers Bowl.  Mercifully, that quickly became the Walkers Stadium.  Now, less that ten years on from the move, it is the King Power Stadium.

Again, this only serves to weaken a club's identity.

Incidentally, Mike Ashley's move to re-brand St James' Park the Sports Direct Arena was so ill conceived, you suspect it must have been motivated by a certain malevolence, once again sticking it to the fans who abused him, despite the millions he had invested.  After all, it has generated no income – Sports Direct being Ashley's own company - and is a decision so unpopular with the fans that surely no right minded company would want the bad publicity that would go with taking on the deal.

Of course building a stadium is expensive - no one would dispute that - and the more ambitious the design the more expensive said stadium will be.  (Liverpool discovered that when spending £35 million on architects' fees, for the Stanley Park stadium that never was.)

But surely some compromise could have been reached, so that we did not have to suffer these bland, 30,000 seater clones.  You could walk into most of the new stadiums in this country, and, if the seats weren't painted in the colours of their club, it would be hard to tell them apart.  In a tribal sport, where the identity of your club is so important, that simply cannot be right.

When the decision was made not to incorporate the twin towers of the old Wembley into the new stadium's design, it was deemed crucial that an alternative was found; something distinctive was required; something unique that denoted that this was Wembley, this was the national stadium.  The impressive Wembley arch was conceived, now a point of interest on the west London skyline.

Which brings us back to Chelsea's bid to develop Battersea Power Station.  Without doubt this would be the most exciting and innovative stadium design in the country.  The power station itself is already an iconic building.

Not only would this move give Chelsea an identity - and perhaps help them to engender the sense of history that many say that they lack - but would provide the city of London, and the country as a whole, with one of the most architecturally exciting and attractive stadiums on the planet.

Manchester v Manchester: Tevez the catalyst as City close in on the title

The "Blue Moon" is rising and Manchester City took one giant leap towards their first Premier League title last night, with a deserved 1-0 win over their bitter rivals, at the Ethiad. It was a muscular performance from an athletic City side, marshalled by the division's outstanding defender, Vincent Kompany, who went some way to cementing his burgeoning status as a City legend, when he headed in the winning goal on 45 minutes.

City's form began to falter in March, when they lost to Swansea and drew with both Norwich and Sunderland, allowing Manchester United to usurp them at the top of the table. A 1-0 defeat to Arsenal followed at the beginning of April, and it looked as if the title race was all but over. But they have rallied in recent weeks thanks, in part, to the return of the want-away Carlos Tevez, from his five month sabbatical.

Many questioned the wisdom of bringing back a player who was seen as a divisive figure, Sir Alex Ferguson himself stating the belief that it was a "desperate" move. How would the squad react? It was suggested that it weakened manager Roberto Mancini's position, who - in the aftermath of the Munich game and Tevez's apparent refusal to play - had publicly stated the Argentinian would never wear a City shirt again. There were clearly dangers to allowing Tevez back into the fold; it was a move that could have backfired.

But it didn't.

Since returning to the side, Tevez form has been nothing short of astonishing, when you consider how long her had been out of the game. In eight appearances - several of those as substitute - he has scored four goals and created three more for his team-mates. But his impact cannot just be measured in goals and assists.

Last night, City had a drive that United lacked; they played with pace, verve and took the game to their opponents. Tevez typified this. He was seen battling for the ball on the edge of his own penalty area, cutting through the midfield with direct, powerful runs. His energy is infectious, his work-rate outstanding; he has been the spark that has reignited City's title challenge.

For Manchester United fans it was an evening of disappointment; less at the result, and more at the performance. Many have criticised Sir Alex Ferguson for setting up negatively. With the inclusion of Park, it had that look of a side set up not to lose, a tactic Ferguson has employed to good effect in many crucial Premier League clashes and European away games, over the years. But United simply didn't have the legs in midfield to match City's purposeful work on and off the ball. If Scholes is to be the fullcrum of your side at 37, you must surround him with players with pace and energy. United did not do that.

Park is a spent force; he was poor. Giggs lacks the drive of old. Carrick is a good player but has never been particularly energetic. What United wouldn't give for a player in the mould of Yaya Toure.

Again they missed Darren Fletcher, sidelined with an incurable bowel condition. Rumours are circulating today that he is set to retire from football. If true, that will only serve to heap more misery on the Old Trafford club, who you feel are moving towards a crossroads. The squad needs to be refreshed. The first team - with the exception of Wayne Rooney - lacks the outstanding talents that City possess. The question remains: will Ferguson be given the money to overhaul his ageing squad, or have the Glazers - as many fans fear - bled the coffers dry?

There is still some way to go in the title race, and Mancini, perhaps picking up on the characteristic pessimism of many City fans - born out of years of disappointment - maintains that United are favourites. But City are surely in the driving seat.

Nasri and Tevez are hitting form; David Silva and Sergio Aguero are recovering some of theirs, after mid-season dips, whilst Yaya Toure and Vincent Kompany continue to impress.

Their fate is in their hands and, on the evidence of last night, Manchester City look in no mood to be denied a first Premier League title.

Barcelona v Chelsea: Chelsea disrupt the Catalan carousel

With the echoes of Gary Neville's goal-gasm, still ringing in our ears, it is worth taking the time to pick over the bones of what was an extraordinary night at the Nou Camp.

Chelsea's victory over Barcelona, in the Champions League semi-final, was improbable to say the least.

Not from the outset: any team leading 1-0 on aggregate, going into the second leg of a European tie, would have a great chance of getting a result. No, it was improbable, unthinkable, impossible even, 44 minutes in, when Chelsea - shorn of their only front line centre backs and down to ten men - conceded their second goal.

Game over. Or so we thought.

A thrilling breakaway goal from the indefatigable Ramires - surely the London club's player of the season - fed by a delicious pass from Frank Lampard, made it 2-1 moments later and, suddenly, inexplicably, it was back on. Chelsea were going through on away goals.

Barca had to score again. The second half began, and, almost immediately, Didier Drogba - who would spent most of the half playing at left back - conceded a penalty to a Fabregas dive. Messi stepped up. And we knew what would happen. We knew he would score. We pictured him calmly stroking the ball home. Bottom left hand corner. Chelsea would be demoralised. The flood gates would open. It could be four, five, six...

Then Messi, human after all, hit the bar.

It was the turning point. Doubt crept in to Barcelona's play. Messi, of all people, had missed. They got ragged, they made poor decisions.

Wave after wave of Barcelona attacks, broke on the rocks at the heart of Chelsea's defence. Ivanovic had shifted to centre back when Cahill had tweaked his hamstring, Bosingwa - not noted for his defensive prowess - moved inside when Terry was deservedly sent off. Both performed miracles.

Cech was outstanding too, making a string of crucial saves. The midfield worked tirelessly. They were dogged in defence, all ten men behind the ball, heroes to a man. The tide never turned and yet, somehow, Chelsea survived.

Once again, it was a performance reminiscent of those determined defensive displays by Wigan over the last few weeks, thwarting technically superior sides. The "carousel" was interrupted, Barca's rhythm was disturbed, and the best team in the world began to lose faith.

Then: the knockout blow.

When Drogba was withdrawn for Torres on 80 minutes I felt it was the wrong decision. Drogba was exhausted, yes, but he was extremely effective playing as an auxiliary left back. He was tackling well, using his strength. Surely Torres could not fulfil the same role?

Immediately Barca attacked down the right and Torres let his man go. It seemed Roberto Di Matteo had made a mistake.

But Di Matteo had a plan.

Every time Torres took possession of the ball he attacked, running at pace into the Barcelona half, engaging their skittish defenders. Repeatedly he lost possession, enabling Barcelona to launch yet another assault on the Petr Cech's goal. "Keep the ball," screamed Chelsea fans on Twitter, "Give the defence a break."

But what RDM had noted, that the rest of us had not, was that Barcelona had lost their discipline, perhaps understandably. And when, in the 91st minute, the exhausted Chelsea defence lumped a clearance up field, Torres found himself with the freedom of the Barcelona half. It took the camera man a few moments to catch on, perhaps disbelieving, like so many of the home fans. But there it was. Torres was one on one with Valdes, almost from the halfway line. West London held it's breath.

Torres rounded the keeper to score the "£50 million goal" and Chelsea were through.


Aftermath

John Terry will miss the final; a fitting punishment. There will be no chance at redemption for his penalty miss in Moscow. Only he knows why he chose to knee Alexis Sanchez, off the ball. His initial denials of wrongdoing were laughable and he only admitted the offence once he had seen how damning the video evidence was. Few will be convinced by the red-eyed contrition he displayed in his interview with Sky Sports.

His reputation has been eroded over the years, as a result of various on and off field misdemeanours; both proven and unproven. Throughout all this, many have continued to argue that - whatever you think about him as a man - he is a brilliant captain and leader. That must surely be called into question now, by even the most ardent of his supporters.

The ungracious Spanish media called Barcelona's defeat "Unjust, cruel, horrible, unmerited," and yes it could be argued that the "best team" did not win. But if the "best team" always won, football would be a very boring game. We all want to see teams playing a beautiful, intricate passing game win matches, but hard work, determination and defensive resilience must also be rewarded.

Many have bemoaned Barcelona's lack of a "Plan B." But the truth is they've never really needed one. They have a footballing philosophy and they stick to it. This is total football. Having said that, if they had a more traditional centre forward on their books - taller, more physically imposing - that would enable them to vary their attacks more. Come the summer, Pep Guardiola should be looking at Fernando Llorente.

Sky viewers who had not already meandered away to other channels were treated to another classic Geoff Shreeves moment, as he broke the news to Branislav Ivanovic that he would not play in the final.

And that leads us to the big question looming for Roberto Di Matteo. What will his line up be on May 19th? Terry, Ramires, Ivanovic and Meireles are all suspended. Cahill is now an injury doubt, as is David Luiz. Michael Essien may come into the Italian's thinking for a defensive roll.

Di Matteo must be pinching himself. When he was sacked by West Brom, in February last year, he could never have dreamt that, less than 18 months on, he would be managing a side in the Champions League final.

Now, if only he could win it, he might - just might - be given the job full time.

Roll on May 19th.

Arsenal 1-2 Wigan and The Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain conundrum

It is hard to be too critical of Arsene Wenger and Arsenal after their resurgence over the last few weeks, and indeed this loss owed far more to a determined and accomplished defensive display from Wigan Athletic, than a particularly abject performance from the Gunners. True Wenger's men were not at their best, but credit must be given to Roberto Martinez, who has instilled belief in a Wigan side most thought were all but relegated after they lost eight matches on the spin, earlier in the season.

Pre-match, Sky's Gary Neville - pound for pound the best pundit in the business right now - predicted Arsenal, at home and in good form, would be extremely positive from the outset, and this seemed to be how Wigan saw things as well. They lined up with ten - often eleven - men behind the ball, worked hard to win possession and then counter attacked with gusto, dispensing with the pretty passing that has been Martinez's managerial trademark. It was a gutsy performance by Wigan; they played effective, direct football, battled to a man, and left Arsenal struggling to create clear cut chances.

After the game Wenger bemoaned the referee's failure to curb Wigan's time wasting - and he had a point - but the truth is, Arsenal looked as though they could have played for another half hour and still not got their equaliser.

Indeed for much of the second half, Wenger's men looked devoid of inspiration. Benayoun was ineffective and Walcott well marshalled; Van Persie was repeatedly forced to drop deep to get a touch of the ball, and you felt the crowd willing the Frenchman to make a change. When it came, the sight of half-man half-forehead, Gervinho, on the touchline received a lukewarm response from the crowd.

The player they really wanted to see, was Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain.

The Arsenal manager has shown a marked reluctance to give game time to Oxlade-Chamberlain over the last few weeks, and given the player's form earlier in campaign, Arsenal fans have been left scratching their heads.

Arsene Wenger's reputation as a manager who is highly adept at developing young players, is well earned, and it is no surprise that many young talents have, in recent years, chosen Arsenal over other top Premier League clubs, as the place to continue their football eduction. Is Wenger simply protecting his player, his years of experience telling him that the young midfielder has been elevated to the position of "fan favourite" before his time? It could be that he simply does not want to expose Oxlade-Chamberlain to those kind of pressures just yet.

Another school of thought is that it is Wenger's legendary stubbornness that prevents him from playing the teenager. It seems that whenever the fans demand something, the Frenchman digs his heels in and for several games earlier in the year there was a real battle of wills between manager and fans, most notably when Oxlade-Chamberlain - Arsenal's best player on the day - was withdrawn for Andrei Arshavin, in the game against Manchester United. Arshavin's poor defending would then play a part in United's winner.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eedFlvSaSXM

That, in particular, was a decision that baffled, and it came at a point in the season when many supporters had begun openly questioning whether Wenger should continue at the club next season.

With the team now back to winning ways, is this Wenger's way of showing the fans that he was right all along, that they can win without Oxlade-Chamberlain? Is this Wenger reminding the fans that Arsene knows best?

Quite possibly but, ever the conspiracy theorist, I'd like to put forward another suggestion...

After his performances in the Champions League and against United, the clamour for Oxlade-Chamberlain to start for Arsenal was deafening. But in addition, and perhaps crucially, there was talk of an England call up. Most worrying for Wenger, there was the prospect of his young talent being taken to Euro 2012.

Arsene Wenger is often described as a control freak. He is certainly meticulous and, many would say, dogmatic in his approach to management. He does things his way and he will not be swayed, by the capriciousness of the fans or bandwagon journalism; in many ways, admirable qualities.

It would be fair to say that he has never been a fan of international football and he is constantly complaining about his younger players being called up. For a manager so much in control at his club, a manager who prides himself on knowing how to nurture young players, to lose sight of them for weeks on end for under-21 or full international duty, must be, you would imagine, almost impossible to cope with. The wrangle over Theo Walcott's inclusion in the squad for the European under-21 championship in 2009 is evidence of this...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/england/5395815/Theo-Walcott-inclusion-in-England-Under-21-squad-leaves-Arsene-Wenger-simmering.html

In fairness to Wenger, his concerns about Walcott's fitness proved to be well founded. But the point is that the Frenchman has previous. The fact that Walcott - a young man passionate about playing for his country - had to "defy" his manager, to accept his call up speaks volumes.

I believe this is the reason behind Oxlade-Chamberlain not receiving the time on the pitch that many seasoned Arsenal supporters believe he deserves. By holding Oxlade-Chamberlain back, Wenger is ensuring that the England manager - whoever that may be come June - will simply not be able to justify calling up his teen prodigy. Wenger will have him all to himself for a summer of tedious, fitness building - and in no way commercially motivated - pre-season tours of Asia and the Far East.

Wayne Rooney forced himself into the England side in the run up to Euro 2004, through the unimpeachable quality of his football that year, and took the tournament by storm, before his unfortunate injury. Oxlade-Chamberlain's performances earlier this season were similarly eye-catching, and if his form had continued he would surely have been in Poland and the Ukraine this summer.

Of course Arsene Wenger's first concern must be Arsenal but, in holding back the talented midfielder, he could be robbing the nation - and the wider footballing world - of the potential breakout star of Euro 2012.

Paul Scholes retires

Manchester United fans must truly be in mourning.

If Ferguson's men were humbled in the 2009 Champions League final, then this year's defeat must surely count as a humiliation. The first ten minutes apart, when they briefly threatened to assert themselves on the game, United were bested by Barcelona, man for man, with Wayne Rooney perhaps the only player to emerge with his reputation intact.

And now they must contemplate a future without Paul Scholes.

Scholes will be remembered as the model pro: a player who did his talking on the pitch; a player who eschewed celebrity status, truly dedicated to his art. A one club man - increasingly an anomaly in the modern game - he was the bedrock on which Manchester United built their late 1990s/early 2000s success: a member of Sir Alex's "golden generation."

His passing was extraordinary. Dubbed "Sat Nav" by Rio Ferdinand, Scholes' brief cameo on Saturday, in a losing cause, reminded us of the unerring accuracy he still possesses. He can still ping a ball 40 yards to feet. The skill remains: it is mobility that has begun to desert him. And there's no shame in that. It comes to us all.

In his pomp he was the conductor of Ferguson's orchestra, dictating tempo, shaping the United ensemble's slick passing moves into glorious and emphatic crescendos. Often it was he himself who applied the finishing touch.

I have always thought of Scholes as a goalscorer - as we all know: "Paul Scholes, he scores goals" - but I was surprised to discover that he only hit 20 goals in a season once in his career. In my memory, at his peak, he was as prolific as, say, Frank Lampard, but the statistics don't back this up. Perhaps it is the sheer number of his goals that stick in the memory that have made him seem like a 20 goal a season man.

He was certainly a scorer of great goals, and could strike a ball as cleanly as any player in the modern game. Witness his volley against Aston Villa...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQXrMbArqSs

It is surely Sven Goran Eriksson's greatest crime against English football - and there were a few - that his marginalising of Paul Scholes led to the player's retirement from internationals. The damage was irreversible: many tried to persuade him to return but all ultimately failed, including Capello last summer.

Under Sven, Scholes found himself, rather improbably, on the left of midfield. But great players often seem to suffer in this way. Their talent is their undoing. Managers choose to play them out of position - rather than players who are perhaps less important to the side - because they believe that they have the quality to adapt. It is a problem that Steven Gerrard has suffered from in recent years.

Scholes has, in truth, been in decline as a footballer for a couple of seasons now. Frustrated at being on the fringes of the side and unable to affect the game as he would like, he has decided that now is the right time to set down his baton and step away from the podium.

Ferguson needs a new conductor. And be it Wesley Schneider or perhaps Luka Modric, the ginger maestro's shoes are going to be massive ones to fill.

Champions League Final 2011: Better off without Ronaldo?

Earlier this season, Didier Deschamps described the Manchester United team his Marseilles charges were about to face as lacking the "fantasy" that ran through many of Sir Alex Ferguson's previous sides.

It could be argued that this was a view shared by Wayne Rooney, when, in October last year, he asked for a transfer away from the club, citing the weakness of the squad, and the club's lack of ambition to make marquee signings, as motivating factors.

Most observers would agree that, since the departure of Ronaldo and Carlos Tevez - in the summer that followed their humbling at the hands of Barcelona in the 2009 Champions League final - United have not bought, or indeed developed, any truly world class players.

In the same period Barcelona have, at the very least, consolidated what they had. With a few additions, notably David Villa, a host of world cup winners in the squad and the extraordinary talents of Messi even more to the fore - a player now mentioned in the same breathe as Pele, Maradona and Cryuff but without the caveats - some have begun to wonder if this might be the greatest club side in the history of the game.

The logical conclusion, therefore, is that United are weaker than in 2009, whereas Barcelona are, if anything, even stronger. So Barcelona, who won the 2009 final with some ease, will surely win the 2011 trophy without breaking sweat.

Right?

Well, probably. But, strange as it may sound, I would argue that, despite the lack of "fantasy," this United side are more likely to upset Barcelona on Saturday than the team of 2009.

In the 2009 final, Cristiano Ronaldo often appeared to be trying to win the game by himself. He has never been interested in tracking back or adhering to tactical plans. In the Premier League, Ronaldo played as a winger but in Europe, in the bigger games, he played up front: a clear indication that Ferguson could not trust him to play with any kind of responsibility. Leaving Ronaldo out of a game like that would be unthinkable, so, in part, Ferguson had to compromise his tactics to incorporate the prancing Portuguese.

This time things will be different. United have a team who are incredibly diligent, with high work rates, capable of playing unselfishly for the team, and tactically disciplined. The two players who perhaps don't fit this mould are Nani and Berbatov and that is why they will almost certainly be on the bench. Ferguson will be able to unleash his "defensive forwards" Park and Valencia - and to some extent Hernandez and Rooney - on Barcelona's back four and midfield. Most agree that a pressing game is vital to disrupting the "carousel," and these four will hustle and harry until their legs give out.

This of course assumes that United will play the 4-4-1-1 formation that has served them well in recent weeks. If Ferguson chooses to leave Hernandez on the bench and plays Rooney as a lone striker then this will surely see the inclusion of Darren Fletcher.

Fletcher, who could be seen as the definition of a player that lacks "fantasy," was badly missed by United in 2009, when he was suspended following an unjust red card in the semi final. His workmanlike approach to the game, tenacious tackling, and tactical awareness mean that he would be right at home in this 2011 United side, and could prove to be Fergie's trump card.

Having said that, his lack of match fitness may count against him. (Have you seen him since he came back from his virus? He looks wizened, reanimated: like something out of Dawn of the Dead.)

So, from a United perspective, I do think there are reasons to be cautiously optimistic: which is really the only brand of optimism I indulge in.

Rooney will play centrally, whatever the formation, where he can affect the game far more than when he is stuck out on the left - as he was in 09 - and he really has been in scintillating form in the last few weeks of the season.

Also, I really think that player alleged by an MP to be "The Unnamed Footballer At The Centre Of The Imogen Thomas/Twitter Scandal" playing in a central midfield role gives United the creativity and guile they have been lacking since Paul Scholes' little legs ginger gnome legs started to give out. He could be the spark, the catalyst.

Unfortunately, for United, Barcelona have a whole team of sparks and catalysts.

If I'm honest, despite my contention that they have a better chance than in 09, I don't think United will win on Saturday. They would need to be at their best and for Barcelona to be closer to their worst.

But Arsenal beat Barcelona this season. And they finished fourth in the league. A league United won by nine points. So there's hope.

A sliver of hope.