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.
Saturday, 5 May 2012
Tuesday, 1 May 2012
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.
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.
Wednesday, 25 April 2012
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.
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.
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.
Roll on May 19th.
Tuesday, 17 April 2012
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.
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...
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.
Tuesday, 31 May 2011
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...
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.
Friday, 27 May 2011
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.
Sunday, 8 May 2011
Formula 1: Moving the goalposts
This season, a number of changes were made to F1's rules and regulations, with the intention of increasing the amount of overtaking seen during races. Looking at these initiatives purely in terms of the results they were designed to bring about, it is difficult to argue that they have not been a massive success. So why is it that so many fans feel such antipathy towards the "new" Formula 1?
DRS
I believe that it is the hardcore, perma-fans of F1, who find the Drag Reduction System the most difficult to stomach. Those of us who have followed the sport since childhood, all have cherished memories of our favourite overtakes - Mansell on Senna, Alonso on Schumacher, Hakkinen on Schumacher, Coulthard on Schumacher (in my case ANYONE on Schumacher) - and the reason those passes live so long in the memory is that they meant something. Overtaking has been difficult for decades now and these moves were born of supreme skill and bravery.
Now passes are ten a penny, and essentially meaningless, indicative of nothing but an artificially generated disparity in the downforce possessed by the two drivers.
Let's imagine a comparable initiative being introduced in football... Say FIFA felt that games were too low scoring and that defences had become too dominant. They decide to to increase the size of the goals: to - quite literally - move the goal posts.
As a result, games regularly finish 5-4, 6-5: scoring is no longer the challenge it was. Records are broken, hat-tricks are commonplace, thirty-yard strikes occurring several times in a match. Suddenly football becomes like basketball: scoring is metronomic, devalued. You can have too much of a good thing.
No true football fan would accept this. And that is why many fans of F1 are so uncomfortable with the DRS.
Personally, I would be happy if the cars just had KERS - the much maligned Kinetic Energy Recovery System - which provides a battery powered boost in horsepower for several seconds a lap. The driver is able to employ this at any point throughout the lap, unlike the DRS which is only available to them on a particular section of track, predetermined at the start of the grand prix weekend. So at least with KERS it is a fair fight: both drivers have use of the system throughout the race, and can employ it for defence as well as attack. With the DRS system, the driver in front is effectively a sitting duck. This was especially evident in Turkey this afternoon, where many of the passes were done and dusted before the cars even reached the braking zone for turn eleven.
Tyres
The other major change this year involves the tyres, with Pirelli replacing Bridgestone as sole supplier.
Although I'm broadly supportive of the moves Pirelli have made to spice up the racing with high tyre degradation, I have reservations. Michael Schumacher claimed this week that the new regulations meant that the fastest drivers were rewarded with the results they deserved. However, with so many pitstops necessary, the potential for a mechanic's error to knock his driver out of contention is increased significantly, and we saw a number of races compromised today by mistakes made during pitstops: not least Lewis Hamilton's.
Another drawback to the high level of tyre wear is the way in which it can - in certain circumstances - actually make exciting racing less likely. As Martin Whitmarsh pointed out following today's race: if a driver is forced to be aggressive and make passes to make their strategy work, the tyres suffer even more than usual. The turbulent air coming off the car in front reduces their grip levels, making the tyres work harder, so, of course, they wear out sooner. In some cases, high tyre wear could actually discourages a driver from making a pass: having precisely the opposite effect that it was designed to produce.
We were promised that different driving styles would have more of an impact this year as a result of the new Pirellis. It was felt that drivers who were easy on their tyres, such as Jenson Button, might have an advantage at some tracks and be able to make less pitstops than their rivals. However, this has not really materialised. The tyre wear seems somewhat arbitrary, driving style having little effect, either positively or negatively, unless a driver is particular reckless or flat spots a tyre under breaking.
There is no doubt that the changes made to the sports regulations have increased the amount of overtaking. In theory, the sport is indeed now more exciting. But scratch the surface and it becomes apparent that the racing we are watching lacks a certain degree of authenticity.
The casual fans may be sated, but F1's rulemakers must be wary of alienating their core fan-base.
Of course it is still early days for both DRS and Pirelli and next season will no doubt see further development. It remains to be seen whether the changes will be of benefit to the sport in the long term.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)