Yeah yeah, it's been like 10 months since I've written anything longer than 140 characters. DON'T CARE. I'm coming out of my cocoon because I'm dying to fisk the latest SI piece by Jonathan Wilson in which he argues for the value of "pragmatism" in football:

Describe a team as, say, "reactive" and it's taken as a slight rather than an observation. Yet so long as a team is not cheating or intimidating, it is entitled to play as it wants, and the variety of possible styles should be celebrated.

To make this point, Wilson spends the first half of the article summarizing the innovation of Herbert Chapman, who flummoxed the 2-3-5 orthodoxy by creating the W-M formation. Wilson concludes:

Traditionalists hated it, but Chapman was highly successful, winning two league titles and an FA Cup before his death in 1934; Arsenal went on to win the league that season and the next. "Breaking down old traditions," a piece on his death in the Daily Mail explained, "he was the first manager who set out methodically to organize the winning of matches."

So far, so good: Chapman was an innovator and rejected the prevailing football dogmatism because he set out to win games methodically. I'm buying it. But then Wilson busts out the rhetorical questions:

Which, with the benefit of three-quarters of a century of hindsight, sounds a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Yet isn't that precisely what Tony Pulis, Sam Allardyce, Alex McLeish and the various other maligned exponents of direct football do? Don't they look at the resources they have, and work out how best to deploy them, not in terms of how pretty the soccer they will play will be, but in terms of the results they will achieve?

Like all faux footy intellectuals, I'm a fan of Wilson and his work. Sure, sometimes I had to read a page of Inverting the Pyramid 3 times to actually visualize the tactics, but it was intellectually rigorous, dammit! And that's precisely what's missing from this piece. Because not only does the Sourpuss Gang (Pulis/Allardyce/McLeish) not represent the innovative values of Herbert Chapman, I'd argue there's little evidence they're pragmatic. In Wilson's paragraph about Chapman, he leads with "traditionalists hated it." But is that true of the Sourpuss Gang? Unlike Mr. Wilson, I'll answer my own question: NEIN. Direct football is the equivalent of the 2-3-5 Chapman rebelled against. The football establishment adores direct football, and so does the media. This is why Roy Hodgson is revered by the Patrick Barclays of the world, and why the joke about "doing it on a wet Wednesday night at Stoke" isn't actually a joke to most of the people who utter it. Direct football is the establishment. Has been for decades. There is nothing innovative about it. The counter-argument: "Chapman wasn't used in the piece because he was innovative, he was used because he set about to methodically win games. And that's what the Sourpuss Gang does." My first counter-counter is to call the bluff. Sure, Wilson tries to use Chapman because of his pragmatism, but it isn't what actually draws people like Wilson to write about him, and it definitely isn't what draws people to read about him. It's the innovation that we're all attracted to, the idea that he bucked the system in a country that, um, isn't always enthusiastic about people bucking the system. That's what's valuable about Chapman, and we'll come back to this to prove it. Since direct football is the preferred style of the establishment, can we be sure that it's being employed by people like Pulis pragmatically, a.k.a. because it's the best use of resources to win games? I'd hardly say that's self-evident. It's equally likely they're employing the style because it's applauded by pundits and powerful FA figures, or that they were brought up in similar systems (virtually a certainty), or don't know how they'd employ anything else, or simply because they believe that's how real men ought to play. We could tell that Herbert Chapman was doing something pragmatic *because* it was innovative. He wanted to win games (presumably that's the pragmatic goal), and was so committed to this that he was willing to disregard standard tactics. That willingness was the proof of his paramount desire for pragmatic results. But you can't look at the Sourpuss Gang's use of direct football and draw any similar parallels. They're merely playing the English game the standard English way, and nothing about that says anything about pragmatism. Another counter-argument: "But look at the results! Pulis and Allardyce and McLeish stay up year after year, and that has to be because the system works for them, and is thus pragmatic!" And yet, straw man, you're wrong again. Correlation is not causation. If the Sourpuss Gang was pragmatic, surely they'd show signs of flexibility or adapting to different circumstances throughout their career. If you can't adapt, then you're merely dogmatic -- sorta like those 2-3-5 evangelists of old. Yet where was Allardyce's flexibility at Newcastle? His methods/approach were a disaster there, and all he could do was move on somewhere else and try to apply them successfully again. And if I can lump Roy Hodgson into the Sourpuss Gang (oh please let me lump Roy into the Gang!), we have an even better example of "direct football" being at least as much about dogmatism as it is about pragmatism. His constant cracks about how he'd done the same thing for 35 years and it always worked (ahem) was direct evidence of a hoofball acolyte/Paddy Barclay favorite using the system because that was "his" system and not because it was the best way to win. At Liverpool, it was the opposite. Blackpool pays players much less than the biggest names at Stoke, Blackburn, and Birmingham earn, yet they've managed to generate nearly as many shock results as those 3 combined. They might be falling down the table, but even if they wind up getting relegated, their results have already outpaced their resources and all of our expectations for the season. Does that make Ian Holloway a pragmatist? After all, he's getting even more out of even less than the Sourpuss Gang is doing, and he's doing it by flaunting tradition. Instead of playing for 0-0 every week with 10 men behind the ball like a poor team is supposed to do in England, he's going for it every night. And results have followed! If being results-oriented is Wilson's definition of pragmatic, then I'd say innovation and rebellion are inherently more pragmatic than following the establishment. People like Alex Ferguson know how to beat establishment football -- he's done it a thousand times. But he has far less experience with a team that plays like Blackpool, which is partly why a team made of up players on £10k/week almost beat his squad multi-millionaires. Going against the grain is the surest way to get surprise results against stodgy opponents used to the same game night in and night out, and that's exactly why Chapman did it. The Sourpuss Gang is playing right into the hands of their opponents, which I'd argue is anything but pragmatic. Towards the end, Wilson drops this bomb:

One of soccer's greatest fallacies is that it is an entertainment.

He defends this claim by arguing that football was originally created for men to test themselves against each other. Fine, but that has nothing to do with what soccer has become. And it's laughable to claim as fact that football isn't entertainment in the modern day. And Wilson knows this deep down, which is why he then immediately falls back on defending direct football on the grounds of entertainment:

Barcelona plays beautiful soccer -- that is hard to deny -- but if all teams played like that, soccer rapidly becomes predictable. Watching, say, Stoke at its best, pounding an opponent with crosses and long balls can generate a similar visceral charge.

I don't know about you, but Stoke has never given me much of a "visceral charge." Regardless, Wilson is defending the game as entertainment -- which is why the real thrust of the whole piece is the bit about how if everyone simply played like Barcelona, "soccer rapidly becomes predictable." And that blew my stack most of all. What about watching Barcelona is predictable? Is it Xavi's brilliance? Messi's brilliance? Villa's brilliance? Don't they do something different and amazing nearly every single game? Suppose Arsenal and Barcelona played 1000 times in a row. How many of those matches would be boring? How many of them would be predictable? I'd venture that there would be a wide variety of differently brilliant moments in each game, and that they'd constantly adapt to try and get an edge in attack over the course of those 1000 games. Attacking football doesn't have to be predictable at all. Is the left back of your opponent a weak spot to exploit? How many strikers should you employ against Team A vs Team B? How much width will you try to create? Do you want to run everything through an advanced midfielder, or wingers, someone else? When a system's objective is to score as much as possible and create as much space as possible, I'd argue that it's going to be inherently less predictable and stale than a system like direct football. Direct football dares you to test your mettle against your foe, which can (and often does) devolve into a predictable slugfest. But attacking teams want to score, and thus will be more inclined to seek weakness and exploit it. They are encouraged to design a gameplan specifically for each foe. That approach will keep the game much more fresh than direct football. I don't know if there's a moral argument for attacking football over direct football. But if you value creativity, unpredictability, and evolution of the game, there's little room for defense of the dogmatic ways of the Sourpuss Gang. Innovation is often a critical component of being truly pragmatic, just as it was for Herbert Chapman. And Paddy Barclay Football is hardly innovative. As Ian Holloway has proven, it's not even necessarily the best use of resources -- that's just the standard, accepted opinion of the establishment. Even if the whole football world was full of wanna-be Blackpools, Arsenals, and Barcelonas, I fail to see any proof that it'd be a boring one. And until we get a little closer to some style balance, especially in England, brilliant writers like Wilson should be pushing for such a world instead of crawling into bed with grumpy old men.

The FA Cup is one of the most famous and most fun sporting events in the world, and part of its unique charm is when non-league team advances beyond where they'd normally be defeated. This year, Crawley Town FC, a non-league club playing in the Football Conference (four levels below the Premier League) defeated Torquay to advance to the fifth round of the FA Cup, equaling the best performance by a non-league club in the modern era. The closest experience we have in the US is the NCAA Basketball tournament, when a lower seeded team upsets a top ten team in the first round, but we have yet to see the ultimate, a #1 seed losing to a #16 seed. The FA Cup's equivalent is a non-league team beating a Premier League team. That has happened, but not since Sutton United beat Coventry City in 1989. Maybe Crawley Town FC will be the first to advance to the sixth round, or maybe they will finally lose. Following them in their cinderella run is one of the pleasures for football followers throughout the world.

By know, I'm sure you've heard... 2018 in Russia, 2022 in Qatar. Golly, playing football in 50C heat always brings out the best, doesn't it? Your thoughts?

I remain so utterly baffled as to why footie fans tend to have a generally poor reputation amongst those not inclined toward the sport. Sure, we get pretty riled up and a little rowdy, but so do all sports fans, right? It's not like we're losing our minds and going completely flipping mad over routine things that happen in sports all the time...right?

Around 30 Manchester United supporters, many hooded and wearing balaclavas, stood outside Rooney's Prestbury home and invited the player to come out. When he declined, they unveiled a banner reading 'If you join City, you're dead' as he watched from an upstairs window.

Totally reasonable behavior. Now, of course these nuts are outliers in the big picture. As I always point out when a non-soccer person starts spouting off about hooligans, the majority of soccer fans are just normal people with normal levels of fandom - we get really excited sometimes, we get dejected, we moan and cry or jump up and down...for most of us, it's no different than it is for hardcore baseball fans or basketball fans or any other game. However, soccer fans, especially outside the US, do tend to do the whole eat-sleep-breathe-your-team thing to an extraordinary degree, and this kind of incident just fits the damn narrative so well that it makes me more upset. Like...don't play to the stereotypes! And also, you know...don't make death threats. I mean, this is just absolutely ridiculous. Sure, no arrests were made, and as the Cheshire Police spokesman said, "the group dispersed peacefully, no offences were committed". Goody. But this is still frightening behavior, and I've got to wonder what is wrong with people who process the news that one of their top players is probably leaving and maybe he might end up on the rival team and come up with "Let's go threaten his life!!" That's such a crazy and overblown reaction. Of course I understand the anger, but how many players stay with a team for their whole career, or even a majority of it (since Rooney started with Everton, of course)? It's quite common that players - even the top guys, the favorites, the best - end up leaving their team, for various reasons. I know the chance he might go to City is like rubbing salt in the wound, but even so, this shit happens and if you're going to lose it like this every time, maybe you need to take a step back and examine your mental health. If he goes to City, write nasty blog posts, boo him at the games, call him a traitor and a jerk and whatever. Fine. But let's try to keep the crazy in check. No one deserves the scariness of a death threat (no matter how "serious" or non-serious it might be), and the community as a whole would benefit from not having embarrassing shit like this in the books. (H/T to Dirty Tackle)

The United States has withdrawn their bid for the 2018 World Cup, and England has withdrawn their bid for 2022. No non-European nations are bidding for 2018 now. Remaining bidders for 2018 are England, Russia, Spain/Portugal, and Belgium/Holland. Competing against the United States are Australia, Japan, Qatar, and South Korea.

Via I don't remember where, I liked this article on MLS' "Homegrown Initiative" by Nancy Armour:

Instead of playing dozens of games a month with various local clubs and travel teams, players who are part of MLS’ homegrown program—done in conjunction with U.S. Soccer’s Development Academy—spend more time training and play fewer, but more meaningful, games. “For us to improve the overall quality of play and be competitive in this global sport, we had to get serious about player development,” said Todd Durbin, MLS executive vice president for player relations and competition. “There’s been an emphasis on winning. When we emphasize winning at a young age, it comes at a detriment to player development. We want players to experiment. We want players to take risks. We want them to develop technically. “The goal is not to win on Saturday,” Durbin said. “The goal is to have a player that can be a vibrant and long-term professional.”

I absolutely agree that a focus on technique is important, and that young players should be taught to care more about how they play, now how many games they win. The hope, of course, is that the latter will be positive in the wake of the former - everyone wants to win games. But from what I've seen over the years, and in the two recent friendlies the USMNT played (USA 2-2 Poland and USA 0-0 Colombia), one of the biggest obstacles we have to more notches in the win column is inconsistency. There were some players - some new, some not - who just didn't look like they knew quite what to do, or made random questionable decisions or moves, or couldn't grasp what their role was in the more experimental formations. Starting when players are very young and teaching them a strict and dedicated adherence to honing skills and learning exactly what their abilities are seems like a very promising way to create more consistent, reliable and confident players for future USMNT and MLS squads. It also makes sense from a financial standpoint, which in this league is always a consideration:

Individual clubs also have considerable incentive to develop their own players. “Homegrowns” aren’t counted against the salary cap. If a homegrown player goes abroad, the MLS club gets three-quarters of the transfer fee instead of the regular two-thirds. “My goal is, and the league’s goal, it’s still a business. There is a cap,” said Frank Klopas, the Chicago Fire’s technical director. “We’re not going to be able to go out and be buying players every year and spending millions of dollars like the rest of (the world). At least not now. We have to start developing players.

Insert typical USian soccer fan's lament about how we could totally kick the crap out of the rest of the world in this sport if more people here cared about it and gave it more respect, but I digress.

The second week of the Champions League has just finished, and all five British teams are in first or second place in their groups. Some open thread for comments on the season so far.

I'm a regular user of Google Calendars, and just over a year ago, they announced "interesting" calendars that you could add to your calendar. I find it helps me know when I am missing matches because I'm at work. For following an English or Scottish club playing in Europe, you need to select four calendars, one for the league, one for the cup, one for the league cup, and one for the European competition. It is interesting to note the range of leagues covered, as well as some omissions. They include calendars for teams like Oulun Palloseura in the Finnish second division. They recently added the mens' friendly calendars for select national teams (including the US and many European teams.) What I find is a curious omission is that they don't have a calendar for UEFA 2012 qualifying. Are there other teams you find missing?

Surely a lot has been written and will continue to be written about Arsenal’s ability to compete for real silverware this season. Beating the Boltons, Blackpools, and Bragas of the world convincingly at home is not going to alarm Chelsea or Man U nor should it. Until they prove themselves worthy against the big boys, there will rightfully be plenty of questions about the bunch. Chief among them the lack of depth up the spine of the club (a serious injury to Cesc, Song, or Vermaelen cripples this group) and the lack of mental and physical toughness to sustain a title campaign through May. There can be no doubt however about the quality of the performances since Cesc found his legs. While there will hopefully be many tense games in the Gunners’ future, it has been fun as a fan to just enjoy the soccer produced at the Emirates in the last two matches.

Read All...

Last night I was forced to play at centre back for one of my co-rec teams. A combination of my weakened hamstring and a desperate shortage of players meant I was unable to spend the 90 minutes marauding, Lampard-like (but thinner), from box to box, as is my wont. I managed to keep my positional discipline for first 70 minutes, and even began to enjoy the negativity of the position, but when we went 2-0 up, I decided it was time to enjoy life a little, and, timing my run from the back to perfection, managed to break a tired-looking offside trap and surge through on goal. I smoothly rounded the ‘keeper, and finished with a powerful right foot effort, which pinged satisfyingly off the corner of the upright, before sailing back over my head and into the goalie’s grateful arms. What’s all this about, you may well ask. Well, my own feeble efforts got me thinking about the work of the unsung heroes in the Premier League. Every team has one, some have two or three. Of course, some teams are pretty much entirely unsung (Stoke City, Bolton Wanderers?), but here’s my question: What exactly is it that makes an ‘unsung hero’? Literally, of course, the fans won’t have a chant for that player, but how do you really quantify an unsung hero? We’ve become accustomed to praising the ‘tireless efforts’ of the defensive midfielders. We know all about the ‘great organisational skills’ of top defenders, and ‘commanding presence’ of goalkeepers. Are there any true unsung heroes left in the game? Who fulfils the role at your club? Is there more to it than doing the hard yards, or the dirty work? Is a defender who can chip in with goals or assists any more valuable than his hard-tackling counterpart? Is Ashley Cole an unsung hero - there are plenty of songs about him, but none are particularly flattering. For me, Ji-Sung Park is an excellent example. He may never be first name on the team sheet at United, but his work rate is phenomenal, he’s shown consistent improvement year on year, he never whines about not making the first team, and will play whatever role is required of him, with tireless commitment. And yet, ask 50 United fans to name seven of their current favourite players, and I’d be surprised if he got a single mention. He does of course have his own chant, but let’s skip the debate about the culinary merits of labradors, for the moment. Of course, the scrutiny and interest in the Premier League means that there are very few players who aren’t well known and under the microscope these days, but I still believe that even in the top flight, there are three players like, say, Leighton Baines for every one such as Andre Arshavin. Who fills the role at your club, and why do they get your vote?

Rangers were certainly ready for their visit to Manchester United. Werder Bremen showed heart in coming from 2-0 down to draw. Eight games down, eighty-eight to go. Any thoughts on today's games?

Another set of games today, another handful of minnow-thrashings and semi-impressive, semi-surprising wins. But it's early in the qualifying yet! This stage doesn't finish up till mid-October 2011, and I'm hoping that I'll be able to allow myself to sneak a couple games on ESPN3 at work on upcoming match days. Today's predictable routs included: Germany 6-1 Azerbaijan; Italy 5-0 Faroe Islands; and Sweden 6-0 San Marino. I wonder what it feels like for the smallest sides to go out on the pitch in these games. Is it painful to walk out there with the absolute knowledge that you're about to get your asses kicked? Is it worth it just to play against great teams? Do you come to a point of acceptance and just enjoy playing the game? My own psyche isn't built for that sort of thing, but I'm sure plenty of people are more well-adjusted than I am. The somewhat unexpected section: Norway 1-0 Portugal; Montenegro 1-0 Bulgaria; and Lithuania 1-0 Czech Republic. There was also the ridiculously-last-second 2-1 win by Scotland over Liechtenstein, which needed a 90+7 goal from Stephen McManus to come about. Not exactly morale-boosting for the Scots, I'd imagine, although you know what they say about three points...

It sort of sneaked up on me, but the Euro 2012 qualifying group stage got fully underway this week. I didn't catch any games (are they even on TV in the States?) but I do always enjoy watching the outcomes in these early stages, when the minnows are still around to either get the bejeesus stomped out of them or to surprise the hell out of everyone except the soccer hipsters who TOTALLY KNEW that Cyprus was way better than any of you thought. And maybe they'd be right, since Cyprus gave Portugal a real run for their money, with the game ending 4-4. Another surprise was France losing 1-0 to Belarus (in which Louis Saha was subbed on in the 69th and subbed out in the 80th due to injury), and I at least expected more from Germany than a 1-0 win over Belgium. The big - and not so shocking - wins include Netherlands 5-0 over San Marino (which, as I tweeted, still sounds like the Dutch were being nice), England 4-0 over Bulgaria, mostly thanks to a Defoe hat trick, and Spain 4-0 over poor little 141st-ranked Liechtenstein. You can see all the match results here - any matches you're specifically looking forward to in these rounds? Any underdogs you think will pull off a surprise advance from the qualifying group stage?

Well, nevermind that previous post, I guess. Again, I don't hate Bradley. But I still find this annoying. I feel now that he's perhaps hit his peak, that the team under his direction has hit its peak. Don't we want more? And if we do, doesn't it make sense to make changes? I'll still support them of course, but...sigh. And now I want to find a little birdie to tell me what the hell went on in that discussion between Gulati and Klinsmann. I keep imagining it ending with a resounding, German-accented "I said good day, sir!"

(Hey look, I'm not dead! Aren't you thrilled?) Okay, they were probably in an office. And likely not kissing, although you know those Europeans. But whatever the environment and level of affection, ESPN tells us that Jurgen Klinsmann met with US Soccer President Sunil Gulati yesterday. Details, they are scant:

The source indicated Klinsmann, who turned down the Yanks' job after the 2006 World Cup, met with U.S. Soccer president Sunil Gulati and said Klinsmann is interested in the position, but gave no other details. A U.S. Soccer spokesman declined to comment. Klinsmann did not immediately return an e-mail message.

I've mentioned before that I am not a member of the Bob Bradley Is History's Greatest Monster Club, and as the article notes, his record since taking the helm at the USMNT in late 2006 is 38-21-8. Maybe I'm really nice (I'm kinda not) but that's not terrible. That being said, I do think after a World Cup is the most logical time to look into coaching changes. I think the team performed decently in South Africa, and obviously was much improved from four years earlier. I think Bradley has been overall a fine enough coach, but I also have come to think that perhaps he's shown us what he can do, the point to which he can take this team, and now it's an appropriate time to let someone else have a go. Klinsmann has been the obvious choice for a while for those wanting a non-MLS coach, and perhaps he's had a change of heart (and Gulati a change of brain) since 2006. My caution on this subject has always come from hearing people talk about Klinsmann in particular or foreign coaches in general as though they are all Footie Jesuses (Jesi?) who will forgive our sins of poor marking and endless long ball and save us from the damnation of embarrassing struggles against teams ranked miles below us. Foreign coaches can suck, too - if they didn't, every other country would be tied for first in the FIFA table - and we just need to be rational about the possibilities. I would expect that Klinsmann might be stronger in some areas of coaching than Bradley or other MLS coaches, but he'll also be working with the same player pool and within the same system. Limitations will exist, no matter who is pushing against them. So what do you all think? If Klinsmann does take over, what would you expect to see in the coming months? Improvements, restructurings, etc...where do you see US Soccer going if this meeting proves fruitful?