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.

Suarez gets ready for a flying elbow drop to sportsmanship The decision of FIFA to limit Suarez' ban to one match would be perplexing enough, if Suarez wasn't rubbing all our noses in it:

The 'Hand of God' now belongs to me. Mine is the real 'Hand Of God'. "I made the best save of the tournament. Sometimes in training, I play as a goalkeeper so it was worth it. "There was no alternative but for me to do that and when they missed the penalty I thought 'it is a miracle and we are alive in the tournament'.

Suarez admits that his only alternative was to engage in what the Laws of the Game calls "unacceptable and unfair intervention", claims that it was God's will that he do such a thing, sets a dangerous precedent (I can't have been the only one who thought to myself, "why didn't the Paraguay defender jump and grab the ball?" today) brags about it and gets the minimum ban? Ridiculous.

Half the games have been played, and in the next four days, half the remaining games will be played. After Friday, the pace will slow for the knockout rounds. But for now, there are 30 countries whose teams have hopes and aspirations of winning the Cup. For some, they may be a very long shot, and they may need help to even play another match. For some, the apparent birthright of the knockout phase is at risk. For others, great performances make the dream more plausible. Regardless, Tuesday morning,, there were 30 nations dreaming, and in the next four days, 14 of those dreams will be dashed. Some matches will be tactical, but in many the teams should be playing all out, and I expect some great games in the third quarter of the World Cup.

Ever find yourself frustrated by the lack of scoring in a game? Ever struggle to share your joy of the game with American cohorts? Maybe this will help. Prior to the Germans casting off their tradition of dourly efficient footy and gallivanting about like a coked-up Barcelona, none of the results from the first 3 days of World Cup soccer were particularly inspiring. I'm sure hordes of Americans tuning in to see what the fuss was about were turned off by scores like 1-1, 0-0, 1-0, and the uneven, nervy draw against England. Major American sports are defined by a never-ending stream of recordable micro-events: balls and strikes, first downs, rebounds, completed passes, double plays, blocked shots, and so forth. Box scores for every sport regularly spawn additional columns to satisfy our stats- and fantasy-obsessed fans. From this perspective, watching soccer can seem boring or frustrating - without a bunch of tangible events to track in-game, how can we even be sure something is happening? I used to think about the sport this way, too. Scoreless soccer felt like watching a chef chop vegetables but failing to prepare a dish. Then, one day, a British announcer tossed off a phrase commonly used across the pond but totally unknown to me over here and everything changed.

Read All...

Italy thanks Zidane for their trophy. Even pundits at renowned British publications like The Guardian have to throw their hands up occasionally when questioned about some of the more obscure teams and player in the World Cup. For a lot of Americans, the whole event seems cool, but getting up to speed can be daunting. Behold, the Easiest Way to Get Up to Speed on the World Cup! 1) The Unlikely Fan http://theunlikelyfan.blogspot.com/ The site only has 3 posts, but man are they epic posts. If you follow American sports at all, your top priority is to read their comparison of each World Cup squad to an American sports team. 2) ESPN's Top 50 Players http://soccernet.espn.go.com/world-cup/story/_/page/worldcup101-03012010/ce/us/top-50-players-2010-world-cup?cc=5901&ver=us This will be more helpful once we get to the elimination rounds, but any time you're sitting down to watch a match, it's worth a scan to see if there are any dudes in particular to keep an eye on. Like any list of top 50 blabbity-blahs, there's plenty to argue with here, but this is a well-thought-out stab (even if Steven Gerrard's ranking is based solely on rep). 3) The Guardian World Cup Guide http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/worldcup2010 This thing is jam packed. But my favorite part is the Fans' Network. Normally, sports sites fall on their face when recruiting fans to discuss any sporting event -- they typically select for people as vapid and cliche-driven as their hacks. But the Guardian, as always, seems to be the exception. Before each game, I recommend reading the fan previews for the teams involved -- they are frank, concise, and sometimes amusing. Just scroll down that homepage to "fan previews" for each group. Ta-dah! Those three simple steps will give you a leg up on your officemates, family, friends, and weird-guy-sitting-next-to-you-at-the-pub. Enjoy the footy and come back here to chat about it! @Pandagoal

So the previous video I posted made me all sappy and even a little - ew - uplifted. But this new World Cup ad from Nike is a very different experience: AW YEAH! Seriously, I've watched this four times in the past half hour and it just KEEPS GETTING MORE AWESOME. I'm literally bouncing in my chair in my cubicle (having this chair makes that a bit easier). What I really love about it is not just that it shows the incredible waves of excitement and fervor surrounding the game and the Cup around the world, but also all the tongue-in-cheek bits and the sort of "inside baseball" ("inside soccer"?) scenes - the ridiculous rise and fall of opinion in the British press and public, the uber-glamorous-fantasy Ronaldo montage, the YouTube videos of people trying to imitate Ronaldinho when no one can really imitate Ronaldinho, etc. (Have to say it makes me a bit sad to see him in the video, since Dunga decided on his roster after four days of peyote-driven sleep deprivation or something. Obviously this was all put together long before the rosters were named, and I doubt Nike thought he'd get left behind.) Every day I think I can't get more excited for the World Cup. Then something comes along to increase my anticipation by a mile, and it's now approaching slight insanity. By the time June 10th rolls around, I may be speaking in tongues. (H/T to Dirty Tackle)

This year will mark the first time I have lived outside of England during a World Cup, and while this should prove beneficial in some regards - particularly in that I can avoid the jingoistic fever and over-hyped expectations for the England team that the British media will stir into a frenzy - it does mean I can't have a punt on the winners, as gambling is (as far as I know) illegal here in the States. Regardless, I thought it might be quite interesting to have a look at what the bookmakers at home think is likely to happen this summer, and see how far we agree with them.

Read All...

Our staff is sleeker and smarter than ever, too. Get ready for Bananarama-esque summer of soccer/football/futbol drama here at Pandagoal.

Amid all the glitz, glamour and endless tabloid coverage of every miniscule detail of the Premier League, how come stories such as this http://tinyurl.com/n2dz3s don't get flagged more? Just reading it through makes me mildly ashamed to be so easily swept along watching the top flight. Sure, there are some examples of excellent behaviour by more famous clubs and players, and many have given the proceeds from their 10-years-of-service testimonial matches to charities (a trend I believe Sunderland's Niall Quinn started, though notably Shearer, Solskjaer, and goalkeeper Jussi Jaaskelainen have all done the same). But testimonials date back to the era when players were not well paid, and were a way of rewarding loyal service. These days players retire with a healthy-enough nest egg in any case. And yes, Premiership clubs have adopted charities of their own, and no doubt hand out a careful percentage of their turnover to local good causes, but I'm afraid after reading about Baker and Stockport, that sort of organised PR stunt leaves a rather ash-like taste in my mouth. I will count myself an admirer of The Hatters from this day onward. Although that will be suspended if they draw Bristol City in the FA Cup.

I flatter myself that I'd laugh as heartily at this story if it were a United player saying it, and lord knows Drogba's earned some bragging rights so far this season, but oh my:

Chelsea striker Didier Drogba feels his unselfish attitude does not receive the credit it deserves... "I often sacrifice myself for the good of the team," Drogba declared. "I don't look at my scoring statistics. Have you ever seen any other great striker do as much defending as I do?

Eduardo's flop. Rooney's pseudo-flop. Arshavin's non-flop no-call. Chelsea's transfer ban. Man U's potential transfer ban. Bolton's red card vs. Liverpool. Old Trafford's record of convenient calls. The ejection of Arsene Wenger. The FA charges against Rafa Benitez. Clock management and injury time. The transfer value of any player. Pretty much every tackle, every non-tackle flop, every clutch, every grab, every player who was clutching and then was grabbed, every referee grudge, and every game that isn't decided by 3 or more goals... though plenty of blowouts are included, too. All of these come down to judgment calls. Often, they come down to a single moment, a single judgment that turns a game or results in a punishment or determines what a club will charge for one of its players. Sport is typically portrayed as a haven of objectivity, a place where rules governing behavior between white lines create the conditions for absolute correctness. Soccer shatters this illusion.

Read All...

Got some statistics to describe the Galloping Major? I kid, because I've always had a love-hate relationship with the idea of statistics in soccer. I bought wholeheartedly into my English schoolfriends' notion that counting assists was pushing the very limit of American-style overthinking it, and said "that's enough for me!" then immediately my dark American heart began clawing at me for Player Ratings, then pass-to-turnover ratios, then left-footed vs. right-footed efficiency. But the chalkboards? Meh. Although I hope Marc keeps putting them out there because maybe eventually they'll puncture my remaining reserve and, being a liberal, I'm always in favor of personal growth; until then I'm just going to keep enjoying this guy.