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.

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?

It is two days to the opening of the football season in England and Scotland... Just for some fun, let's have some predictions on this weekend's results. The fixtures: Tottenham v Manchester City
Aston Villa v West Ham
Blackburn Rovers v Everton
Bolton Wanderers v Fulham
Sunderland v Birmingham
Wigan Athletic v Blackpool
Wolverhampton v Stoke City
Chelsea v West Brom
Liverpool v Arsenal (Sunday)
Manchester United v Newcastle (Monday) and in Scotland: Inverness Caledonian Thistle v Celtic
Aberdeen v Hamilton Academical
Hearts v St.Johnstone
Rangers v Kilmarnock
St. Mirren v Dundee United
Motherwell v Hibernian (Sunday)

As a Liverpool fan who came to the game under Rafa Benitez, I'm waaay too familiar with the 4-2-3-1 formation so commonly used at this year's World Cup. It still pays dividends at the international level, where defenses aren't quite as familiar with each other or their opponents, but it feels like its time has passed at the club level. Last season was a debacle for many reasons at Anfield, but one of the key problems was the isolation of the striker. When fit, Torres was often stranded upfield, knocked about by a double-team from opposing center backs, and harassed to the point of being taken out of his game. Torres still finished with a respectable goal total for the games he played, but he never looked comfortable or happy on the pitch. When a lesser player like David N'gog filled the role, he was even easier to negate. Benitez had success with the system in the EPL up until last year because of Xabi Alonso's destabilizing effect on a defense. His ability to spray the ball to any part of the final third from midfield meant the wingers had to be constantly accounted for -- not just where they were, but where they could run to. That forced defenses to play with more spacing. Without him, though, fullbacks could simply mark the wingers by themselves and the CBs could sit on/assault the striker the entire game; no one was likely to send a long ball to the perfect spot any longer. Xabi Alonso is an extremely rare talent, and while 4-2-3-1 has worked without him elsewhere, it now feels somewhat 'solved' by Premier League defenses without his particular abilities on the field. No system should require such a tough-to-find caliber of player to be effective, and I'm hoping to see less of it at Liverpool this year. Sadly, though, Roy Hodgson is known for a 4-5-1, which is basically a flatter, more defensive (gulp) version of the 4-2-3-1. And once again, it leaves the striker all by his lonesome. Today in the Guardian, Jonathan Wilson forecasts the emergence of the 4-2-1-3, essentially the Barcelona formation which the Spanish national team also deployed with many of the same players. The key differences between 4-2-1-3 and 4-2-3-1 are: 1) the forward presence of the wingers alongside the striker, and 2) the more withdrawn presence of the central playmaker (Xavi at Barca, Fabregas at Arsenal). Wilson highlights the value of the wingers/central playmaker's ability to interchange positions and flit in and out of the gaps of the defense. Because they're farther upfield and out of the way of the withdrawn playmaker, the wingers can cut inside without killing the spacing of their attack, and this has proven very effective against a traditional back four of late. It basically provides the same destabilization as a Xabi Alonso -- because players are working the gaps more effectively, defenders need to keep better spacing, and there's room to pass and move for everyone up front. What Wilson doesn't stress is how helpful this is for the lone striker. Instead of being isolated up front in the 4-2-3-1, he's aided by wingers who stretch the D out wide but also cut inside to draw attention from the center backs. When your striker is your best player, as in the case of Liverpool, the 4-2-1-3 feels like the key to freeing him up to wreak havoc (however much a banged-up Torres struggled in the World Cup). With a front 4 of Gerrard/Cole/Kuyt/Torres, Liverpool could employ this formation to great effect. Sadly, I suspect a conservative coach like Hodgson would never dream of such radical reform. Wilson suggests Arsenal are migrating to this formation; perhaps they'll be able to show the Prem's curmudgeons that 4-2-1-3 is the way of the future. Until the next major tactical development, of course.

In late May, UEFA's exec committee passed a few new rules. You've probably heard about them:

Uefa has approved plans to force clubs in European competition to spend only what they earn. The financial fair play rules will require clubs to break even over a rolling three-year period if they want to play in the Champions League or Europa League.

This will take effect in 2012, though clubs will be given leeway over a six-year grace period. UEFA boss Michael Platini justifies the new rules thusly:

"This approval is the start of an important journey for European football's club finances as we begin to put stability and economic common sense back into football. I thank all the stakeholders who have supported this along the way."

I'm all for fair play, and everyone reading this blog would probably like to see more of it in European football. The 'haves' at the top of the EPL and La Liga, along with giants like Juventus and Bayern Munich, have a stranglehold on the vast majority of the cash in the game. A look at the revenue numbers tracked by Deloitte reveals 10 teams pulling in at least 196m euros per season, with Real Madrid, Barcelona, and Manchester United dwarfing everyone else by pulling in over 300m each. Teams raking in that kind of dough should have to work hard to wind up in the red... which is apparently just what they're doing. There's the insane debt at Man U from the Glazers' leveraged buyout, the monster loan taken out by Real to go on their Galacticos spending spree last year, and Barca's recent loan taken out to pay staff and players -- and that's just off the top of my head. With teams like these unable to spend within their earnings, it's easy to see why Platini's new rules would appear helpful. But spending within your means is only half of an equation, and on its own can make matters of fairness worse. Teams also need to share revenue to avoid entrenching the elite clubs and blocking anyone else from joining their ranks. Let's take a look at why UEFA's financial fair play rules, as they stand, have a chance of making the problems in the game worse, not better (unless you're running one of the top 10 clubs, of course).

Read All...

If any England fans are still wondering what went wrong in South Africa, allow Sir Alex Ferguson to illuminate you:

With inquests continuing into England's lacklustre showing at the World Cup, Ferguson lamented the continued absence of a mid-season break from the English football calendar (which would need the approval of the Premier League) as a major contributing factor to the struggles of Fabio Capello's side. "(The FA) has to give the country the best possible chance of doing well in the World Cup and because of the nature of our game and because of the demands from television to have a programme every week, the idea of a winter break, which I was first talking about 30 years ago in Scotland and have done since I came down to England, nothing has happened about it," Ferguson said. "They must realise that, going into the World Cup, they have handicapped their team."

It's certainly possible that taking a short break mid-season could be beneficial. A little rest and recuperation could help prevent some injuries and strains and keep players at peak performance levels - I won't argue with that. But it's also possible it wouldn't do jack shit if you've got players who are, for example, so accustomed to being the stars of their club teams that they forget how to play as a full squad and blunder around the pitch, communicating as badly as Palin's Twitter feed. Besides that, it's simply no guarantee that taking a couple of weeks off six months before the World Cup would have any impact whatsoever, so while it's fine to say that maybe this is an idea to think about, it seems a little egregious for Ferguson to essentially say the failures are the FA's fault because they have not granted him his birthday-candle wishes for 30 years. It is not definitive that the team is "handicapped" by not having a winter break. It is far more definitive that Ferguson misses having officials on the pitch to complain about and just wants it to be mid-August already, guys! Plus, even if the FA did kneel before Zod SAF and implement a break, we all know it would either be too long or too short for Fergie, depending on how United played in their games following resumption of play.

Will he or won't he? The question's plagued Arsenal fans for the last two years. Sometimes, he seems a lock to stay in London. Others, a lock to return to Barcelona. If you find this all a bit taxing, imagine how Cesc Fabregas feels. After winning the World Cup alongside Barcelona stars Iniesta, Xavi, Puyol, Pique, Valdez, and Pedro, the Cesc Fabregas Dilemma has to be reaching a fever pitch. Clearly, Barcelona players want him to come home, and new Barca president Sandro Rosell said last week, "The whole world knows he wants to come and that we want to sign him." "Will he or won't he?" is fun to discuss, but the more challenging (and less exasperating) question is "should he or shouldn't he?" Based on the information we have, what is the right personal choice for Cesc Fabregras? Fabregas was born a Catalonian. He "attended" his first Barca game at 9 months old. He worshiped Pep Guardiola and moved into a dormitory with the Barca youth squad at age 14, where he played alongside Leo Messi and developed a powerful connection with him on the pitch. Sounds like a lifelong dream of his to be part of Barcelona, right? Not so fast. Fabregas said of this time:

It was great to play for Barcelona, but when we played it was 30-0. What’s the point? I need to have competition. From when I was in the under-13s we started winning by 15 goals and I was thinking about leaving. If the coaches can see you’re better than the opposition, why don’t they let you play against a higher age group?

Some people tell the story of Fabregas as though he was reluctantly plucked from Barcelona, or somehow abandoned by them and salvaged by Arsenal. But the truth is that, despite captaining their U-16s, he was looking to leave. According to Cesc, he almost went to rival Espanyol, a curious choice for someone who supposedly bleeds their stripey colors, but he was talked into staying... until Arsenal called:

I stayed [after considering Espanyol] but then Arsenal came and I knew it was the chance of a lifetime. The first time I came to London I saw the facilities. I talked to the boss, they treated me as if I was an adult, a big player. I had the feeling something special could happen for me here.

Arsenal delivered Cesc 1st team football as a 16 year old (albeit in Cup matches) in 03-04, a chance to play in the Champs final the following season, and the #4 shirt and a starting place in every league game in 05-06. Now, he's the squad captain and talisman for the team. He's Arsenal's version of Barcelona's Xavi Hernandez (the only player on earth who could/does displace Cesc as a starting playmaker). This mini bio tells us a few things: 1) The loyalty factor is overrated. It was Cesc who chose to leave Barcelona, and he was so bored of dominating with their youth squad that he almost left for a hated rival. If he chooses to return there, it'll probably have much less to do with childhood loyalty than the media will make it seem. That's a good thing, by the way -- making major life decisions based on over-romanticizing your childhood can often lead to disappointment. 2) Fabregas values a challenge and a starring role as much as winning trophies. What offensive-minded player complains about winning 15-0? This one, apparently. He was bored with the lack of competition against Barca youth and also wanted first-team football badly. Today, some of the details have changed, but the choice between Arsenal and Barcelona still features many of the same dimensions. In 08-09, Barca pulled off the treble, and last year they won La Liga with a record-high points total. Winning will come (relatively) easily with one of the best club sides in a generation. But to go there means sitting behind Xavi and Iniesta in the biggest matches, unless he somehow displaces Pedro (a rising star in his own right) elsewhere on the pitch. At the very least, he will be placed in a more regular rotation with other starters and won't run with the starting XI for every game right away. Arsenal offers him *his* team, a squad built around his talents which he captains. Obviously, Arsenal's no Espanyol, either -- they're a top 10 team in terms of income and world fan base, and they're probably the most financially stable elite club on the planet. Sure, they won't be favorites in the Champions League like Barcelona, but they'll be in the title mix in the EPL every year, especially with Manchester United and Chelsea aging. They've suffered 5 trophy-less seasons, including a Champs loss to Barca last year (and the Champs final loss to them in '05), so if Arsenal brings home silverware this year or next, it'll be a huge accomplishment. And the odds are extremely high that it'd have everything to do with Cesc Fabregas. Based on what motivated him as a teenager, the choice is clear -- he should stay at Arsenal. He captains a top-10 club that presents a greater trophy challenge than Barcelona, where he'd be more likely to win but less likely to be the main reason. However, it's possible his priorities have changed. Maybe winning is now the most important thing to Cesc Fabregas. He's tasted international glory with Spain in 2008 and 2010 as a part-time player and still managed to make his mark. He found Iniesta for the World Cup winning goal -- surely he could have the same sort of impact at Barcelona immediately with the promise of a greater role in coming seasons. But f*** that. I say this as a Liverpool fan: choosing Barca over Arsenal is a LeBron-James-level copout. Cesc can pal around with his friends in Spain when he retires, which will arrive more quickly than he thinks. Very few people are handed the responsibility of shaping a good team into a championship team, and even fewer are capable of it. Fabregas has shown he might be one of those people, and the next 5 years of his life will define his entire legacy. He shouldn't spend them abdicating leadership so he can be just one of many names people remember as part of this great Barcelona team. And given that he's already missed out on 2 historic seasons, who's to say he'll ever rise into the top handful of players we associate with Barca's era of dominance? Whatever Arsenal accomplishes will be due much more to Fabregas than anything Barcelona achieves. And when you have no idea how high your ceiling is, you ought to push yourself as hard as you can to see if you can find it. Maybe Cesc will learn that he's not one of the best players in the world or one of the best leaders in the world. Or maybe he'll win the Premier League as a 24 or 25 year old captain and feel a sense of personal accomplishment unlike anything Barca can offer. Fabregas won't win nearly as much if he stays at Arsenal. In fact, he might not win anything. But my life experience tells me that people feel better when give everything they've got in the highest-pressure situations they can handle. Even if they come up short, they feel a satisfaction of pushing themselves to the limit that merely being good in a great situation never delivers. I think Fabregas understands this at some level, and that's why he chose to leave Barcelona's youth team in the first place. He wanted to see what he was really made of, and there's no reason to change course now. Forget fans -- players owe them full effort on the pitch (and arguably not being a total embarrassment off it), but after 7 years of service from a player like Fabregas, he shouldn't have to subjugate his personal goals to fans who will stab you in the back the minute you struggle (see: Torres, Fernando). Forget loyalty, childhood or otherwise -- neither Cesc nor Barcelona owe each other anything. Ditto Arsenal, by the way; he's done his job very well for a long time and has earned the right to make his own decisions. Forget friends -- he'll have the rest of his life to run around with them (not to mention the national team matches). This all comes down to legacy, the chance at true greatness. Fabregas can only learn who he truly is and how much he can actually accomplish in an Arsenal shirt, and that's worth more than a shelf of trophies that you know your team could've won without you. There are two reasons I'd legitimately accept for Fabregas leaving: 1) the loyalty factor, which we've already shown is not his thing, and 2) the physicality of the Premier League. Fabregas has struggled to stay healthy lately, and if he feels like the EPL delivers unreasonable physical abuse, I can understand why he'd leave. The typical English/American fan might see that as a masculine failure, but going somewhere you won't be stomped on for 90 minutes every week and see that called a defensive "strategy" would be appealing to any of us in his place. So if he plays that card after a move, I can accept it. Other than that, though, Cesc Fabregas ought to remain with his club. Unless he wants to be the new LeBron.

I hope you're sitting down because this is totally the most shocking thing you're going to hear today or any other day for the rest of your damn life. Rafa Benitez is leaving Liverpool. I'll give you a minute to collect yourselves. As The Gaffer notes, Benitez had some major successes with the club, but this past season was not just "not as good" - it was a major downturn (as our own Marc has woefully said). They barely squeaked out a 7th place finish and missed out on all of the goals Benitez threw out there (We're going to win the league! Okay, well...we're going to win the Champions League! Okay, well...we're going to win the Europa League! Okay, well...I made some awesome peanut butter cookies! Except they're kind of stale and I forgot you're allergic to peanuts.) Obviously something wasn't working well anymore, and whether it's a manager issue or a player issue or both (I always lean toward the last option) it's not really something you can keep ignoring for the sake of sentimentality. There are injuries to contend with, there are players who seem to lose interest or ambition or ability, and rosters can be reworked and revamped. But eventually you have to make a bigger change, and I would have been quite surprised had this not come about this summer. I would honestly, though, be interested in hearing arguments against his departure, taking everything into account. The interesting bit in this news to me is the speculation that he's apparently headed to Inter Milan to take over the manager's seat, recently vacated by my fantasy Portuguese football manager husband Jose Mourinho. I have to wonder how Inter fans feel about that, the joy of the treble still fresh in their minds as they peruse Liverpool's results table.

Well, since you asked, Marc - my season was great! Thanks! Just look at all these happy faces! Okay, to be honest, it didn't feel great in the beginning of 09/10 to be a Newcastle fan. Even for a relative newcomer like myself, who had only been cheering for the team for a few years prior to their relegation last May, it was still a woeful thing knowing we just weren't good enough to play with the big boys, and maybe we should go sit in the corner and play with these Legos. (Especially the way it happened - relegated by an own goal! Oh, the pain!) I was frustrated with not being able to see their games on TV. (Yeah yeah, online feeds - illegal feeds are not always reliable, plus my Comcast so-called broadband connection...well, sucks sometimes) And of course, there was the fear that the slipping wouldn't stop and they'd pull a Charlton or something on us. But no! It was in fact an exemplary season. Even having lost some important players after relegation (including Obafemi Martins in the summer, and Charles N'Zogbia and Shay Given the following January), the team didn't seem to suffer any setbacks for it. They spent much of the season in first place, and if I recall correctly, either never or very briefly went below second place. They were unbeaten until the eighth match, going into it with six wins and one draw. Only once, in mid-October, did they lose two games in a row, and they had two seven-win streaks and one six-win streak. They went unbeaten at St James Park, allowing only 13 goals on their home grounds. +55 GD! 102 points! Yay, numbers! Dance of joy! Of course, there is a difference between playing Championship sides and Premier League sides, and I suffer no delusions that Newcastle will be stomping all over the likes of Manchester United and Chelsea. But contrary to some people who think they're very funny - Marc - I really don't foresee us being "the new Burnley" or going yo-yo. Chris Hughton has built a team that may not be overflowing with stars, but has some serious grit and determination, and he's trained them to care about fuck all other than playing good football. I don't think that's going to change, especially because who will want to prove that they belong back up there more than the guys themselves? The team that got relegated was a very different side than what we see now; there's been a major infusion of confidence, and that just builds on itself. Of course, they'll likely scoop up a few new players over the summer, though from less of a need to bolster a certain section of the squad and more for just a careful building-up overall. I'd like to see them grab Jay DeMerit (USA! USA!) who is set to leave Watford but apparently with no destination known. Perhaps they can swoop in and rescue Jimmy Bullard (not a young man, but still brings energy, not to mention humor) from relegated Hull City. A few smart additions plus keeping their focus and their fire should serve them quite well. Knock. On. Wood. (Whispers to Hughton: I don't expect a league title, but Europa would be nice, no?)

Some Random Website says that Man City will spend up to £150m this summer to transfer their squad, so it must be true. But even if the number was made up for a few extra hits (heresy, I know), there can be little doubt that Man City and Mancini will spend whatever they want. The limitations will have more to do with who would say yes than whatever their price tag would be. Last year, everyone made fun of them for going striker-crazy with Santa-Cruz, Tevez, and Adebayor. And who have they supposedly been targeting this year? David Villa. And Torres. I get it; Craig Bellamy was brutal down the stretch this year. But adding another target man up front doesn't seem like the solution to their woes. Playing a front line of Tevez, Adebayor, and World Class Striker X seems like overkill on the finishing front while lacking playmaking, crossing and creativity. Wasn't that the problem this year? Even when Mancini ran out an attacking lineup, they would sometimes struggle to score because, frankly, the link-ups moving the ball from back to front seemed totally absent at times. Shouldn't City be pursuing a great winger on the right to mimic the rampaging runs and calm in-the-box creativity of LW Adam Johnson? Shouldn't they be looking for the next Fabregas or Xavi to pull the strings from midfield? Why does everyone (including them, apparently) just assume they should buy all the strikers in the world? Adam Johnson was a fantastic signing for them -- he's young, pacey, creative, and already worth at least £10m more than they paid. City ought to grab a few more players like him and then let them grow together with their already world-class pairing of Tevez and Adebayor up front. If City went after Javi Martinez from Athletic Bilbao for midfield playmaking, Rodrigo Palacio from Genoa to run down the right and create chances, and maybe a great LB to replace overrated Wayne Bridge -- Capdevila, maybe? -- then they could field an 11 of: Goal: Hart/Given Defense: Zabeleta Kompany Toure Capdevila Midfield: Palacio Martinez Barry Johnson Strikers: Adebayor Tevez Bench: Lescott, de Jong, Wright-Phillips, Bellamy, Santa Cruz, Bridge, Vieira, etc. Looks like a title winner to me -- and probably at the cost of just one elite striker to boot.

Quick thoughts on the Manchester derby: --United's midfield dominated the second half. After a lackluster first period, Anderson and Fletcher were possessed in the second. They alternated between providing needed steel on defense and keeping the offensive pressure on City's defense. For the first 20 minutes of the second half, it seemed that the ball never left City's half as either Fletch or Anderson retained possession every time City attempted to clear. --Shay Given was tremendous. Normally, four in the net does not yield compliments for the keeper. But Given kept City in the match with two point blank saves on Berbatov and a third on a classic Giggs volley from the top of the area. Given probably should have come out on Fletcher's second header, but he had no chance on Rooney's opener or on Fletcher's unmarked first and second headers. --Ben Foster was the opposite of tremendous. Although he had no chance to save Bellamy's wonder-strike, Foster was at fault for City's first goal and he should have stood up longer and cut the angle on Bellamy's break-away. In fact, I don't know that Foster made a single save in the match. --City missed Adebayor more than Robinho. Without Adebayor, City had no aerial presence and were unable to hold at the top. Bellamy --even aside from his two goals -- ably provided Robinho's pace and creativity. --City are a top 4 team. --Welcome to the derby, Michael Owen.

By my count, there have been only three draws in the Premier League so far this season, out of approximately 47 matches.

On Saturday, Adebayor face-stomped Robin van Persie. That was the first bush-league move from Manchester City all season... unless you count Adebayor's celebratory slide in front of Arsenal's grumpy fans. Other than the antics of the Premier League's version of Terrell Owens, though, City has looked every bit the part of a contending team. They counter-attacked with surgical precision against Arsenal, so much so that I would say they may possess the best counter-attack in the entire league. That alone makes them incredibly dangerous. Spurs were on bye this week. At least, that must be what they told the players, because I have no other explanation for the total lack of energy and emotion from a Tottenham side that had every reason in the world to want to put the boot in the neck of a Manchester United side that whups them every season. But let's call that game a fluke. As Ape Man pointed out during our live chat of the game, the Spurs defense is always pretty decent. Now that they have 4 potent strikers and midfielders like Lennon, the injured Modric, and Palacios, they're stacked in every aspect of the game. It would be a surprise if any one of Arsenal, Liverpool, Man U, or Chelsea didn't make the top 4, but can't you say the same about City and Spurs now, too? Are their rosters any worse? Are their resources any less? At this point, why should there be any distinction between the big four of the last several years and the upstarts this year?

Read All...

Notwithstanding the new guy's jumping the gun, this is the real liveblog for the Spurs-United match. [A] is Auguste, and [AM] is Ape Man, our new Spurs supporter. Except when we forget to label ourselves, and then you'll just have to use context.

I love Football365, and not just because they once published an essay of mine which got picked up elsewhere and made me a professional writer for the first time. Especially good is the Mediawatch section, and a recent item highlights the kind of joy they bring:

We're sure you've already read it, but if not, [John] Terry said: "I can speak about the England lads and the England team and it (diving) is something we don't do. "I think sometimes we're too honest because sometimes, even in the Premiership, you see the English lads get a bit of contact and try and stay on their feet and try and score from the chance they've been given." Sigh. Do we really need to do this? We do?

Click here and scroll down to see the long list of counter-examples. Seriously, there's nothing funnier than anyone defending his countrymen against charges of diving, since it's so easily proven wrong and obvious. That said, I do think the US players are far better than average. Cough. Later in the same column:

'England must do it Chelsea style, says JT' - CityAM. Yeah, nicking all the best young players from around the world would help, but we're not sure how it would work. Unless JT just means that England aren't allowed to do transfers...

Hee hee.