reading list: paul wilson on the champions league draw

oh, paul wilson. i've been a guardian and observer reader since i was a kid, compulsively snatching the papers at breakfast before my parents could get a look, just to catch up on the latest sports news, even if it meant being late for school. even when my parents put a stop to that by ceasing the morning delivery of the paper, i would invariably grab them in the evening instead. so it is fair to say i'm rather partial to both, but there are two people that i really dislike within their sports pages - richard williams, an awful awful man who exists seemingly to merely repeat ridiculously ill-informed, knee-jerk judgements and then contradict himself, and paul wilson. paul wilson is somehow the chief football correspondant of the observer, yet operates solely in platitudes, jumping on whichever subject has been most popular during the previous week and setting forth stunningly banal opinions in the 2000 blandest words possible. he is utterly pointless, yet continues to dominate their football coverage.

this week is no different, and there are only two reasons that i am mentioning this - firstly, it gives me an opportunity to moan about paul wilson, and secondly, it touches on a subject that i was going to write about anyway, the champions league draw.

the obvious thing to note at first is that this was a truly fantastic draw, pulling the competition away from the interminable boredom of the group stage with 5 really good games. man united take on inter, liverpool got real madrid, chelsea will play juventus, arsenal were pitted against roma whilst barca drew lyon. i fully expect all 4 english teams to go through; mr wilson disagrees.

i don't necessarily have a problem with this opinion. none of the "big four" have really hit the heights this season - man united have been a little inconsistent, suffering from the need to accomodate dimitar berbatov and a variety of absences in midfield, chelsea have been pretty flat for a while since the league became wise to their predictability, liverpool just aren't a great football team and arsenal... well, i think we know what i think there. this is all fine. none are in great form, all could lose against opposition that is, at the very least, competent. i understand that. but what i object to is the type of nonsense that paul wilson published this morning.

some of it isn't so bad. his contention is that liverpool have the best chance at winning; given the way their team is able to grind out results in the competition it isn't so hard to believe. he begins to talk about the other three very reasonably:

The other three have been struggling for form of late. Chelsea peaked in mid-October and have been barely recognisable since. Arsenal have already lost five times in the League

it is clear both of these teams have struggled for form. but what is this i see on the horizon?

...anyone who witnessed Manchester United at full stretch in narrowly beating Hull and Sunderland at home in recent weeks will not be totally confident of their ability to break down a team managed by José Mourinho.

what?! manchester united destroyed the hull defence with ease, breaching boaz myhill's goal 4 times and running riot; the game was closer than it should have been thanks to a bit of poor defending and loss of composure at the end, but united were a comfortable class above. the sunderland game is a similarly laughable example of ferguson's team struggling to break someone down, as i think their final shot count was somewhere between 20 and 30, including 5 or so easy chances that in most games would have been converted. sunderland seemed to be defending with about 11 men in their own box for the last 20 minutes, and were only beaten by a single goal essentially due to sheer good fortune. replay the game 10 times and on 9 of those occasions united score at least 3 times.

but wait! there is worse.

Inter, Juventus, Roma and Real are still great clubs with proud histories. And if there's one thing guaranteed to get up anyone's nose, it is arrogant English supporters going around telling anyone who will listen that this year we are aiming for all four semi-finalists.

this is sports writing of the very worst order. were inter, juventus, roma and real not all similarly great clubs with similarly proud histories last season? yet for some reason, this magic spell didn't save them from exiting the competition prior to the group stage! how could this be? surely their lack of comparable talent was compensated by some sort of historic, highlander-esque desire, bred in every player to don the shirt, to make their club the dominant force in all of the world?

well, no. leeds were a great club with a proud tradition, yet today languish 9th in league one and have sacked gary macallister after losing to the mk dons, a club who have been in existance less than 10 years. 10 years! surely the proud tradition of leeds should have carried them through against this upstart rabble? and what of ac milan, scrambling around at fratton park to find a last minute equaliser against a team that have absolutely no proud tradition at all?

this is, of course, nonsense. history and previous results have absolutely no bearing on future outcomes. so what if team a has gone 30 years without beating team b in europe? the players, the coaches, maybe even the owners have all probably changed, so what does that matter? if real madrid have the most champions league trophies ever, does that make their current squad any less imbalanced or their owner any less deranged? just because jose mourinho fluked a victory over alex ferguson with his deplorable porto side, it means he is expected to beat ferguson's teams whenever they now play in europe?

ultimately, this leads me to why i think the english teams will win out: they have better players and better managers, and teams with better players and better managers tend to beat those with inferior players and inferior managers.

real madrid are a mess, the squad imbalanced (the first team squad only has one quality winger, and absolutely no one to play on the right), and now decimated by injuries. even giving ramos the benefit of the doubt, this is not a team to be feared, and their league record demonstrates that. liverpool will no doubt feast on their inability to play fluent football, using alonso and mascherano to dominate the midfield and thereby allowing gerrard and torres to attack a shaky defence. my guess is that liverpool win very convincingly.

inter are a decent team, but struggled to get out of their group and there remain big question marks over the performances during the mourinho era - even though results have been good, for the most part, rarely have inter excelled; manchester united simply are a better team, and as berbatov comes into form, as he surely will, you expect them to be playing even better by the time this tie comes around.

juventus are a capable outfit, one that has been gradually improving during the last 2 months, winning physical battles in midfield through the excellent form of momo sissoko and introducing a little more verve with the emergence of a couple of youngsters, most notably paolo de ceglie on the left. they should be respected, rather than feared: chelsea possess even greater physicality and the assumed return of drogba should improve their play immeasurably, given that it will likely necessitate the removal of the painfully average and one-dimensional nicolas anelka.

roma are the weakest of all four of these sides, and although they posses a talented first xi, including francesco totti (perhaps the most bizarrely underrated footballer of the last 10 years, a truly brilliant player), daniele de rossi & alberto aquilani, this isn't a team that has had a good season, and they currently languish mid-table in a reasonably mediocre serie a. they nevertheless may be reasonably hopefuly of springing a surprise against an arsenal team struggling for consistency. nevertheless, arsenal remain demonstrably a better side, and given that they will expect a handful of players back by the time of the tie, and maybe even one or two purchases in january, it is highly likely they will simply be too much for a limited roma line-up.

so that is why i expect the english sides to win: they are better. instead, professional writer paul wilson feels it is more appropriate to submit an assessment such as this:

While Italian teams may be able to cope with being favourites for everything, one instinctively feels we English are better at being underdogs.

whilst of course handily forgetting that manchester united and chelsea were favourites to win the champions league for the entirety of the competition. this is surely the crux - in european club football, english teams struggled in general not because they were any more or less favoured, or that italian or spanish clubs believed in themselves more, but because they were inferior. those teams that won the european cups of the 1990s won because they possessed superior players & coaches, and played better football, in comparison to their english relations. now, with the influx of money into the premier league, this has changed, and the italian clubs, in particular, are disadvantaged in all of those categories. this is why they should be expected to lose, not because of anything else.

keane leaves sunderland

(yeah, taken the picture straight from bbc - far too good to be limited to only one site.)

so keano has left. last year, the general consensus on roy keane the manager seemed to be overwhelmingly positive. he had propelled a sunderland side in relative disarray back to the premier league, managing to secure top-flight football with only the mildest of relegation battles, something that is greeted almost unanimously today as major success for newly promoted teams (and probably rightly so). his predilection for championship footballers and manchester united reserves was acknowledged with a certain suspicion, but that suspicion was one casually brushed aside by relative success. however, as soon as the defeats started to pile up this season he was placed under increased scrutiny, and tactical foibles such as starting 18 year old martyn waghorn against chelsea, at stamford bridge, suddenly weren't so easy to excuse.

losing 1-4 to bolton, at the stadium of light, was obviously the final straw. keane appears to be a man so single-minded & driven by the pursuit of success that failure on this scale - such an appalling winless run - was always going to cause massive problems for him. but more than that, the lack of success began to puncture that aura he has maintained since emerging into the national spotlight in 1993 - always right, always the best, never questioned, keane commanded more respect than any of his peers. it was this aura that meant people assumed success and were then perhaps too quick to fete his achievements, and gave him the legitimacy & clout to run the club how he liked, despite his lack of experience.

ultimately, however, this manifested itself in profound hubris - keane's iron will meant that various scoundrels and trouble-makers were recruited, their rehabilitation guaranteed by the presence of such a footballing sage. except it didn't work, and big money became wasted money as the trouble-makers (including that notorious spitter, el-hadji diouf, and the man that produced a transfer request from his sock 10 minutes after the end of the premiership season, pascal chimbonda) were relegated to the bench, the experiment well and truly aborted.

and the transfer policy. oh, the transfer policy. the mistakes are legion and the path recounting them well-trodden, but it bears repeating. keane had full control of the transfer policy, and funds were never short. but what was achieved? the squad was bloated beyond all sense, with outrageously unwise purchases such as michael chopra (£5m after 22 goals in a championship season), greg halford (£3.5m for 8 mind-bogglingly bad appearances), rade prica (£2m for a single goal in six appearances), paul mcshane (positively one of the worst defenders to grace the premier league since william prunier pulled on that united shirt), anton ferdinand (£9m. £9m. £9m.), david healy (£1.2m for a single appearance) and russell anderson (£1m for a single appearance in which he promptly gave away a penalty). all considered, sunderland currently own 10 senior strikers. you've got successes - djibril cisse and a matchfit kenwyne jones have the potential to be an effective good mid-table premier league strike partnership, combining pace & lots of power (although they both could do with a bit of work on their finishing). craig gordon looked overpriced at £9m, but has been a moderate success and at his age may yet prove a canny long-term signing, whilst keiran richardson - who has forever appeared to be consigned to a slight career, stuck between positions without the pace to play on the wing or the distribution and strength to man the middle - has actually looked good when not injured. beyond that, the squad is a bit of a wasteland, and at a cost of £70m that is a rather damning indictment of the keane era.

ultimately, given that level of spend, you imagine that the performance of the side over the last two years would generally get the manager fired. but keane hasn't been fired, and that he even has the luxury to resign is due to the fact he is roy keane, the best central midfielder the premiership has ever seen. this means he will undoubdtedly get another good job - just look at bryan robson, who was allowed to fail at both middlesbrough and bradford before finally outstaying his welcome at sheffield united; the nostalgia and misplaced confidence that propels inexperienced playing legends into jobs above their heads too early in their managerial careers often will last for longer than a single position. history will judge his reign a failure, despite the occasional hints of greater ability and no matter how much we want to believe in the power of roy keane. this can be unarguable - more has to be expected of any manager given such freedom and backing - but like so many before him, he was promoted to a role far beyond his capabilities.

but where next for keane? he may be best served by re-acquianting himself with alex ferguson. fergie long ago learnt the importance of delegation, a skill that the solitary, control-obsessed keane appears to lack. there has been no one but keane calling the shots at sunderland, no one assisting him on transfer policy, no one in the media to help, no one providing the tactical nous. for a character like keane, plunged into managing a premier league club quite patently before he was ready, this seems to have been unsustainable - the mistakes piled up, compounding the pressure, and eventually the job became altogether too much. but as ferguson has aged, he has remained the unquestioned leader of the club whilst accomodating complimentary assistants below to relieve the pressure on him in various areas. never the greatest tactician, ferguson turned over much of that side to carlos quieroz who ultimately revitalised the club and helped pioneer a revolutionary attacking system. if keane is to sustain a career, or at least get back on track, he clearly needs better people around him from which to learn.

oh dear oh dear: chelsea fall apart against arsenal

i think it was about 58 minutes into yesterday afternoon's game and, with arsenal struggling to make any real inroads despite trailing by a goal, it was at this point i turned to my brother and said "arsenal should take off van persie - he's been anonymous and they should stick a man on mikel instead". i'm sure you can imagine how the next 5 minutes unfolded.

it was that kind of day at stamford bridge yesterday - unexpected and completely bewildering. chelsea were in charge despite creating little of note, their main attacking avenues were trying to play kalou and anelka in through the middle, despite the pace of the arsenal back four making that proposition rather difficult. the goal came about through mostly because samir nasri singularly failed to track bosingwa's run, allowing the portuguese into an incredibly dangerous position; his cross was exceptional, djorou's response entirely forgiveable. both before and after the opener, arsenal were out of form and out of shape, listlessly giving away the ball, suffering from denilson's ineptitude on the right (ineptitude that was generally not his fault), a poor performance from fabregas and the anonymity of their strikeforce. samir nasri buzzed around to little effect and alex song was frequently struggling to contain the multitude of midfield runners he had to contend with. and whilst the gunners carved out a couple of half-chances, it appeared to be another bad afternoon for arsene wenger.

but it was a match turned on its head by sheer chance: a clearly offside robin van persie slammed home an equaliser after an hour gone, and when the same player rifled in a second after emmanuel adebayor made his first contribution of the game, soaring higher than anyone in a blue shirt to nod the ball down, the match was transformed; it was the type of five minute spell that only the most hardened of arsenal-hater could begrudge.

however, this period, and what followed, cannot be dismissed as insignificant, for it provides valuable insight into the potential fortunes of both sides over the coming months. for chelsea the evidence was damning, for arsenal it hopefully put things into proper perspective.

for chelsea, we cannot overlook that this was nearly a comfortable victory. arsenal weren't very good up until van persie scored, and without that good fortune one suspects it may have continued in the vein of the first hour. however, what that crazy five minutes did was to reveal the flaws that i alluded to on friday - namely the lack of attacking options on the bench. when reduced to chasing the game, scolari could only muster florent malouda (whose contribution consisted of getting caught offside and blasting a free kick over the bar) and miroslav stoch, a debutant who was most notable for how blindingly quick his small legs moved when he ran. that just won't do, especially when deco is suffering a quite obvious dip in form (i'm sure someone predicted that amongst the universal praise that was raining down in august...).

but more than that, scolari was worryingly at fault after the goals. in perhaps a more lucid moment, when he took mikel off i turned to my brother and questioned the substitution; by my reckoning, the nigerian was having an excellent game, doing more than any other chelsea player to break up the play and also playing the crucial role of instigator, starting the chelsea attacks from defense. this is precisely why i felt arsenal should take off van persie, as it would allow them to station a man to stifle mikel, as gerrard did for liverpool, in a game when chelsea were even more ineffectual. but by removing mikel himself, scolari opened up his side to arsenal's counter-attacking, and suddenly the gunners were looking more dangerous than at any point previously. it also damaged chelsea's passing rhythm, and with the subsitutes ineffectual, the match petered out with very few chances for the home side.

tellingly, peter kenyon came out this morning to say that there would be no purchases during january, and that didier drogba would be going nowhere. but this isn't really good enough for a side with pretensions of league and european glory - the way their attack has spluttered against liverpool and now arsenal suggests a true deficiency within the squad, and with the blueprint to beat the current iteration of the side established by rafa benetiz, chelsea need to have more tactical variation in order to progress.

for arsenal and their manager, the match must have provided supreme comfort. not necessarily because it was a particularly good performance, or that wenger's tactical and personnel decisions were particularly validated, but because the manner of victory should put things into proper perspective. simply put, it is the manner of robin van persie's goals - two truly excellent strikes - that seemed to underline the excellence within wenger's squad, an excellence that separates them from the rest of the league in the fight for 4th place. and for all of the predictable talk of team vs individual talent, the importance of the unit, i just feel that there is too much talent in that arsenal team for them to finish outside of the top 4, and not enough elsewhere to compensate for that. you would hope this has the dual role of both galvanising the team internally and finally ceasing the incessant media sniping that has accompanied the side up until this point; as a result, it will probably do more for the latter than the victory over united, which was easily dismissed by media pundits as classic arsenal, out-footballing their opponents in a match that quite easily could've ended up 4-4. this was a match that featured a solitary chelsea shot on target and a rearguard breached largely because of misfortune.

therefore, if there was anything further to take from what was overall a reasonably poor arsenal performance with the ball, it probably revolves around the performance of the back four. clichy and sagna were predictably excellent, with clichy becoming more and more dangerous going forward as the match progressed and sagna performing with the unassuming solidity of a man who has quietly progressed to be the best right-back in the premier league in a startling short time frame. moreover, it was an excellent performance from johan djorou, own goal excused, who looked exceedingly comfortable for the entire game, whilst william gallas alongside him was also thoroughly solid, using his pace to negate anelka. obviously any critique of arsenal's defending needs to be put in proper context, and there is a good chance that had they been up against a rampaging didier drogba, as they were in last year's fixture, they would have been similarly dominated physically. however, djorou has certainly progressed from the slightly callow, error-prone version of previous seasons to at least appear an upgrade over the woeful mickael silvestre (i've given up any sort of balance here... the man just isn't good enough) and the potentially past-it/malaria subdued (delete as appropriate) kolo toure. certainly, his emergence allows the re-emergence of the intriguing toure-to-midfield rumour that was rife about 6 months ago, at least when the ivorian returns from injury.

finally, and without wanting to labour the point, the match still presented an indictment of wenger's transfer policy. wenger's failure to buy another wide player in the summer (when he needed at least one more, but instead merely chose to swap hleb for nasri) meant that denilson was on the flank - and if the brazilian wasn't stationed out there, lacking the ability to penetrate either on the ball or off it, you could imagine abou diaby playing the role similarly poorly. this contributed to arsenal's lack of fluidity, as without the willing outlet walcott has become ball retention suffered. arsenal probably would've been better off giving wilshere a game on the right than denilson, whose main contribution was to perform the most blatant, incompetent, dive you will see all season. in addition, it was another patchy game for alex song, who has also yet to prove he can truly fit within arsenal's system.

ultimately, then, it wasn't a great game. it was two teams that broadly struggled to fashion chances, one nervy and slightly rudderless, the other simply lacking the ability, but in the way it burst into life, further demolishing the myth of chelsea whilst similarly altering perceptions of arsenal's future, it may just have been the most important one yet.

reading list: the times on troubled chelsea

updates have obviously been thin on the ground. this weekend, however, seems as good as any with which to re-dedicate myself to the beautiful game. in-form city take on united (who were magnificently controlled against a good villareal team on tuesday night) in the manchester derby, but the game that interests me more is the other "super sunday" clash between arsenal and chelsea.

the mixed fortunes of arsenal have rather fascinated me over the past 3 months - to the extent that i have basically turned this into an arsenal-blog (my apologies for that) - but at this point i am more interested in the performance of their opponents. the reasons for this can be found in this half decent article today by matt hughes in the times, but can be surmised as such: the squad, the money and the tactics.

the squad and the money are not problems easily solved. the squad, bolstered with the signing of deco in the summer, is woefully imbalanced. the only attacker of any quality capable of playing in a wider area is joe cole; whilst i don't feel florent malouda is quite as bad as most people make out, he clearly isn't an amazing footballer - at least, not a match for a fit arjen robben, for example - and salomon kalou is a young player who arrived with much promise, but one that has had his development totally stunted by a lack of playing time and a constant shuffling of position. the remainder of their midfield is constituted by central midfielders, and whilst these are central midfielders of the highest quality, this inevitably means chelsea lack tactical flexibility. furthermore, they have, in one way, been very fortunate that michael essien has been injured - the outstanding ghanaian would otherwise demand a place in the starting xi, and with deco, ballack and lampard around him, it would be difficult to create a balanced line-up from that. his injury has guaranteed mikel a starting place, and whilst i have my doubts about him, he at least provides a valuable shield, dropping back into defence when necessary and picking the ball up from the back four to initiate attacks. and whilst essien could come back and fill that role, the dynamism and sheer excellence of his play means to limit him like that would be utter folly.

this is a situation unlikely to be altered a great deal in january, for ambramovich has allegedly told scolari he must first sell before he can buy. given the paucity of his options and the fact that the squad was already slimmed down in the summer this seems harsh, but it seems that even the russian isn't immune to the global recession. if we assume this to be true, scolari doesn't have much ability to raise funds: most of the marquee players are either too good or too old to generate a useful profit (see: the entire midfield, ricardo carvalho etc). so what could scolari do? i shall do my best to explore the options:

- sell didier drogba. this is probably a good idea: the ivorian is now probably reaching the end of his peak, and his playing time is already being drastically reduced by a succession of injuries that hint at a physical decline few players - certainly few players of his nature - really recover from. if rumours of inter's interest are correct, chelsea should certainly entertain offers. but how much would be gained? probably no more than a low-£20m fee, and it is dubious how much this would transform the squad.

- sell petr cech. the goalkeeper is probably the most overrated player in the squad, benefitting from the worst kind of nonsense punditry - the insistence on how having to make one good save a game is somehow more difficult than making ten - that means people constantly elevate his performances, based on precisely nothing, above those of his rivals. a good goalkeeper could likely be picked up for less than the money gained from a sale of cech, but it is questionable just how much that would be.

- sell john terry. terry is at his peak, and as a central defender who has never had much pace it is a peak that you imagine would continue for at least another 4 years. last week in the news of the world it was rumoured man city were considering a record bid and fee for terry, and although he is unlikely to want to depart, if chelsea were to make clear their desire to sell you would imagine his desire to stay would be rather reduced. and the rationale for selling is strong - carvalho is at this point the far superior player, and the best defender chelsea possess, and partnering him with alex is a partnership perfectly capable of maintaining the defensive excellence chelsea are known for, at a profit of at least £40m. in short, the symbolic value of terry far outweighs his value on the pitch, making him the ideal candidate to sell.

however, one would imagine this to be a highly unlikely scenario. i doubt chelsea will sell terry, and beyond him the ability of scolari to generate the profit necessary to bring in the quality he needs is limited. which means making the most of his current personnel.

as hughes points out, this has meant scolari defaulting to a broad approximation of the system with which he won the world cup in 2002 - two centre backs, shielded by john obi mikel, the defensive midfielder who then drops back to become a third centre back when necessary, with the width provided not by wide midfielders but by the two attacking full backs. more out of necessity a lone striker is played, supported by a pair of attacking central midfielders and two other attackers of some description, including perhaps another central midfielder. one of the latter may well be sacrificed when drogba finally returns to full fitness.

this is a system not without its flaws: the full-backs become de facto wing backs, and if pinned back by wingers chelsea find precious outlets stultified; if of course chelsea chose to ignore it, they are faced with speedy wingers attacking the fringes of a back three. the play is funneled through mikel, and without a gattuso to provide a shield, this allows other teams to put a man on him and disrupt chelsea's rhythm. further up the pitch, lacking the quality out wide, chelsea rely too much on the central midfield duo/trio/quartet (depending on your viewpoint) to penetrate. playing the lone striker role nicolas anelka does well to stretch the the play, but the current admiration of his prowess seems to ignore the fact he has scored almost nothing of any quality and on a lesser team, one unable to give him as many chances from 12 yards and in, would probably have a quarter of the goals he has currently.

for the sake of balance, i think scolari needs to make sure he's playing two attacking wide players at all times, so that without possession chelsea can move back into a 4-5-1 and provide a more balanced look to the side, especially in the transition from defense to attack. but beyond that, some brave steps need to be taken in the transfer window if this chelsea side are going to maintain their league position.

sketchy predictions on arsenal - man united

no blogs since friday: busy week for me my friends. it has also been an exceedingly busy week for the hacks of fleet street, who have devoted their spare-time to the castigation of arsene wenger. coverage reached a nadir in the times yesterday, with one shock-value-only headline questioning if it is the end for arsene and gabriele marcotti (who has always struck me as truly awful) suggesting that timmy simons, psv's veteran belgian midfielder, would be a good option for wenger's midfield.

obviously, i haven't exactly been wenger's biggest supporter during the past 3 months; i've been rather banging on about the failings of his squad since starting this blog. but i think this criticism has gone too far, to the point that i have begun to reconsider my own opinions on the matter. and i can definitely see arsenal getting a result today.

it sounds perverse, but arsenal are better against better sides. sides who seek to play football - and not ply the kind of contemptible, mindless mixture of thuggery and brawn stoke roll out every week - are always going to be a more comfortable fit for arsenal, simply because there is no better footballing side than they. certainly, united don't have a midfield presence to make the selection of denilson a complete liability, and they lack the physical centre-forward that gallas, silvestre and toure all struggle with. in fact, the united strike-force - technically outstanding, all deft movement and outrageous skill, with no little pace - fit the wenger central defender - pacy with good anticipation - template quite nicely. and although rooney and ronaldo will drop into the hole, which poses an obvious risk to a side with no legitimate anchorman, the overwhelming negativity of the coverage means that everyone has ignored the possibility that a three man strikeforce containing two reasonably lazy defenders (ronaldo and berbatov) won't necessarily do enough against the ball-playing central midfield pairing of fabregas and denilson when arsenal have possession. so, in a similar way to croatia - england, whilst i am uncertain about the stability of this arsenal side, let us not forget the potential trouble they could cause man united when going forward. if forced to predict, i would suggest a score-draw along the lines of 2-2.

furthermore, on what are we basing these reports of arsenal's demise? we have a loss to fulham, which saw a partnership of eboue and denilson in central midfield fail to compete. a loss to hull, which was, like so many other hull performances, a total fluke, requiring a wonder-goal by geovanni and succession of missed opportunities by the arsenal attack. the draw against spurs, another fluke, involving another wonder-goal by bentley and a strike by jermaine jenas that was merely wonderful. the loss against stoke saw an imbalanced midfield fail to properly keep the ball and succumb to the bullying physicality of a truly lamentable side.

on the back of this many commentators, including myself, have stated that arsenal needed to bulk up: the failing was one of height and aerial ability and muscle. but, on reflection, could this be flawed? the fact is, arsenal probably do need a central midfielder who is capable of tackling and breaking the play up. however, this isn't necessarily the reason they have dropped points this season. at stoke, common wisdom tells you that teams should weather the storm with strength and height and muscle, but is that right? stoke probably possess the biggest, least talented line-up in the premier league, and there are few sides who could reasonably claim to have personnel better at attacking the ball in the air. so why play to their strengths by sacrificing your advantage - skill - to defend their advantage? perhaps the key is to maintain possession and prevent the home-side launching their barrage of crap. instead, alex song came into the centre, abou diaby played left-midfield and denilson played right-midfield. alex song is a player i like the look of, but one currently not seemingly ready for the role i suggested him for, lacking the ability in possession you need to be a success in the arsenal side - certainly, against west ham he was one of the main culprits for their first-half lethargy. and, with denilson and diaby on the wings failing to provide proper width, they weren't ever going to be in a position to effectively maintain possession. this, then, allowed stoke the chance to launch their bombardment and actually meant arsenal were a negligible attacking force in the game.

furthermore, against spurs, the comeback was precipitated by the removal of robin van persie and theo walcott, and the introduction of song, as arsenal ran riot. van persie, in particular, had been outstanding, and arsenal weren't the same after he departed. and against fulham, the problem was not a lack of muscle - the arsenal midfield was overpowered by the pairing of jimmy bullard and danny murphy, an even less defensively talented duo than anything arsenal are capable of putting out. rather, their failing in that match was an inability to retain possession and create chances. with emmanuel eboue, a truly awful footballer, playing that is perhaps no suprise, and what arsenal needed that day was more composure, more talent, more incision.

perhaps, then, the fate of arsenal rests on the faith they have in their attacking game? playing their best offensive players in midfield - fabregas, denilson, nasri, walcott - arsenal present an attacking force that is likely to be irresistable on most match-days. of course, sometimes, that team will lose - as any side will. but the fenerbahce away game perhaps provides the template - by focusing on their strengths rather than the opposition's and fielding a balanced, attacking line-up, arsenal become a difficult proposition. this, and here is where i break with my previous musings, might be the best path for them to follow this season, especially given the progression of walcott and the upgrade samir nasri represents over the flaky alexandr hleb.

defence be damned.

what to make of arsenal?

(it should be noted that this was written, just not published, before today's games)

so it seems that the home dressing room at the emirates was a bit of a mess on wednesday night.

clichy was in tears, gallas, silvestre and adebayor were all criticised by the manager and generally the picture painted is one of chaos.

much was made of arsenal's collapse - their supposed lack of maturity & experience, their inability to kill off the game - but i genuinely think that most people overstate this somewhat. firstly, the team is experienced. it might not be old, but a great deal of the players in the side have considerable experience in domestic, european and international football. ignoring the fact he may be the best pure central midfielder in the world at the age of 21, fabregas has made over 200 appearances for the club and has 36 caps for his country (plus one European Championship winner's medal). even gael clichy, who i would rate alongside patrice evra as the best left-back in the premier league despite his mistake on wednesday, has made nearly 150 senior appearances for arsenal and is now a member of the full france squad at the age of 22. in fact, of arsenal's starting xi on wednesday, only denilson had less than 100 senior appearances at the time of kick off; according to wikipedia, spurs had two - gareth bale and benoit assou-ekotto.

furthermore, the avalanche of criticism that has befallen arsenal since their ignominious collapse fails to recognise the sheer chance of spurs' comeback - if that game was replayed 100 times, on how many occasions do spurs come back from a frankly deserved two-goal deficit in the last 5 minutes? 3? no more than 5 i would say. fact is, at 80 minutes, arsenal were comfortable and the eventual result was utter freakishness.

however, this is not to say that arsenal's flawless performance was undone by random chance. rather substantial flaws were on display throughout the encounter, flaws that continue to suggest wenger has erred in his recruitment policy. whilst i may be the only person on the planet who doesn't think manuel almunia is especially poor, wenger could definitely do with a new goalie. that lukas fabianski is still hanging around is probably a good sign that wenger rates him - young players not making the grade are generally shipped out pretty quickly - but then again this may be his last year to make an impression before getting shipped out. but the problem that needs to be wenger's highest priority is his centre-back pairing.

specifically, the problem here is necessarily the personnel but the mixture of players that the back four contains. william gallas may be everyone's new favourite scapegoat - and his lack of leadership is far from ideal - but remains a really good centre back, with a rare mixture of pace and anticipation. certainly, wednesday was a great example of this, as the frenchman kept roman pavlyuchenko ridiculously quiet, pre-empting his movement and chasing down the occasional ball into the channels with ease. however, to be most effective, gallas needs to be paired with someone who can make up for his lack of aerial dominance; it is surely no coincidence that he experienced his best run of form in the premier league playing alongside john terry. mickael silvestre isn't john terry, that's for sure - in fact, his skillset mirrors gallas rather than compliments it (although silvstre has him beaten on the "flakiness and mistakes" scale by quite some distance). as such, the two are never going to be a particularly good pairing. what arsenal need is a skrtel or vidic, someone who will do that dirty work, bullying attackers and winning those aerial battles.

of course, the problems don't stop there. as i have been saying since my verbose, tedious premiership preview thing, arsenal need a proper defensive midfielder in their team, and nothing has happened to change that; looking back at the spurs game, it probably is no coincidence to see all four spurs goals come from the same route, with shots coming in from the edge of the penalty area, exactly where you would expect to have that anchorman breaking the play up. admittedly, for the jenas goal clichy's mistake probably would have rendered any defensive midfielder irrelevant and modric's shot that essentially set-up the lennon equaliser was contested, but it still must be a worrying pattern. alex song was inserted into the role against west ham and occasionally looked ponderous in possession, particularly in the first half, but that was indicative of a wider malaise that seemed to also envelop cesc fabregas as arsenal struggled to get into gear. probably the most worrying aspect was that even with song in the line-up west ham still looked dangerous on the counter, but that may have simply been a consequence of arsenal having almost too much possession, their midfielders and full-backs being sucked up the pitch only to then be worryingly out of position when west ham tried to play quick direct passes up to bellamy. still, the cameroonian is worth persevering with, not simply because his performances in the african cup of nations demonstrated him to be a young man of enormous potential, but also since arsenal don't really have any alternatives and probably won't until at least the end of the season, unless wenger recruits from outside the pool of champions league sides.

the worst thing for arsenal fans is that this could have so easily been averted - if wenger hadn't been so stubborn and spent the money available to him, he could have been looking at a title-winning side. instead, he's looking squarely at 4th place and the possible departure of cesc fabregas next summer.

aborted notes from arsenal & spurs

aborted?

because i left the pub after 80 minutes, the first time i've ever done so, as i was so depressed. great stuff (and i mean that both sarcastically and honestly, if that's possible).

my thoughts (up to that point):

- gael clichy and bacary sagna were really inconspicuously excellent; clichy, in particular, was absolutely great. they are without question the best full-back partnership in the premier league, some way beyond the pairing of cole & bosingwa.

- luka modric flickered, but demonstrated real quality at times. with slightly more license to roam, and the security of huddlestone and jenas behind him, he linked the play very well when spurs (rather sporadically) ventured forward in any numbers.

- gomes was just not good enough: by my reckoning he was at fault for 2 of the 4 goals. the first one was obviously his fault as he lurched into a punch he was never going to make, and the second he should have been able to save, getting in position but basically not getting his bottom hand low enough to keep the ball out. he dropped at least one other cross if my memory serves me correctly, and just didn't convince.

- woodgate and corluka were actually really good - adebayor in particular was kept remarkably quiet and only really threatened when mistakes allowed play to break down. in the end, spurs conceded 4 goals and some fatuous criticism will probably be levelled at the defence, when in actuality it was more a combination of gomes and a little incompetence from hutton that really made the difference.

- the latter sort of leads into my next point: arsenal were actually struggling to create real chances and relied broadly on spurs' errors; i can't remember a time apart from the third goal when spurs were dissected by arsenal's passing. also, it should be underlined - what a great pass for arsenal's third.

- bale really was anonymous; assou-ekotto looked a little better in terms of positioning but his distribution and touch were frequently poor. i still think bale needs to be groomed chiefly as an attacking full-back.

anyway, i just watched match of the day and the moronic pair of hansen and shearer suggested it was back and forth and both sides deserved something - nonsense. arsenal were the better side for the majority of the game, dominating possession and territory. certainly, they created little, but its not like spurs could say anything different, and they all too often combined basic errors in defence with an unnecessarily reluctant attitude towards attacking. that spurs eventually scraped the draw is fantastic for me as a spurs fan, but let us not delude ourselves that this was some sort of magic footballing spectacle - it was essentially a freak end to a match that generally would have ended as a clear arsenal victory.

grafter hall of fame inductee number one: marcus bent

marcus bent is obviously rubbish. the man has never had any real finishing ability, technically he is less than adept and he is unable to make up for this with a particularly good footballing brain.

marcus bent is also one of my all time favourite footballers. he is, as i may have mentioned rubbish - so rubbish that in 55 appearances for everton between 2004 and 2006 he scored 7 goals, less than one in every 7 games. but i love marcus bent because of his prolific workrate. in that that everton side, the embryonic moyes 4-5-1, he was played as a lone striker and was superb, playing 37 games in the 2004-2005 season as the toffees finished in a rather amazing fourth place. no support, it didn't matter: balls were pumped down the channels, bent chased; the ball was knocked back to the goalie, bent chased; the centre-backs were pinging the ball around at the back, bent chased. alright, he didn't score too many goals, but no one has worked harder or done more for their team with less talent. how many premier league teams in the past 10 years have finished in the top five playing a lone striker who scores 6 goals?

he is the iconic grafter, the grafter all others should aspire to be. marcus bent, i salute you.

the grafters hall of fame: an occasional series

well, as previously mentioned, i had another regular feature in the works - and it is this, the grafters hall of fame. (punctuation alert: do i use an apostrophe in grafters? hmmm.)

basically, i love grafters, the players they don't really have much talent but work their socks off; the embodiment of a basic professionalism that is almost extinct. nowadays players are praised for working hard - "they never gave up"; "their effort was commendable"; "their flair was no match for the grit and determination of their opponents" - when this shouldn't be remarkable. playing hard should be a basic expectation for anyone paid to compete on a football field; it is almost like me being credited with replying to my client emails in an appraisal at work. but obviously, with the way many footballers are indulged - and let us not forget, premier league footballers are generally young men of average intelligence from average (or below average) backgrounds) who are lavished with millions before their 25th birthdays, so indulgence is often a fundamental part of the lifestyle - genuinely hard-work is optional. the best, as in every facet of life, can get away with jogging half the time as opposed to sprinting, but that nonchalence has trickled down into the median level as well. when jonathan woodgate tells the media that the spurs team needs a kick up the arse & needs to work harder, people - me included - see it as indictment of the manager; clearly, someone hasn't been able to make them work hard. as in every job, motivation by senior management undoubtedly impacts the level of work produced, but there also needs to be a recognition that sometimes players themselves need to do a better job of self-motivation. without wanting to sound too much like a sun editorial, you can't help but think that this mini generation of young millionaires are probably a little too spoiled.

this is where the grafters hall of fame comes in. it is recognition, in the most minor way possible, of those that have succeeded more due to hard-work and commitment - running the channels for 90 minutes, pressing, harrassing, maintaining your disclipline, staying in position, tracking back, never giving up.

i salute you all.

reading list: sid lowe on daniel levy

i don't normally do this, but i think i might make it one of two new semi-regular (i.e. when i remember to do them) features, along with a top-secret project i'm currently devising. anyway, it's essentially recommended reading; most articles will probably come from either the guardian or the times as they are the two dailies i check for sports comment, so with some simple detective work you should be able to pre-empt my recommendations with a lackadaisical ease, but occasionally i read something worth sharing so it might be of value.

first up, the guardian's sid lowe on daniel levy. it's very funny, and a good beginners guide to the kind of maniacal despotism that has been virulent within spanish football for some time.

for the record, i am no fan of daniel levy. clearly, he has mismanaged the footballing side of the club over the last few years, blundering in his attempts to install the sporting director/coach dynamic and probably playing too prominent role in player sales & recruitment (specifically how much influence he had is difficult to gauge from the confines of my sofa). certainly, it seems as if he had an unhealthy influence on the berbatov deal, and i would be very interested to find out if he had anything to do with the signings of rocha, boateng, stalteri, bent (a player i actually rate, but not for £16m), jenas (ditto, but for £9m instead) & legendary clogger (at least in my head) hossam ghaly. however, what needs to be balanced with that is that he has overseen a spurs regime that is on, as far as i am aware, a stable financial footing, with either no debt or a small, manageable amount. this is no small feat, especially given the level of money invested in player personnel across the past few years (which has been further bumped up by the compensation he's had to pay to departing managers), and something that should be envied in the current climate.

ideally, i think he could do a better job by taking a backseat and delegating a bit more (although this would include some sort of empowered recruitment executive, which isn't going to happen any time soon), but i am dubious.

pompey set to appoint tony adams

according to reports, portsmouth will announce tony adams as their new manager at 1pm this afternoon.

i like it. clearly, when he took the wycombe job he wasn't ready; no experience of a dressing room from the other perspective, let alone from the manager's. at pompey he's had a positive impact on their back four (at least last season... we'll gloss over that performance against city earlier this year) and generally seems to be better equipped now to deal with the pressures of being a premier league manager.

and ultimately, i like the idea of taking a risk on a talented younger man as opposed to giving one of the usual suspects - fat sam in this case - another job. generally i don't like the idea of just handing over the reigns to inexperienced ex-players (it would be laughable, for instance, if alan shearer were to walk into the newcastle job, and i think even a relative success story like gareth southgate would have benefitted from taking time to learn his trade before taking the boro job), but when they have demonstrated promise and earned their badges i would much rather take a risk on someone who might be fantastic than give the job to someone who you know will be average. (it is the same reason i was in favour of paul ince getting the blackburn job from the very beginning, although to be fair to ince he had worked minor miracles in the lower leagues and his promise seemed quite clear.)

so i'm not saying that adams will be a success - for the record, i certainly hope he will be - but its a hiring i'm definitely in favour of.

further reaction the the spurs situation

- first thing that redknapp needs to do on monday morning is appoint a new captain. obviously ledley king cannot continue; corluka needs to come in at centre-back on a permanent basis. hutton plays in the right, chris gunter becomes his back-up. my guess, along with everyone else in the western world, is jonathan woodgate gets the armband.

this is one of the main benefits of bringing in a new man - if the existing pair of captains had been removed by the unpopular, failing incumbent, the dressing room would have been a mess; redknapp, alternatively, has the legitimacy and authority to remove them and place another in the leadership role.

- presumably, this signals the end of spurs' long-standing belief in the continental sporting director/coach set-up. at the beginning of the season, when questions began to be asked regarding such a system, redknapp was prominent in his opposition to it, the hackneyed old school manager through and through, throwing around worn out platitudes about "letting managers manage". there is absolutely no way arry signs up to work under a director of football, especially not after the velimir zejec and avram grant nonsense that he was subjected to previously.

obviously, i'm still of the belief that with most managers, a system incorporating player personnel staff with the authority to check the baseless indulgences and hunches of those foremost employed to coach is a good thing; i certainly do not want a handful of nugents, utakas, pamarots & kabouls further clogging up the spurs squad. this is not to say that the system is infallible - if the sporting director is incompetent, you just as easily end up with a squad full of rochas, boatengs and stalteris. but the idea that the qualities that allow managers to coach and motivate also allow them to judge the talent of players and assign an appropriate value, whilst being expected to carry out those other duties simultaneously, is not one i subscribe to. the sporting director, or personnel assistant, simply makes too much sense not to be used. obviously ferguson and wenger are exceptions, but as i have elaborated on previously, both have encouraged systems that benefit their recruitment abilities - ferguson learning the value of delegation and entrusting a great deal to assistants, whilst wenger has his network of super-scouts, headed up by the incomparable steve rowley, to handpick the best talents for his assessment. that is why they have better players. that is why they are better coaches.

we no longer play the 2-3-5 or the WM or even the 4-2-4. as the game changes, tactics have changed. why would recruitment be any different? why would the same rules apply for eternity as the system evolves into a different beast altogether?

what it means to manage has changed; those that fail to recognise that are doomed to mediocrity.

- i am interested to see who comes in as his assistant. arry has made it clear that tony adams will not follow, and joe jordan will be "making his own mind up" or something. this is clearly crucial.

- i am also interested to see what approach spurs take today and whether arry has any influence on the selection. clearly, along with the captaincy issue, arry needs to do a better job balancing the midfield, generating an appropriate level of support for the lone striker whilst retaining a better defensive element. no easy task. the best thing is that we don't have the playing staff to implement that godawful 3-5-2 he's been flirting with the season.

although saying that, gareth bale would probably be the ideal wingback.

uh oh.

- finally, the thing to watch in the coming months is the make-up of his preferred xi. clearly, some players will not be to his liking and will be shipped out in january; it can also be assumed that levy will again back his manager in the transfer market during the window, especially if spurs are still flailing around in the relegation zone. that arry knows the financial situation well at pompey might be something to remember - if rumours of financial difficulties are true, and his comments this morning about them needing to "sell the manager" are indicative of anything, then lassana diarra may be available at a decent price. and although the man may be reasonably objectionable, he would be an excellent addition to the spurs midfield. also worth a bet - what are the odds of him bringing back jermain defoe to white hart lane? defoe had a great relationship with the fans, was clearly fond of the place himself, and arry rates him; not entirely beyond the realms of possibility i think. also welcome - niko kranjcar. spurs need another attacking midfielder, and the croat would potentially be a good partner for the compatriot that will surely be the fulcrum of any spurs side under arry. (or at least should be the fulcrum of any spurs side under arry.)

so, thats all for now. i'm probably going to be watching some of chelsea liverpool and west ham arsenal later, so there may well be further ramblings in the coming hours.

ramos is sacked: i am happy; redknapp is appointed; i am sad

first things first then. juande ramos has been sacked as spurs manager. at this stage, this is undoubtedly a good thing: jonathan woodgate's comments in the wake of yet another defeat, this time a comprehensive mauling by udinese, made it imperative. clearly the side was a mess, and whatever plan ramos had at the beginning of the season had fallen to pieces. in any case, the existence of any sort of plan is something that appeared doubtful once the season was underway: ramos chopped and changed, never allowing the side to settle, never allowing new players to properly acclimatise to the premiership, and most crucially never sending out a particularly complimentary or balanced line-up. the root of the problem was the mess in central midfield - without a proper defensive player consistently picked to anchor the side, the team was invariably inept at the back and imbalanced in attack, especially with modric, probably the most talented member of the squad, being played too deep. similarly heinous was his treatment of david bentley, who excelled on the right for blackburn yet found himself shuffled around match to match until he ended up on the bench and out of the england squad. to misuse one £16m player is probably unwise, but to misuse two is probably sackable. there is also the farcical ledley king saga to factor in, as the de jure captain is wheeled in and out for a game every 3 weeks, leaving jermaine jenas to lead the side in his absence. and say what you will about jermaine jenas, but one would presume even his biggest supporters wouldn't be suggesting him as captaincy material. because ramos refused to deliver a proper solution to the matter - the proper solution being to strip king of the captaincy and hand it to jonathan woodgate, the only senior player who is guaranteed a place in the side at this point - spurs have lacked any semblance of leadership on the pitch.

clearly, as the side lurched from defeat to defeat against a plethora of sides with inferior talent within their ranks (apart from chelsea, and potentially aston villa, that applies to every premier league outfit spurs have faced so far this season), the buck needed to stop with ramos. there can be no doubt, however, that he had been dealt a poor hand by damian comolli, who handled the berbatov departure poorly and failed to recruit a proper replacement or a true defensive midfielder of any quality. he has consistently misused the vast resources at his disposal - younes kaboul for £7m or kevin-prince boateng for £5m anyone? - and has generally proved a reasonably dismal judge of talent, which is a problem for a man whose job it is to judge talent. he too now finds himself quite rightly sacked.

what is likely to be said in some quarter tomorrow is that comolli and comolli alone should have been held accountable - from the departure of jol to the end of this season's summer transfer window, he has done an appalling job as sporting director of tottenham hotspur. this isn't in doubt, but spurs are rock bottom of the league and surely not even comolli's detractors would have the gall to proclaim that he has provided ramos with a championship-quality squad. regardless of the shenanigans behind the scenes, this spurs team has grossly underperformed on the pitch this season, and that can only be attributed to the manager.

so, unequivocally, i believe that sacking ramos was the right thing to do. some may quibble at the timing - it has come, in classic spurs fashion - a mere 16 hours before the club's next game, but one can only imagine that the implicit discontent emanating from various players in recent days turned into a full blown dressing room mutiny, undermining ramos and making the timing irrelevant.

what is more worrying, however, is the appointment of harry redknapp. simply put, there is no more overrated manager in the premiership than redknapp, a man whose ability to hypnotise public and media alike to ignore the stunning mediocrity of his record, including relegation with southampton and near-relegation with portsmouth that can both be placed squarely on his shoulders , is one of the most amazing things in english football. paul doyle summed up the case against harry better than i ever could at ten to one in the morning, and i agree: redknapp is nothing to be excited about. his achievements at portsmouth are negligible - the flukiest fa cup triumph in recent history is not being counted as a particular achievement here - and their football isn't particularly good, with a rather poor goalscoring record last season that served to illustrate the rather stodgy, narrow approach they generally seemed to take. and this season, pompey have been a defensive shambles (uh oh) only saved really by the efficacy of that defoe-crouch strikeforce against middling sides (double uh oh). which, if i need to make it any clearer, is an approach that doesn't really play to tottenham's current strengths.

let me be clear about this: i didn't think tottenham would get relegated this season, even after the stoke game, and i still don't now. the side is simply too good, and you got the sense that levy would bail out whoever was in charge with extra funds in january. nevertheless, be prepared for a rather radical scaling back of ambition for spurs - i don't think the combination of redknapp and the current playing staff would be anywhere near good enough to qualify for europe, even if they could wind the clock back 8 games. what is odd is that when martin jol departed, i was almost overjoyed; ramos was the last piece of the puzzle, a man who would sort out a rather ill-disciplined, unfit squad and marshal them perhaps into the top 4, a rarefied atmosphere jol was always going to struggle to reach. yet the 12 months in which juande ramos has been in charge have instead resulted in the end of all hope; the brief, wonderful time during which being a spurs fan wasn't such a problem, in which we achieved something of real value (and yes, regardless of what anyone may say, consecutive 5th place finishes in the premier league is indeed an achievement - one that i would genuinely place far above a spurious fa cup triumph), now seems as if it has definitively ended.

bugger.

MSI want £27m for Carlos Tevez. Why would you ever dream of paying that?

when carlos tevez and javier mascherano first signed for west ham on that crazy transfer deadline in august 2006, there was that hubristic chatter about champions league football. these were the two players to transform the ambitious hammers into real challengers - the sophisticated negativity of mascherano would add bite to the midfield whilst the joyous flair of tevez would supplant the otherwise mundane harewood and zamora in order to play off the revelatory dean ashton. perfect.

except it didn't quite work out that way. mascherano didn't seem to quite grasp the premier league, and successive west ham managers certainly didn't grasp him: he was out of the first xi with startling rapidity, playing in the reserves, the team wholly incapable of accomodating him. there was more perseverance with tevez, despite a torrent of those horrible, peering-through-your-fingers misses, of the sort diego forlan used to specialise in, when you recognise that sympathetic concoction of talent and a total lack of confidence. at one point he was even played out on the left wing by alan curbishley, the second manager of that fateful season, but through the sheer force of his ability managed to pull himself back into his rightful position, scoring a series of obscenely significant goals that helped west ham stay in the premier league.

of course, that would not be the end of the torrid affair. mascherano had already left for liverpool by that stage, and in the process of signing him rick parry noticed a few choice sentences in his contract that would signal the beginning of a (still unresolved) legal saga concerning both argentinians, west ham, and the clubs who felt most wronged by the situation. tevez departed for manchester united, always a slightly unconvincing move as despite his obvious qualities there was a suspicion he offered little that wayne rooney and cristiano ronaldo weren't capable of themselves.

perhaps that was the point; with the tactically flexibility that united adopted in the prolonged absence of supposed lead-striker louis saha, tevez, rooney and ronaldo were interchangeable. each could expect to play as much through the middle as they could on the flank. it was certainly the making of cristiano ronaldo, as the portuguese evolved from goal-scoring winger into perhaps the best offensive player in the world, a symbol of the new tactical amorphousness, the player without no fixed position beyond "attack". nevertheless, at times, especially when united stationed a solitary ronaldo up-front against barcelona, you felt that united needed more presence in the final third, a player around which the others could orbit around.

eventually, alex ferguson signed dimitar berbatov, a signing in which my faith is long and very clearly established. with him in the side, ronaldo has been inconspicuously effective, scoring a handful of goals since his return in an inexplicably low-key manner. it is rooney that has soared, allowed back from the ancillary, sparking into life and justifying the esteem in which many (including myself) continued to hold him. and in this new line-up, carlos tevez has drifted out of the spotlight.

the problem is, carlos tevez simply isn't a footballer of the highest class. he's quick without being electric, skilled without being daunting; a decent finisher, capable of flashes of genius without ever really conveying the impression that he could ever really transform that into consistent production. if anything, his most outstanding attributes are physical - quietly terrifying strength coupled with perhaps the most impressive stamina you could ever wish to see. the way he refused to cease chasing in the champions league final was, frankly, spell-binding. but one cannot help but feel that without his latin heritage this would be a considerably less valuable footballer; a skillset almost at odds with la nuestra, that most religious of footballing creeds, his presence has always felt more anglo-saxon than anything else. like dirk kuyt, the less talented brother plying his trade half an hour down the road, the unceasing commitment, the willingness to sacrifice seemingly any and every joule of energy within his body, places him within that canon of english footballing heroes more than any other. and the point is, united already have the superior version of carlos tevez, the carlos tevez with added virtuoso talent: his name is wayne rooney.

given all of this, the price tag that the more-or-less despicable kia joorabchian has placed on his head - supposedly £27m - is preposterous. you can see why ferguson would want to keep the argentine, but at that price he shouldn't even contemplate it; for £27m you should expect more than physical freakishness, the right attitude and capricious talent. depending on the progression of nani, united should be more concerned with that 3rd attacker behind berbatov, and the tendinitis that still hampers owen hargreaves might mean united need to try again at recruiting a midfield anchor. for a substitute, no matter how well suited, £27m is largesse that even chelsea would scoff at. united can get their man, but not for that price.

is paul scholes' injury a hidden blessing for alex ferguson?

at this point in his glorious career, expressing admiration for paul scholes is almost demanded; his fabulous footballing ability has long been praised, but never has the reverence with which he is currently treated by the public and media alike been so high. but let me be quite clear: i love paul scholes. he has been a quite superb player since breaking into the united side, playing the kind of simplistic, visionary football that belied the usual cliches about english football. this was a player just as capable technically and mentally as the great continental midfielders of the time. the combination of him and ryan giggs in the same team meant i could never bring myself to actually dislike man united, even as a kid, when your instinct is to hate just about anything that dares to be dominant. he will go down as one of my favourite all-time players.

it is a shame then, that alex ferguson - of all people - seems even more intoxicated by this powerful nostalgia. for it is he that has kept paul scholes as the fulcrum of the manchester united midfield, despite the quite obvious wane in his powers. as last season wore on, you could see scholes slipping, his efforts clearly undermined by his advancing years. there can be no better symbol than the champions league final: a promising opening that declined very rapidly into anonymity. scholes couldn't get a grip on the game, and was one of the main reasons that chelsea got better and better as the clock ticked down. it wasn't as if this came as any surprise - ferguson's admission he would definitely play scholes in the final was shocking, especially after similarly anonymous performances against barcelona in the semis. admittedly, the goal he scored to settle that tie was absolutely vintage paul scholes - a swerving, venomous strike from 20 yards out bringing back hazy memories of the turn of the century when he would seemingly score 10 of them a season - but other than that there was a real lack of influence from him. that, and that alone, could be no greater indictment of his play.

at this point, the hub of manchester united's passing game is michael carrick. i remember watching the team struggle in the manchester derby last season, listless and lacking that metronomic rhythm that carrick brings. the ex-spurs man is an underrated defender - about twice as good as scholes ever was in that facet of the game - and combines that with an excellent range of passing and tremendous awareness. undoubtedly, united have sorely missed him at times, none more so than against liverpool when they completely lost any grip they had on the game when he was finally forced off with an ankle injury. that day, javier mascherano hassled, harried and dominated the midfield on his own, particularly in the second half, and scholes trudged off, two-thirds of the match completed, a man who had singularly failed to cope. obviously, his midfield partner anderson was also culpable, but scholes in particular was powerless to stop the argentine running riot. but this season, there has been no coronation, no changing of the guard: fergie had simply played them both. this was always a flawed strategy, as now scholes is essentially the defensive deficient version of carrick, who despite his better-than-perceived defensive skills, still is primarily a ball-playing midfielder. both sit deep, and can't offer the workrate or dynamism that you would really want in the two-man partnership.

and now, scholes is out, injured with knee ligament damage. not a tear, which would see him sidelined until at least the beginning of next season, but a sprain or some other tweak that will rule him out for around two months. with scholes playing the way he is this certainly isn't a loss, and given who will replace him united may well be better off.

so who will replace him? with carrick also out and owen hargreaves struggling with his chronic tendinitis, anderson will continue, ryan giggs may get some playing time and rodrigo possebon might also have a bigger role to play, providing that he isn't still feeling tha after-effects of emmanuel pogatetz's assault on his ankle. but the crucial figure here is the much-maligned darren fletcher.

having spent the early part of his united career essentially viewed as a clumsy oaf never really good enough to be wearing the shirt, fletcher has developed into a very fine player indeed. he combines a superb workrate with good defensive abilities, and although his passing will never see him confused for a playmaker, he has developed his technique to the point where he is absolutely deserving of a place in the same team as his more illustrious contemporaries. as his early-season cameo against portsmouth demonstrated, the scot also possesses great movement and surprisingly good timing and instinct around the box. for united, he can help by doing the dirty work that no one else is capable of - the pressing & harrassment of the opposition - whilst managing to keep up in other facets of the game. combined with anderson, all long, fluid strides and stunning assuredness, his presence will undoubtedly be of benefit to a side that seemed to lack a real sense of purpose and determination in a few games earlier this season.

and this is why paul scholes being out could end up helping ferguson. by removing the clearly fading veteran, united are now looking at a midfield with considerably less romance, greatly reduced recognition and markedly increased effectiveness. well, in theory.

could spurs actually get relegated?!

a lot can happen in 3 weeks.

or not. spurs were in the relegation zone 3 weeks ago, and they haven't left it yet. in fact, they still don't possess a league victory this season, having only won matches against wisla krakow in the uefa cup and the aforementioned shambles that constitutes newcastle united currently in the carling cup. the team hasn't really produced a single good performance either, with the most notable the defensive effort to foil chelsea and produce their solitary point.

ramos has a plan! you think. the teases of last season, the flashes of daring and little chunks of tactical excellence that were occasionally on offer in the eventual wasteland of results, mean it is the only logical conclusion, right? but with every passing game, the hope that ramos managed to generate during the helter-skelter 2007/2008 season dissipates. the strikers were sold, but that didn't matter - ramos had a plan. in came bentley, giovani, modric. gareth bale was back, paul robinson was gone, jonathan woodgate remained; jermaine jenas had shown genuine development, whilst ledley king had reached a point in his rehabilitation where he could actually play football again. the order of the day would be a 4-2-3-1 it seemed, lending a greater robustness in defence whilst maintaining a flowing, flexible attacking style.

or so it seemed. the most disconcerting thing about the start of this season has not been the results - after all, it is still early and a good run of results could propel the team into mid-table quite easily; if spurs had gone through a 6 game period in january of 4 defeats and 2 draws people wouldn't be this hysterical. no, the most disconcerting thing must be that ramos has been thoroughly incompetent. he has picked players out of position, most notably david bentley, who was bought for £15m after excelling on the right wing for the past 2 years at ewood park and since has played everywhere but, and luka modric, who has been asked to do more defensive work than he was ever going to be capable of at this stage of his premiership career and not provided a position from which he could really influence games. ramos also can't quite decide whether he wants to play one or two up front, something that defies the personnel changes during the summer, as the two strikers best suited to playing as a pair departed and a handful of attacking midfielders entered.

and whilst the shape has frequently changed, the standard hasn't. people have been quick to point out that with such an overhaul, the team was going to need time to gel; whilst this may be true, it must also be true that if ramos had any conception of his best side then consistently playing the same first xi, or at least some approximation of it, would result in that happening quicker.

obviously, ramos isn't the only one at fault here. damian comolli singularly failed to properly manage the transfer window, selling berbatov too late and bringing in pavlyuchenko too late. he also failed to buy a third striker or a proper defensive midfielder, and also didn't manage to find buyers for the hoard of unwanted panic buys currently crowding the reserves (hossam ghaly, kevin-prince boateng, ricardo rocha etc etc etc). comolli, like arnesen before him, has bought in volume, and filled the squad with quite a lot of players that aren't good enough. the past four years has seen quite a lot of churn amongst the playing staff, and that simply cannot be a good thing.

but none of this can excuse the obviously flawed approach ramos has taken to the beginning of this season. having pursued him with such vigour last year it is difficult to see levy being too willing to get rid of him so early, but clearly this cannot continue. the sun is saying ramos has four games to save his job, and i think i would more or less agree with that, provided we're talking league games. a bad run of form in 6 league is almost forgettable, but if they weren't to pick up at least 2 wins or 3 positive results out of the next four i don't think there could be much complaining if ramos was shown the door, especially given the events of last season. even if the next 4 games were disastrous, i still wouldn't believe there would be any risk of relegation, but it would almost certainly doom the team to a bottom half finish and there can be no excuses for that.

14/1 to get relegated. let's see what those odds are like at the end in another 3 weeks.

could newcastle actually get relegated?!

a lot can happen in 3 weeks.

or not. newcastle united haven't so much changed as continued their inexorable, unbelievable decline into absolute farce. mike ashley decided he couldn't live with the criticism and released the most remarkable press release, moaning about the unexpected cost of running a club he bought without performing basic financial checks and invoking useless mush about being unable to bring his poor children to the game on saturday. the newcastle fans have responded by senselessly deifying kevin keegan, whilst the vaunted management team displayed about the same nous with their shortlist of replacements. george graham, david o'leary, terry venables, dave bassett... the names kept coming and jaws kept edging closer the floor. as pointed out by football365, there was a rather delicious irony in all of this, as on keegan's departure "sources" laughed at his supposed henry-ronaldo-etc list of transfer targets, condemning it as ultimate proof that the man wasn't cut out to be a manager in 2008, but the list of managerial candidates that eminated from the bowels of st james suggested, rather, a handful of decision makers with exactly the same problems.

unsurprisingly, the fortunes of the newcastle united team on the pitch have been little better. led by the hopelessly optimistic chris hughton, the toon lost to hull, at home, then participated in a hideous carling cup tie against their fellow depression-inducing, cellar dwelling friends from white hart lane. spurs - more on them soon - just about prevailed, getting their first domestic win of the season.

so, on friday morning, you would have been forgiven for suggesting that newcastle united had hit rock bottom. but, you would also have been wrong. because on friday afternoon newcastle united appointed a man that has been out of management since 2004; a man whose previous two jobs had seen failure in the lower tiers of english football; a man whose managerial peak came 11 years ago with an eighth place finish in the premier league.

on friday afternoon newcastle united appointed joe kinnear as their interim manager.

it might be that you respect kinnear's achievements with wimbledon in the nineties, the way he often managed to generate respectable league finishes with minute resources. and this is absolutely fair - what he did with wimbledon, homeless and without any sort of sustainable fan base or commercial model, was nothing short of amazing. but at the very least there should be an acknowledgement that the methods with which generated premier league success in 1997 are no longer always the methods that generate success nowadays; only those such as alex ferguson, managers who have had the ability to adapt and modify their style, have managed to bridge the premiership generation gap.

and so it goes. kinnear apparently isn't even likely to be in charge for more than 6 or 7 games: a takeover is apparently "imminent" (despite the fact it will take around 6 weeks to complete), at which point keegan will be back or shearer will installed in the job he surely lusts after. but this merely prolongs the period of upheaval, fully entrenching the club in crisis, awaiting a white knight that is nothing of the sort. keegan had the side in the right direction before his acrimonious departure, but how much credibility did he lose with the players when he walked out? and if dennis wise survived the takeover, surely his return would be impossible? shearer, on the other hand, lacks any sort of experience, and if we are to learn anything from his almost impossibly bad punditry, the man doesn't actually know a lot about football.

so could newcastle go down? another home defeat today leaves them second bottom, and it wouldn't really shock anyone if they didn't win a single one of their forthcoming games under joe kinnear. there is also the possibility of a mass exodus in january, with the potential for the more senior players to become utterly disenchanted with life in the north east (if they aren't already). if owen refuses to sign a new contract the club may hawk him around in the transfer window, and the symbolic importance that would have would be huge. you could quite easily envisage a situation in which 5 or 6 senior players request transfers.

if a prediction was totally necessary i would probably say they will escape relegation, for the simple reason that i believe there remains more quality in the newcastle side than at least 3 other teams in the league. but so often that counts for little and it may only be 6 games into the season but newcastle are undoubtedly in serious, unthinkable danger.

well, that was a nice surprise

alright, so yesterday i wrote that i felt england had the attacking players to cause croatia problems, and that england's horrendous attempts in past encounters had led to a general overrating of the opposition. however, i cannot pretend that i anticipated the events in zagreb last night - i still believed england would lose. looking back at the friendlies, it was the only conclusion; england had been frequently appalling. those saying "i always trusted capello" or "fabio had planned it all along" this morning are being slightly optimistic, given how messy england looked in those games. assuming capello had a plan all along must mean it was also planned for england to play badly, a subterfuge so ridiculously unlikely, and self-defeating, that we can safely say it isn't true. more likely is simply that given more time with the squad, and the chance to assess the players in previous matches, capello finally was in a position to select a side in which he was confident.

and how unexpected this performance was. yesterday, england were really good, obviously better than any performance under mcclaren, but also probably better than england played under eriksson. it was a performance that played to their strengths, one defined by a determined, measured, attacking intent that was sorely lacking under the swede. the newspapers this morning are suggesting that it is the best england performance since munich, but the scoreline and hazy memories of goal after goal distorts a performance that was the product of utterly hopeless german defending. this might have actually been better; bar 10 minutes england were comfortably superior, kept the ball well and manufactured excellent goals. more importantly, they kept the talented croatian side at arms length in a way that the england team in munich never did as they ripped apart a hapless german side largely on the counter.

for me, as an england fan, there were two really pleasing things about last night. the first is that england, for once, demonstrated the tremendous quality they possess. for all the nonsensical doom-mongering, the horrible cynicism about the "golden generation", the england squad has been filled with really great players, players who have excelled at the highest level of european club competition, for the past five years. it isn't good enough to dismiss the talent of these players with a wave of the hand and a muttering of "not technically good enough": this is a great squad, one that deserves to be ranked amongst the top five in the world. amongst european teams, only spain and france really have a superior array of talent throughout their side, and brazil and argentina are the only teams on a global level that can say the same. that england haven't played like it is an indictment of management, fitness and attitude, but yesterday we caught a glimpse of their true potential.

the second element of last night that made last night so enjoyable was the balance demonstrated by england. the attacking triumvirate of cole, rooney and walcott had a nice look to it, with the craft of rooney and cole (even if he didn't play particularly well before he collapsed) supplemented by the direct running of walcott. heskey was a nuisance in the best possible way, pressuring and distracting defenders whilst always looking to create space for others with his movement, in the way that jermain defoe could never do. barry and lampard performed nicely together, keeping modric quiet, particularly in the second half, and demonstrating an ability to keep the ball. it remains difficult to shake the fact that lampard is, at best, a complementary player only capable of playing well in a team that is playing well, but that shouldn't detract that this was his best performance for some time in an england shirt, more reminiscent of performances for his wonderfully effective chelsea side. when hargreaves and carrick return to fitness it would be difficult to ignore their claims for a recall at his expense, but the main question the match throws up concerns that scouse prince steven gerrard.

looking at yesterday's team, it is difficult to see where - and most surprisingly why - gerrard would come in. i say surprisingly because gerrard is a great player, perhaps the best all-round midfielder england possess, and someone whose greatness i have been quick to champion for many years. but he doesn't offer the running, or width, that walcott can on the right. he isn't as suited to the floating role on the left as joe cole, and surely cannot supplant the peerless wayne rooney behind the striker. that leaves two feasible spaces in the line up, replacing either lampard or barry. barry is a nice cog in the side, providing balance with his left foot and a reassuring simplicity with his passing; i would still probably replace him with michael carrick, who is just a better player, but his performances have demanded he be in contention. next to him, lampard proved a relative success last night but england would be better served with someone a little more disciplined and combative; if owen hargreaves is fit he surely should drop into the team. gerrard, ultimately, cannot be trusted to defend as well as the united man and, regardless, is wasted if asked to play that role anyway.

so how about this? right-back. yes. steven gerrard perhaps should play right-back for england. consider it - he has the athleticism necessary to play as an exceedingly good attacking full-back, as well as the physical strength and height that would make him difficult to target defensively. not to mention, his range of passing is excellent and he can cross. considering gerrard moaned last week about having only played in his preferred position "five out of sixty seven times" for england (utter nonsense), this wouldn't please him. but ultimately, it isn't about him, it is about england. and given that england don't have a right-back of real distinction (wes brown should be saluted for his efforts, but the man just isn't a full-back), and yet have a surfeit of complementary midfielders and attackers (steven gerrard not being amongst them), it makes sense to deploy a great player in a role that he could excel, even if playing there feels like a demotion.

of course, this is a mere suggestion, and i can envisage him playing next to owen hargreaves and england excelling. i saw him perform very well with gareth barry against russia at wembley last year, playing in central midfield. it might be that if mcclaren had stuck with that side, and not switched to a 4-3-3 with lampard, gerrard and barry all in midfield against croatia in november of that year, england might have still played in the european championships this summer. but given the potential shown by england last night, and the extra dimensions that a fit owen hargreaves and michael carrick can provide, england may be best served by at least exploring this option. but whatever fabio decides, the future suddenly looks bright for england.