well well well...

so last night was another surprise: manchester united rampant, arsenal pedestrian. a home win that was, for the most part, entirely comfortable. certainly not what was anticipated in these parts - for a variety of reasons.

united were excellent in patches, particularly during an opening twenty minutes in which they tore into the arsenal rearguard. with anderson prominent, suddenly and unexpectedly reinvigorated alongside a michael carrick, whose full range of passing and unerring vision - both offensive and defensive - was on diplay, and the usual exhibition of perpetual motion from darren fletcher, united took an iron grip on the midfield. what helped was the presence of carlos tevez upfront, whose presence drove their tempo and workrate into another gear, always pressing and always running, harrying arsene wenger's team from the off and not letting up until a deserved goal was scored. whilst the argentine frequently displayed that lack of quality that makes his £30m price tag such a laughable proposition, missing an absolute sitter and often finding his touch flawed, his graft gave united the balance they needed (and the balance they often lack with berbatov up front). down the flanks, rooney was again superb, frequently burrowing inside bacary sagna but such a consistent threat that the full-back simply couldn't leave him alone, and ronaldo - as with many games this season - ostentatiously flashed his abilities, the odd flick and run here, a shot crashed against the bar there. at the back, patrice evra was obscenely effective, turning in possibly his best defensive performance this season, unfazed by the pace of walcott outside. 

for arsenal, the opposite applied, with the defense looking shaky and possession either squandered as quick as possible, with too many aimless balls from touré looking for an isolated adebayor, or as slow as possible, with massed ranks of united midfielders easily resisting the more prolonged periods of walking pace passing. the struggles were many: full-backs had to be conservative due to the threat of rooney and ronaldo, whilst adebayor and abou diaby were woeful, and walcott spectacularly nullified by the outstanding evra. as such, fabregas was totally isolated, flittering between adebayor and nasri, feeding on scraps, his influence and passing wasted as arsenal failed to support. meanwhile, mickael silvestre was shaky - as always - and arsenal really suffered due to alex song playing too high up the pitch, getting sucked into making tackles in the domain of michael carrick rather than sitting deeper and preventing rooney and tevez turning and running at the back four. cumulatively, this allowed united to pile forward whenever they sensed a chance, but also to sit back and repel the hopeless arsenal attacks.

1-0, in a general sense, is a good result in a two-legged semi-final when you factor in the impact of away goals. yet, in all likelihood, arsenal will probably feel satisfied with that scoreline when they watch the DVDs back today. they were never even close, and will need a shocking transformation at the emirates to transform the tie into something even slightly competitive. they'll need to reorganise the team - moving diaby to the bench would be a good start, but they will be praying robin van persie returns to give them a bit more balance and would do well to consider giving carlos vela a chance to present his best andrey arshavin impression. 

united, on the other hand, would do well to simply trot out the same line-up. beat that. such was their domination that at this point every single member of that xi deserves their place in united's first choice team, having been party to one of the most coherent performances produced by the side in months. but arsenal must try, and given this represents the sole chance of glory this season for arsene's wenger's men, they are going to have to try quite hard. 

it will be an interesting couple of days.

well... that was certainly a bit underwhelming eh?

so i was right on two things: one, the chelsea - barca tie would be tight, much more so than anticipated, and barcelona as a side were patently not as good as the hype would suggest. 

but not really on anything else. chelsea did everything i said they shouldn't do, either by choice or simply because they had no other option: they sat deep, committed absolutely no one forward bar drogba and their passing was dreadful, retaining absolutely no possession. that they scraped a 0-0 was ultimately down to very good fortune, with bojan missing an absolute sitter in the last minute. 

it was generally a terrible game of football - for all of their shimmer and gloss, barca ran out of steam, losing their bearings during an awful second half as chelsea continued to bite into tackles and hoard men behind the ball. barcelona have been quick to blame both chelsea, for their continued fouling, and the referee wolfgang stark, for persistantly failing to award decisions to them. for the record, i think these are both off the mark - chelsea were physical and committed fouls, often quite clearly, but barcelona were often quick to moan after even the slightest contact and seemed to demand protection from a danger that was non-existant. the best example i can think was the the "foul" on andres iniesta that guardiola has since claimed should have seen ballack receive a second yellow: it wasn't even a foul, the barcelona man going to ground as soon as he felt any sort of contact. the fact is, barca were pitted against a team more physical and aggressive than any other opponent they faced this season and it clearly worried them throughout. 

of course, despite their lack of spark and their mounting frustration, barcelona would usually have won that game. they failed at times because of a persistant and unnecessary desire to try and walk the ball in - with henry a regular offender, failing to shoot or cross early enough even though he often had the chance to - and at others due to sheer incompetence. samuel eto'o needed to score when through on petr cech's goal, as did bojan in the 90th minute. but somehow, someway, this has been spun by the good people of fleet street as a sterling rearguard, despite cech ending up as man of the match. on another day chelsea would've gone down 2-0 and everyone would have bemoaned a performance characterised by a lack of ambition and quality. 

having been outplayed in the first leg, chelsea are in a strange position going into the second. they still need to score, yet will know that a game in which they even sight the levels of incompetence they reached last night will end in a rousing defeat. their defence was frequently stretched, particularly down the barca left where henry had the beating of ivanovic, and their midfield always outmanoeuvred. so, whilst their extra physicality certainly unsettled their opponents, they will be aware that there will exist a slight vulnerability, even if ivanovic is replaced by a returning ashley cole in the starting xi. chelsea will therefore need a strike a delicate balance at stamford bridge, and i believe it is one they're incapable of doing -  i do still believe barca will emerge victorious, but somehow i imagine it will be a more enthralling encounter than last night's turgid affair.

champions league preview: shocks to come?

quick thoughts on the semis before they start...

chelsea - barcelona

i think this is likely to be much closer than people anticipate. whilst i think that barca are the best team on the planet at the moment, i believe that they have benefitted from playing poor opposition in spain, in a league that suits them - they are given lots of time on the ball, the play is less physical than in others, and the defending, even by many of the better teams, is currently below-standard. they've destroyed a lyon team struggling to win ligue 1 this year and meted out a similar thrashing to an unbelievably weak bayern side who couldn't even defend their dignity.

although i don't buy into the hiddink revival too much - chelsea are still demonstrably the poorest they have been since mourinho first took the hot seat - i feel like barca will be caused problems tonight. the reason isn't because the midfield is more muscular than any xavi and iniesta usually have to deal with, although i do think that will have an impact, its just because barca can't defend very well. they don't possess a single centre-back with any pace, none of their back four are particularly strong and many - including the hideously overrated carlos puyol - just aren't very good. i think didier drogba can cause them all sorts of problems, especially if frank lampard is able to get into a rhythm with his passing. michael essien's force of nature routine can be very disruptive - i cannot think of anyone like him that barca would've faced this season - and i think that victor valdes and the rest of the team can be put under pressure at set pieces.

the worst thing for chelsea to do would be to sit back and play too passive - man united did that against the embarrassing rikjaard xi last year and nearly lost, so one can only imagine the carnage if chelsea think they can repel this year's version. they need to be aggressive and rapid, pressing forward and always looking to interrupt barca when the ball heads back towards valdes. although i think that they will still lose across the two legs, i genuinely believe that chelsea will make this tie very close. 

man united vs arsenal

i feel as if arsenal will win this tie. i don't think that victory against spurs papers over the cracks for united, who were poor again in the first half and benefitted from a total psychological breakdown from spurs to rip them to shreds in the second. even without arshavin, arsenal represent a massive danger for united, as witnessed in their first meeting this season back in the autumn - without enough players in midfield willing to do the hardwork, arsenal should be able to play through united. for united to win, they will need excellent performances from both vidic and ferdinand.

the only problem i can see for arsenal is the line-up wenger chooses to go with. denilson is simply not a good player, offering sideways passing and no defensive presence, and i think they would be best served with a song-nasri partnership, behind fabregas. 

for united, the key will need to be a better combination in midfield and attack. what saturday demonstrated again, is that the main problem with berbatov is that he is yet another lazy player in a team that doesn't have enough grafters to begin with. playing nani, ronaldo and berbatov was a step too far, and the benefit of having tevez and rooney on was manifested in a distinctly higher workrate & tempo. what united need to do is probably play park and fletcher alongside carrick, giving them just enough to allow the benefits of berbatov & ronaldo to be felt. 

we shall see.

in praise of frank lampard

for some reason, frank lampard isn't very popular.

sure, chelsea fans like him, he's scored lots and lots of goals for them over the years. but that doesn't really count, even someone with no interest in the game knows fans are invariably biased. so, any other fans with even the remotest bit of sympathy for him? anyone at all? look at his high-profile premiership peers and you realise that he's pretty lonely - steven gerrard gets lots of respect from other fans, including those of the national team, fabregas is widely lauded, michael carrick is turning into one of those "underrated" players everyone seems to rate, gareth barry is generally well-thought of, mascherano gets a grudging appreciation due to his childishness, everyone drools over xabi alonso's passing, tim cahill is the sort of player every fan wants on his team... even on his own team, neutrals seem to like michael essien quite a lot. but frank, frank seems to be bracketed in with john terry - and possibly ashley cole - as a select group of chelsea players seen as overrated by the media and generally annoying.

in part, its the chelsea effect. no one likes chelsea. they bought success, their fans were never particularly liked and have since seen their ranks flooded with a variety of people that, let's be honest, wouldn't have been fans if not for the abramovich millions. john terry suffers from that horribly dull media treatment he receives - let us call it the andy townsend effect - with endless repetition of that "he's a leader, a soldier, he's so brave" meme. ashley cole? well, ashley cole is a scumbag who is married to the "world's sexiest woman" (thanks FHM!). frank... well, frank is a bit annoying: he kisses the badge a bit, he's probably scored the winner against your team, he's won lots, isn't afraid to indulge in some post-match clichés, was loved by jose mourinho, and plays badly for england.

that last one is quite important. the upshot of the terrible sven years - underperformance in major tournaments, blamed principally on that failed lampard/gerrard axis - was that frank's reputation was in tatters. with a game less flashy than steven gerrard's, goals yes, but none of those electrifying bursts that characterise the liverpool captain's game, he was written off by fans. a system player they said. all mourinho. just scores deflected goals. only scores because he takes so many shots. nothing without makelele. or drogba. passes sideways. no skill. can't tackle.

in many ways, he suffers because of two things - one, he scores goals, lots of them, and two, he's a genuinely good all round player. the goals mean that people who don't really watch the game default to that position of "he just shoots a lot and scores the odd goal", and the fact he's more measured in his approach, not really outstanding in any single way - apart from scoring - means he becomes a soft target for those looking to analyse the game in superlatives only. the moments of unparalleled genius are rare, which means he suffers in comparison to those with the trademark moments of transcendent ability, the volleyed last minute cup final winner, the 35 yarder as a 17 year old, the countless youtube clips of you spinning and swivelling past bemused defenders. for frank lampard, those don't really exist. that culture, the one of the forwarded video clip of the 13 year old prodigy, the 10 second nuggets, doesn't suit frank lampard.

but frank lampard is a great player.

first, rather than denigrating it, let's celebrate that scoring record. he's scored more than 10 premier league goals for 6 straight seasons now, which is absolutely remarkable. as a comparison, paul scholes - a genuinely well regarded scoring midfielder in his prime - has done it once. steven gerrard three times. ryan giggs twice. in his seven premier league seasons, gianfranco zola did it twice. dennis bergkamp did it four times. away from the premier league, zinedine zidane did it twice, ten years apart. the purpose of these comparisons is not to put forward lampard as the equal as any of those players - although he certainly might be - but simply to put it into its proper context. what frank lampard has done is genuinely amazing.

it is, of course, in part to his rather underappreciated durability & stamina. in his first six seasons at chelsea, he missed just six premier league games, playing the full 38 three years in a row; since breaking into the west ham first team in 97-98, he has had only one season in which he has played less than 30 games (the injury riddled 07-08 campaign), and at one point established a new premier league record of 164 consecutive games played, overtaking david james. for a modern footballer, this is surely equal to his scoring record - midfield players don't do that, certainly not those that cover the sheer amount of turf as he does. for the record, steven gerrard has never appeared in 38 premier league games in a single season.

this isn't to suggest that durability is proof of greatness. but durability is undoubtedly a virtue, in the same way that other preternatural physical abilities possessed by sportspeople are - that ability to change direction in the blink of an eye whilst still keeping balance is treated as a true gift, whilst other physical capabilities are ignored. not interesting, i know. but when you're going for the league and cup double in the spring and your star midfielder doesn't need a rest, that benefit cannot be understated. and for chelsea this year, still going in three tournaments, frank lampard has been virtually ever present whilst all those around him have been rotated in and out, whilst also playing for the national side.

alright, you say, i'll give you the scoring and the durability. those are pretty impressive. but what about the rest of his play? still a product of the freedom granted to him by excellent defensive midfielders, of that system?

well, not quite. people are quick to forget that during the 2003/2004 season, lampard was outstanding: the midfielder scored 10 goals whilst dictating the chelsea play from midfield, driving the team forward. whilst ranieri had dipped into the ambramovich millions during the summer of 2003 to purchase claude makelele, he was often ineffective in the italian's system and lampard was their pre-eminent player. often, amidst the adulation heaped upon paul scholes, it is said that the biggest tragedy was seeing him played out of position to accomodate others; a disgrace, it is said. but this analysis forgets that by 2003/2004, lampard had become such a good player that he fully deserved to be displacing scholes in the england line-up.

by the start of the mourinho era lampard had developed into quite a player - his physical strength and stamina allied to an extreme diligence in both training and positioning, his passing moulded not quite to the metronomic quality of classic playmakers, but to a direct, perceptive style, perfectly crafted for a high-tempo team that thrived on the counter-attack. the powerful, measured flavour of his play, the adept and instinctive off-the-ball movement, made him ideal for the system instituted by the portuguese, and his play reached new heights. in 2005 he was the runner up for both the fifa world player of the year and the balon d'or, losing both to the garish talent of ronaldinho.

forgotten are the quality and consistency of his performances - the outrageously dominant game against barcelona at the nou camp during the champions league group stages in 2006/2007 - and dismiss (as with many english players) the technical prowess - witness that chipped goal against hull earlier this year.

the remarkable thing is that those powers haven't waned. lampard is now in his thirties, but possesses the same workrate and drive as ever, has scored another 12 premier league goals and continues to be chelsea's creator in midfield, racking up 9 assists (joint second in the league). just yesterday his current manager guus hiddink laughed off reports that he might be rested against west ham, saying

“Frank is one of those players who loves to play every day. When you see him after the Everton game the other day — normally a low-intensity session — he was doing his accelerations out on the pitch. He’s so strong."

of course, lampard started whilst essien, ballack and drogba were all rested; for all of the talk that michael essien has reinvigorated this chelsea team, without frank lampard they would be nowhere. the goalie has wobbled and the defence frequently underperforming, involving equal parts injury and incompetence. the midfield has been narrow and stale, with michael ballack depreciating horribly, deco losing his bearings and the small problem of no wide players. up front, they've made do with a mediocre one-trick pony for most of the season. no bench. one man makes that side tick, yet after multiple league titles & trophies, few would receive such little recognition for it.

chelsea's player of the season, possibly the best in the premier league as well. not even on the shortlist for the PFA player of the year.

obviously.

i wasn't intending to post on it...

...but what a truly sensational game that was between manchester united and porto.

i think i picked up my laptop after 87 minutes, inspired by united's second, only to switch it on, glance back at the tv and witness porto sweep forward to score a precious precious equaliser. no one seemed to believe what they were watching: an eery silence inside old trafford, even clive tyldesley hesitated in disbelief before acknowledging the goal. porto had secured an unbelievably good draw. what a match.

the first point to make is just how thoroughly enjoyable the game was, so much more so than any other first leg i can remember at this stage of the champions league. received wisdom dictates conservatism from visitors, to sit back and attack on the break: minimise the score against whilst grabbing an away goal. but porto hadn't bothered to acknowledge their expected sense of moderation, vigorously attacking the united defence, breaching it after only 4 minutes and causing problems throughout the match. united, dazed for so long after that moment, responded by opening up themselves and suddenly it was breathless stuff.

porto were excellent. fernando was superlative in front of his defence, showing an acute sense of timing and positioning far in excess of his experience, whilst lucho linked the defence and the dangerous, rangy three-pronged attack of hulk, lisandro & rodriguez well. they passed the ball with intent, and drove men forward through the midfield of united, encouraging the full-backs to join in and overload down the flanks. in the first half it was just too much for united, with one attacker dropping deep to collect, the other two peeling off and causing problems for the remaining defenders. even in the second half, when united were ascendant, they still dared to push on. away goals eh?

united, on the other hand, were a beguiling mix of the dangerous and the disorganised. in responding to porto's initial agression, ferguson spread the team out, placing fletcher onto the right side and ronaldo further up; whilst this provided more options for them as they went forward, it exposed their need for a midfield anchor. too often were those porto attackers, particularly hulk, allowed to pick the ball up deep and turn, running at an uncomfortable vidic and a struggling evans. contrast this with porto, and you saw the efficiency of fernando in snuffing out united in central areas. united had an immobile, sieve-like paul scholes and a reluctant michael carrick. it wasn't good enough. (even the indefatigable darren fletcher, one of those players i've consistently championed, was partially at fault for the equaliser - carrick failed to get tight, porto drove forward and fletcher allowed his man to overload neville, who was sucked into the middle. mariano did the rest.)

but towards the end of the first half and into the second, united were a flawed masterpiece - they began to overwhelm the porto ranks, ronaldo causing problems with his movement and the full backs pushing high up the pitch to provide width. possession came, and the passing probed a well drilled defence. little touches failed, flicks and nudges were just too heavy, but still they came. and one man was at the heart of it: wayne rooney. the striker was magnificent, absolutely magnificent, playing further forward than most (including myself) assume to be comfortable; he lead the line with such surety, his movement superb, a continual menace. a goal & an assist (and what an assist) were a fitting haul.

but ultimately the best thing about this game was that it sets up next week's second leg perfectly: united cannot sit back because porto have two - two! - away goals, yet everyone, including jesualdo ferreira, knows that porto have the ability to score against this side. i cannot wait.

crouch was the problem last night for england

now, lets not get confused: i like me some peter crouch. he's one of the better technicians england possess in the final third, a thoughtful, dangerous striker who in should be well suited to the quick interchanges of rooney, gerrard and lampard. and as a further rejoinder, i am a big fabio capello fan: for all of the "i'm desperate not to overrate him in case we're all being fooled yet again" talk you see in the media, he really is by far and away the best coach england have possessed in quite some time. 

yet capello's selection of crouch last night really hindered the rest of the team. 

it is quite simple really, disturbingly so when you read nonsense like richard williams' in the guardian today, saying how well crouch suited england. the fact is that the way capello had set his side up required more than the gangly (note: i am required by the fa to use this adjective whenever describing p-crouch) striker could ever hope to provide. and this isn't really a criticism, but a statement of fact - what england required last night was mobility and incision, but that isn't crouch's game. the pompey man is an excellent predator, good linking attack and midfield, but doesn't have that muscular power that england required. and the side was all the poorer for it. 

think about england last night - how they lined up and how ukraine attempted to stifle them. across midfield you had aaron lennon playing very wide, hugging the touchline, whilst on the other side you had steven gerrard playing slightly inside, looking to link with rooney, who had seemingly been given complete freedom of the park. (as an aside, this wouldn't be possible with beckham in the side as he too drifts inside, compressing the play and making it more difficult to retain possession.) now, this worked: ukraine pulled their left-back right out to cover lennon, and whilst the spurs man was only intermittantly effective, his pace means that he cannot be left open. this stretched ukraine, often leaving big channels between their left-sided defenders; with tymoschuk drawn to his right by the danger of rooney and gerrard, there was often acres of space down inside lennon. 

this is where crouch needed to be - attacking the defender nearest lennon, exploiting the space afforded to him by the countless attacking options presented by england, drawing more attention away from the gerrard-rooney axis -  but he wasn't. largely, he was a bit lost - not quite on the same wavelength the rest of the attack, getting slightly in the way, staying too central. he was even largely bereft of touch, too often conceding the ball when challenging to hold it up and distribute. 

instead, england would have benefitted from emile heskey, whose physicality allows him to exploit areas such as these, areas that aren't so easy for crouch to reach with any frequency. as such, england struggled to keep the ball as easily as they should've done, with attacks regularly breaking down as ukraine kept plenty of men behind the ball. this was compounded even further with the introduction of beckham, further reducing england's options in possession and making the side almost wholely reliant on rooney to create. in fairness to the united man, he was phenomenal, a genuine threat whenever he gathered the ball, and produced three of the very best passes you will see this, pinging the ball from left to right as he looked for the isolated lennon.

of course, this isn't a massive problem for england - the fact is that strikers will return and crouch will be reduced to cameo appearances. but it is nevertheless indicative of how capello's system is developing, and just how much tactics (what a shock!) and good management can transform a side. which may come as news to all the idiots that beg for michael owen and simple 4-4-2.