They're Only Human

There have been surprisingly few articles circulating the web which detail just why Barcelona are so good this season, given that they almost have the same group of players which performed so terribly last season. At least I haven't come across many. Consistent excellence is hard to write about without sounding redundant, exaggerative, or gaining a reaction something along the lines of "Duh". Sid Lowe of Football Weekly fame wrote a good piece in December which I'd recommend, but apart from that generally all you will read about is that Barcelona were bloody good once again, hammering X [X = any team in La Liga] and basically looking unbeatable. To be honest, that's probably all anyone really needs to know when it comes to reading about Barca. To really gain an appreciation for "Pep's Dream Boys" (as they have been rather embarrassingly called) you have to see them in the flesh, or at least on an illegal stream of GolTV. If you're a fan of beautiful football -- and this blog certainly is -- then I cannot recommend the experience enough.

Now, having said all of that, I'm going to concentrate on an aspect of Barcelona which is even less publicized than the reasons for their success - their weaknesses. There is of course a good reason for this: They haven't shown many. However, there are still some to be found if you look beyond the slick interplay and devastating creativity and guile. Perhaps some of them are dormant, awaiting the arrival of a crunch game before errupting. Perhaps some of them are my own hunches with no grounding in truth. Still, even the great Achilles had a dodgy heel, whilst Superman still wretches at the sight of kryptonite. No matter how good you are, there can be cause for defeat if your opposition plays his cards right. In Barcelona's case it seems the Champions League poses the only real threat to their global domination, so where exactly can Lyon (or whoever else might end up pitted against Barca in subsequent rounds) exploit in order to gain unlikely victory?

We start in between the sticks with Victor Valdes. He's not a bad goalkeeper, but he's not exactly top tier either. Like most goalkeepers in the modern game he's a very good shot stopper, but when it comes to command of his domain he doesn't always inspire confidence. He is only just north of 6ft after all, so he's certainly not the tallest in his profession. Pump some decent corners, crosses and free-kicks into his box and you may find some joy, not only because of his deficiencies but also because...

Barcelona's team is incredibly small as a whole. People like Messi, Xavi, and Iniesta are not the most intimidating figures in an aerial battle, while even a defender like Carlos Puyol -- good as he is in the air -- will struggle against someone with height. Gerard Pique is also liable to lose more than his fair share of mid-air collisions, so there is a definite case to be made for throwing on your tallest players, lumping high balls into Barcelona's box and just going nuts.

As a defensive unit, the back four can also be a little disjointed. They play a very high line, which in Dani Alves's case lies somewhere between the oppositions box and the half way line. I've seen Barcelona look very susceptible to a simple through ball, so with an average creative talent in midfield and a striker who can make half decent runs (something along the lines of a Michael Carrick/Carlos Tevez combo) there are chances to be had. Of course you have to get the ball first which is easier said than done, but once you have it and use it economically, you may find yourself getting in on goal rather easily. Villarreal proved this true before Christmas, losing that game only because of wasteful finishing. Barcelona may find Karim Benzema or Nicholas Anelka to be not so wasteful.

In midfield Barcelona have no major weak points. Toure is reasonably good both on the ball and off it, Xavi is in the form of his life, Iniesta is beginning to prove himself one of the best players around, and Keita is finally settling down after a couple of ropey months. Along with the forward players who track back this Barca midfield doesn't give you much time on the ball. There is no escaping the fact that the Catalans win their games in the centre of the field first, and then go on to win games by scoring goals.

The only way to combat this therefore is to press them from the wings. Allow Messi and Alves to attack you and you're asking for trouble. Xavi will link up with them all day and eventually you will crack. However, put someone with good dribbling skills on the wing and you may just either force Dani Alves to defend, or find yourself with ample opportunities to swing balls into the box. This is a risky strategy of course, but by trying to contain Barcelona you are playing into their hands. They have the ability to break you down, and if you let them there is a good chance they will do it. However, attack them with pace and flair on the flanks and while you may risk conceding a few more goals, you heftily increase your chances of scoring a few.

This may not always be possible. Heroic defending coupled with clinical finishing might just be most teams' best way of winning. And of course there is no escaping the reality that every player on your team will have to run his socks off chasing the ball to have a hope of killing the giant. However, according to Paul Doyle of the Guardian Lyon have resigned to the fact that Barcelona are going to score a hat full of goals, so they are bolstering their attack in order to try and score more. Will their strategy work? It just might, but even if it doesn''t we're still in for a cracking game.

Up front is where Barcelona appear the most devastating, but as I've said I think it's midfield where they are the superior specimens and it is from there that they win their games. The statistics will tell otherwise though, with Messi, Henry and Eto'o having something like 45 league goals between them. Messi is just Messi. You simply have to put about 3 guys on him and repeatedly kick him to have any chance of taming the Argentine. However, for me, Eto'o and Henry are not as good as their stats make them out to be.

While Henry has undoubtedly improved since last season, that blistering pace of his -- you know, the thing that made him so effective -- has all but gone. He still has something to offer, but against a good defense I think he could be shown up and shut up. His goals this season have masked some poor performance, but they are still goals nonetheless. For now he looks the Thierry of old, but me and my gut instinct are not convinced.

Neither are we convinced about Samuel Eto'o. The Cameroon hitman with the genocidal look in his eyes is on course for the Pichichi, but when it matters most I think he could possibly prove to be a weak link. He missed a crucial penalty against Madrid earlier in the season, and for me he just isn't clinical enough in front of goal. He does score a lot of course, but if you look at the chances he gets he could probably score twice as much. It's a similar story to Adebayor of Arsenal last season. He got a lot of goals, but when it mattered he didn't quite deliver.

Against Man United last season it was Eto'o who cost Barca the game. Almost every chance they had fell to him, and he wasted them all. In such tight games you need a striker you can rely on, and I don't believe Eto'o to be that striker.

Barcelona have been accused of "Messi dependency", which I think is an accusation with an element of truth to it. Of course when you have a player of Messi's calibre in your squad you are always going to depend on him to some extent, but when he doesn't play it should be a cause for worry that neither Eto'o nor Henry appear capable of stepping up to the plate. In my opinion Messi isn't necessarily carrying Barcelona per se, but he is carrying his two forward partners. While the pocket-sized wizard remains fit this is not a problem, but should he be forced out through injury Barcelona could find themselves having lots of the ball but little to show for it.

So therein lie some of the weaknesses I perceive in the Barcelona team. Are they the best football team right now? Unquestionably. Are they beatable? Absolutely.

The Fame Game

I don't want to name drop or anything, but...

Ah what the hell, I do want to name drop. If you listen to Thursdays Football Weekly, you'll find that one djkelly is slagged off by Barry Glendenning for not getting out enough, and by Sean Ingle for being an inferior statistician. Well, I am that djkelly!

What I didn't understand about the whole thing was the fact that my "stats" were simply that Robin van Persie has scored 12 goals this season, and assisted 11. In other words, not very impressive, and quite possibly not even 100% accurate. Still, it was very cool getting a mention on a favourite podcast of mine, and being discussed by Richardson, Ingle, and Glendenning.

To blow my own trumpet even louder, this is actually the second time something like this has happened. I had completely forgotten about the first time until yesterday since it was so irrelevant, but about a year or two ago I used to regularly watch Real Madrid TV, and especially a program called "Extra Time" which was a discussion program featuring Sid Lowe and Tim Stannard among others. They were asking viewers to send in emails about their favourite goals, so I sent one in about Cambiasso's goal in World Cup 2006 and they read it out and had a little talk about it.

Anyway, that's more than enough about my 15 minutes. Onto the more serious business of Dirk Kuyt moving to Juve for 28m...

Since It's Pick on 'Arry Day...

This is the lookalike I've been searching for all my life, but couldn't quite put my finger on. Thank you to the Football365 podcast for enlightening me...

Catch 22

"I will go to Old Trafford with the weakest team I can possibly find."

So said Harry Redknapp after yesterday's almost disastrous result.

My question is, If you're a Spurs squad player who never gets a game, do you hope you're picked for Saturday, or do you hope Harry overlooks you?

Talk about a catch 22. If you're picked, it means you qualify as being a member of the worst team Harry can possibly put out. If you're not picked, then it means you're not even good enough to start on Harry's "weakest team".

Way to give the squad a much needed boost of confidence, 'Arry. And to think I accused him of being too warm and cuddly not so long ago. You've changed, man.

Young And Old

Apparently Sir Alex will give his latest crop of fledglings a run around in the Carling Cup final since they performed so admirably in the penultimate match. They will most likely be pitted against the more experienced Tottenham Hotspurs in what should be a decent game of young verses old. Here's a related fact:

Average age of United's starting 11 against Derby on Tuesday: 24

Average age of Tottenham's starting 11 against Portsmouth on Sunday: 24

A team of fledglings? No. A team largely consisting of players who will either one day play for Middlesborough or else continue to remain second-string for United until the end of their sad careers? Quite possibly.

Cold Shoulder

So much for the arm-around-the-shoulder style of man management. It seems as if 'Arry has abandoned this tactic in favour of slagging off his players - the method Paul Jewel employed for much of 07/08 whilst in charge at Derby. Here's what Redknapp had to say about Darren Bent's shocking miss on Sunday:

"You will never get a better chance to win a match than that. My missus could have scored it."

Right, so, um, Darren Bent isn't a "fantastic player" then? I wonder if Bent will appear on Football Focus again lauding Harry for his new, cold shoulder-style of management?

"Harry came into the dressing room, told me I'm absolutely rubbish, and that was the motivation I needed for going out there and trying to improve."

It's always win-win with Harry, isn't it? I hate that.

No Dice

A few hours after my previous post in which I urged Kaka to resist City's seduction, it was announced that the Brazilian maestro is staying in Milan. Coincidence?

Very much so, but still. I can dream...

Kaka's decision not to join the richest club in the world will possibly have as much future impact as a decision to join would have had. If he moved to City, one can only assume that a few other very good players would have joined him, thinking "Well if it's good enough for Kaka..." However, now that he has decided not to leave he will most likely be praised for his loyalty and willingness to forfeit incredibly large piles of cash. Given this praise, will other big name players want to face the ridicule of failing to do what Kaka did?

I think that Kaka's decision was always going to set a trend, and unfortunately -- from a Manchester City perspective -- it's not going to be a promising one. Well, at least they got Craig Bellamy....[???]

I think that the only way of salvaging this situation is for the Abu Dhabi group to sack Hughes and bring in a big name manager. That sounds a bit harsh and knee-jerkish, but I think we all know it's inevitable, so the sooner the better in my opinion, before Man City's squad starts to consist largely of mid-table standard Premier League players...and Nigel de Jong, about whom I know absolutely nothing. I remember a John de Jong however, who was quite good in one (or several) of the old Championship Manager games, but that's neither here nor there.

Finally, with Kaka refusing City, does this mean Arsenal's plans of signing Arshavin will come undone? I don't think I'm taking a wild stab in the dark by saying that there's a good chance Man City will make a move for the Russian playmaker, but will he want to involve himself in a relegation fight? Very intriguing times ahead indeed.

Big Deal At Man City

Apparently Kaka wants to know Manchester City's recruitment plan before signing on the dotted lines and selling his soul to Satan (if you believe some doom-mongers). Well Riki, if you're reading this -- and I assume you are since this blog has had quite literally dozens of hits over the past 5 months -- then here's the latest on City's spending policy: They've just signed Craig Bellamy for an "undisclosed fee" (read: A fee so enormous that frankly we're a little embarrassed to announce it).

Yes, that's Craig Bellamy, formerly of almost every other club in the Premier League. One must ask the simple question 'Why?'. Why would any team with ambition sign Craig Bellamy? If the papers are right and City do have a two-track transfer policy -- one for the Sheiks and one for Hughes -- then it's safe to assume that this signing comes from the latter track, in which case Mark Hughes really doesn't have a clue, does he?.

I've heard people expressing doubts about Hughes recently, and I have to say that I'm beginning to take that stance myself. Is he really qualified enough to be handling players like Kaka and Robinho? The football that City play doesn't suggest as much, nor does his eagerness to have Santa Cruz spearheading his attack.

As Sean Ingle said on Football Weekly concerning footballing style under Mark Hughes, it's "as cultured as Luton on a Friday night". I don't know what Luton is like on Friday's, but I'm guessing it's not very cultured, which is an apt description of the kind of football generally played under Hughes' tenure. Cesc Fabregas would certainly agree anyway, having famously (and rather tastelessly) asked Mark Hughes how he could ever have played for Barcelona given the fact his Blackburn side were in effect the anti-Barcelona.

I haven't been sure whether Kaka moving to City would please me or not, but with City's capture of Bellamy my mind is now made up. Kaka coming to the Eastlands would be horrible to see. The thought of him playing alongside the hazard that is Craig Bellamy makes my skin crawl, and it's something I hope doesn't happen for the sake of everything good and pure in this world. However, if Kaka can see past the badness in Bellamy (and I'm sure £500, 000 a week will aid him in gaining this perception) and thus decides to come to Manchester, then I have but one piece of advice for him: For the love of God do not bring your golf clubs with you. You'll only end up regretting it in the long run.

On a more serious note, I don't see why Kaka would want to come to Manchester City, and why A.C. Milan would want to sell him. I can't envisage the money being a factor in Kaka's decision due to the economic theory of diminishing returns if not his religious convictions, and so in my mind there is no other reason to join City. Champisons League football in one and a half years is the very best they can offer him, but with acquisitions such as Bellamy being made and a vigorous pursuit of Santa Cruz seemingly ongoing, it doesn't seem like City are buying the kind of players that win you Champions League football, and Hughes doesn't appear to be the kind of manager capable of orchestrating a team of that standard.

And so on a personal level it will most likely represent a major step backwards in the career of Kaka. Should he get out of Milan? I think so. After all, if they are prepared to sell one of the best players in the world then they really don't have any footballing ambition whatsoever and so it is time to get out of a sinking ship - a sinking ship that entertains players such as Senderos and Beckham no less...or more accurately, a sinking ship because it entertains such substandard players. I mean would Barcelona sell Messi? I honestly don't think they would for any amount of money, unless of course Messi himself wanted to leave. You just can't put a price on such talent, because it is one of a kind and therefore irreplaceable.

The bottom line is that football clubs don't exist to make money. There is nothing wrong with them making money of course, but first and foremost a football club exists in order to win trophies (unless you're Newcastle of course), and out of that the money and prestige comes. The Abu Dhabi group are trying to turn the game on its head by forcing clubs to value money more than talent and trophies. They're turning Indecent Proposal into a real life scenario, offering clubs $1m dollars to sleep with their best player...or something. Yes they are trying to score genuine talent, but so was Robert Redford. The means however is at the very least unconventional, and at worst extremely unethical.

I genuinely hope it doesn't work. Seeing Kaka in the Premier League would obviously be a major plus, but a potentially dangerous precedent will be set if a team battling relegation can acquire the services of one of the top three players in the world. I wouldn't blame Kaka for getting out of Milan, nor would I even blame him for joining City. Ultimately, the blame lands on those who choose to sell him. If Kaka feels expendable, then by all means leave. But by leaving to Manchester City he will be potentially wasting the prime of his career, and this is time that he will never get back.

It's a tough situation for all involved, and I'm still not sure what I think about it, even though I just said that I'm definitely sure what I think about it a few paragraphs ago. Something's not right about it though. I'm just not sure I can pinpoint it exactly. If anyone has any similar of contrasting opinions then do share. I'd be extremely interested to hear them.

Talking 'Bout The Issues, But Keepin' It Funky

Having watched roughly 7 hours of football over the weekend, I feel like there's almost too much to discuss. Are Aston Villa more lucky than good? Will Chelsea's comeback really be a turning point, or was a narrow victory over Stoke further proof of inner problems? Is this the worst title race in terms of quality for quite some time? Can van Persie be considered the most valuable player in the league right now? What are Man City playing at by trying to sign Bellamy? Would Kaka moving be a good thing or a bad thing in the grand scheme of things? Does this current Barcelona squad have the potential to be the best club team ever? Does Messi have the potential to be the greatest player ever?

I may get to discussing some of these issues over the coming weeks, but there is one major talking point that demands attention above the rest. One issue that manages to rise above even the ongoing Kaka saga. And that issue is...How good a commentator is Ray Hudson?

You may never have heard of Ray Hudson before. He played most of his football in America, and spent some time coaching there too. However, what he did in the past is irrelevent. What he is doing now is all that matters, and what he's doing now is tearing me apa...

Not quite. Right now Ray Hudson works as a co-commentator on GolTV. I don't know much about GolTV, but I do know that you can pick it up on TVU quite clearly (and I assume quite illegally also) if you're interested in watching La Liga games. Trust me, it's worth it. Not just to see the wonderful Barcelona strut their stuff, but to hear the absolute gold dust that comes ouf of Hudson's mouth.

I love watching Barcelona play as much as the next guy, and I've made no secret about the fact that I think Lionel Messi is the best player in the world. But Ray Hudson takes it to a whole new level. I can't find anything recent on Youtube to prove my point, but here's a clip from a while back which does as much. Just listen to his disturbing noises as Messi dribbles towards the goal. ** shudder **

As much as he loves Messi however, it seems one Juan Roman Riquelme has gripped Hudson's heart as much as he has gripped mine. Watch these two videos for confirmation:

Riquelme Love In Pt 1

Riquelme Love In Pt 2

(Hudson actually calls him "Romy" in the second clip, which ends on the rather homoerotic note of "...he gets seduced by this..."

Finally, here's an assortment of clips -- mainly of Romy it has to be said -- which basically sum up the man, the myth, the legend that is Ray Hudson. And if you think these are isolated incidents then trust me, tune in to GolTV and you will hear otherwise. The man churns this stuff out ad nauseum, and I for one can't help but love him for it.

God bless you Ray Hudson, you commentator sent from heaven on a silver altar carried by a Jedi Knight...no wait...a Templar Knight.

Cutting Corners

A quick word on United's disallowed goal/corner kick last Sunday. Personally, I'd have disallowed it too, although I'm not quite sure there is a rule against such trickery. If there isn't then there should be. Not because it's against the spirit of the game (James Richardson of Football Weekly likens it to running up to the opposition goalkeeper and shouting "Look out behind you!"), although it may well be that. For me, the reason why this corner kick should be illegal is because it is indefendable, if such a word exists.

Basically, you cannot defend properly against this corner. When Rooney tapped the ball out of the little quadrant, he was covertly passing it to Giggs, and therefore the ball became 'live' unbeknownst to everyone but the United players. Had say, Ashely Cole, somehow caught on to this, it was within his rights to go and collect the ball and hoof it up the field. However, had he done so, Giggs could have simply said that the corner hadn't been taken yet, and that Rooney was just leaving it for him. When this corner is executed, there is no proof that it has been taken, therefore all of the power is held in the takers' hands. If it works, then they gain a distinct advantage; if it doesn't work, they can just claim that they weren't trying it and proceed to take a normal corner. In other words, it's win-win for the attackers and lose-lose for the defenders. Such a scenario should not be allowed.

Informing the linesman doesn't really come into play, because a) it will most likely ruin the element of surprise unless you do it ultra discreetly, in which case the game of football becomes a battle of espionage antics and thus a joke, and b) there are no linesmen half of the time corner kicks are taken. Therefore the only sensible thing to do is to ban this type of corner kick, because there is no way to properly regulate it.

Gourcuff pt 2

I've mentioned him before, but having just seen his goal against PSG I can't help but mention him again. New Zidane or not, this is a goal of sublime technique which the great Zizou would have been proud of. If Gourcuff stays at Bordeaux next season I'll be very surprised/disappointed.

Watch the goal here and be impressed.

Mind Games

Mind games. What are they exactly? The dictionary defines them as "a sequence of acts of calculated psychological manipulation". Whatever the precise definition, apparently Alex Ferguson is a master at them. What Derren Brown is to mind games, Alex Ferguson is to, um, eh, mind games. The way some people talk about Sir Alex you'd swear he has a couple of PhD's in psychology and has memorised The Art of War by Sun Tzu. His mind game prowess has become the stuff of legends, with his psychological victory over Keegan over a decade ago held up as a triumph for cunning and intellect.

Sir Alex Ferguson is the best manager around today, there's no question about that. But his "mind games" are nothing more than undignified swipes at inferior rivals. There's no "psychological manipulation" to them; nothing intellectual or cunning. Nothing to make you go "Alex Ferguson is inside my head! I can't get him out! These mind games are confusing me! Heeeeeelp!" and then proceed to jump out of the nearest window, or perhaps just lose the title race.

Consider his latest pyschological masterstroke. About a week ago he said concerning Liverpool that "There's no doubt that in the second half of the season they will get nervous". Regarding his own team, he said "With the experience we've got, having won a couple of titles in the past couple of years especially, it helps you. There's no doubt about that", finishing off with "They're [Liverpool] going into the unknown, and if you make mistakes, then you are punished."

In other words, Ferguson said that Liverpool probably won't be able to deal with the pressure at the top. So what? Has this completely changed all of the Liverpool players' mentality? Have they suddenly gone from being title contenders to title bottlers in the space of a week? All Ferguson did was poke fun at Liverpool in a childlike manner. It was akin to a street kid saying "My dad is bigger than your dad", except replace the word dad with squad and the word bigger with more experienced. Undignified insult of a bully? Check. Calculated psychological manipulation? Certainly not.

The biggest shame in all of this lands on large portions of the media, who praise Ferguson's childish insults, thus encouraging him and others to act in such a tasteless fashion. Could you imagine Ferguson's reaction if instead of reading about his mind game virtuosity, he read in the papers the headline "Ferguson produces another childish display indecency"? Surely the BBC should be able to take this hard line approach, what with Ferguson not talking to them anyway.

Liverpool will most likely not go on to win the title, but their failure will have little to do with Fergie's jibes, and a lot to do with Lucas Leiva, Yossi Benayoun Dirk Kuyt starting all too regulary. People may point to Sir Alex's mind games and Benitez's over the top reaction when identifying the moment that Liverpool let it all slip away, but in such an instance Ferguson will be receiving due praise for the wrong reasons while Benitez will be receiving due criticism for the wrong reasons. Ferguson should be praised for winning a crucial game with Park, Flechcer and Giggs making up three quarters of his midfield, and Benitez should be criticised for drawing a crucial game because Leiva and Benayoun made up half of his. Whether Benitez's rant was ill-timed or not is irrelevant. What's relevant is that he makes ill-advised personnel changes, and that he has absolutely no suitable cover for Xabi Alonso.

The destination of the title will not hinge on the words of a bully or the words of a "disturbed" man. It will hinge, as it always does, on quality. United possess more of it than their rivals. All Ferguson's "mind games" do is actually undermine the good work that he continues to accomplish.

Football In Slow Motion

A couple of months ago I expressed some concerns over Chelsea's inability to produce on the big stage. Subsequent losses against Arsenal and Man Utd have confounded those concerns. However, it's not the defeats themselves that have knocked Chelsea back - it's the manner in which they lost. Against Arsenal they managed approximately two shots on target, and looked completely bereft of ideas on how to claw their way back into the game once going 2-1 behind. I mean they didn't even try lumping long balls up to an advanced John Terry. What was up with that? And on Sunday, against Man Utd, the barely registered a shot worthy of the name over the 90 minutes.

It's not that Chelsea were bad. It's that they were so bad, Ji Sung Park (or Park Ji Sung, or Sung Ji Park, or Ji Park Sung, or Sung Park Ji) was made to look a decent attacking threat. Heck, a midfield consisting of Darren Fletcher and 35 year old Ryan Giggs was made to look dynamic, which says alot more about Chelsea's haplessness than United's Scots/Welsh midfield duo.

United were deserving winners of course, but if truth be told, it was a low quality game. Man United were the far superior team, but collectively they never really rose above 6 out of 10. And what's more worrying from a Chelsea point of view, they never had to. Man Utd didn't necessarily out-pass Chelsea, or display more adroit technique. Their play was sloppy at times, and only when Chelsea were forced to open up did they really begin to look somewhat creative. What they did do different to Chelsea however was a) Defend set-pieces well, b) Run reasonably quickly, and c) Offer penetrative width.

Chelsea have become -- to use a favourite phrase of Dunphy -- "quite shocking" when it comes to set-pieces. A couple of weeks ago Mark Lawrenson said that Fulham's equaliser from a corner would never have happened if John Terry were playing. Well Mark, John Terry was playing today, and look what happened...twice. I'm not placing all of the blame on JT of course, but rather highlighting the fact that his presence -- or lack thereof -- has no bearing on how Chelsea defend set-pieces. They defend them poorly without him, and they defend them poorly with him.

Chelsea's average age has also been highlighted as a possible achilles heel, most notably by Ferguson before the season began, and as the games go on it seems the wily Scot had a point back in August. In Deco, Mikel, Lampard, Ballack and Cole, Chelsea most definitely possess one of the slowest midfield quintet ever to play top tier football. There is actually zero pace in that list of players, which is why a Man Utd midfield consisting of Fletcher and Giggs could appear dynamic and agile. Scolari says they don't need any new players. They do, and more specifically, they need new players who don't have the speed and agility of a turtle on Codeine, or less figuratively, Michael Ballack.

With regards to Chelsea's width, as I was reflecting on the game the following thought crossed my mind - Joe Cole is Chelsea's Shaun Wright Phiilps. Allow me to explain. In a previous post I said that Man City may have to bite the bullet and get rid of a good, but not great, winger if they are to become serious top 4 challangers. In Joe Cole, Chelsea have a good player, but not a great player. There's no doubting that he's off form at the moment, but in most of the big games I've seen him play, more often than not he disappoints. Even if Joe Cole comes into a big game in devastating form, you always hear from the commentator's during said big game that "Cole is not having one of his better days" or "Cole is not having a great game by his high standards". Generally speaking, he doesn't produce when it really matters. Maybe with a pacey winger on the opposite side he would find more opportunities to weave some magic, but even so I still think he's good but he's not the one. He's certainly not the one Chelsea need at the moment.

What Chelsea need is someone who can beat a man, or create something out of nothing. Man Utd have this kind of player in Ronaldo, Rooney, and Berbatov. Arsenal have this kind of player in van Persie, Cesc, and the recently impressive Nasri. Even dour Liverpool have this kind of player in Gerrard and Torres. An aging Deco looked like this player for a month, then it all came tumbling down. Lampard usually only looks like this player when everything is clicking...against Middlesborough or someone of their kind. Drogba has the ability to create something out of nothing, but does he have the desire? It's all looking a bit flat for Chelsea, and unless Abramovich decides to take an interest in Chelsea Football Club again by splashing out some cash, the Blues could find themselves empty handed once more come June. That said, it's far too early to write them off (of course). As poor as they have performed against big 4 opposition, they have looked like steamrolling through most of the other teams in the division. If they can avoid slipping up against lesser opposition -- something that should be their forte -- then the league is still there for the taking. Wins at home against Stoke and Boro must follow Sunday's defeat. But the 1st of February poses the next serious question to be asked of Chelsea. Can they defeat Liverpool at Anfield? Assuming United don't make any mistakes between now and then they may just have to in order to keep up. I wouldn't back them to do so however, that much is certain.

World's Apart

I used to spend googles of energy deriding Cristiano Ronaldo and applauding the actual best player in world football, Lionel Messi. As juvenile and pointless as it may have been, I gotta tell ya, it feels great to be justified. This individual competition has never been won over one single game, and it never will be. It's impossible to pick out the exact moment when Messi surpassed Ronaldo, because to be honest, that moment doesn't exist. Messi was born a better player, and will forever be the superior player. That's just the way it is, no matter how many goals CR7 scores.

Having just watched Messi score a delighful hat-trick against Atletico Madrid, you could be forgiven for thinking that such a magnificent performance "proves" he is better than Ronaldo. However, that's not the full story. What truly illustrates the gulf in class between these two much lauded players is the fan reaction after their recent respective withdrawels. Ronaldo has been taken off to a chorus of boos and hisses in the games gone by, and I wouldn't be surprised if some of these came from his own people during that famous "self-substitution" incident against Sunderland. Messi, however, was given a standing ovation by the opposing Atletico Madrid fans as he exited the field (something Ronaldinho received from Real Madrid fans of all people a couple of years ago). I can only dream about how damaging it is for Ronaldo's ego to see Messi playing as he is and receiving all of the praise so effortlessly. And just to rub salt into the wound, Messi left Ronaldo out of his Team of 2008. I love you Lionel. No, really, I do.

What Money Can Buy

Man City have made their first signing, bringing in ex part-time left back Wayne Bridge for £10m. It's not a bad piece of business, although I'm sure Bridge's wages are astronomical what with City having to lure him out of the Winston Bogarde-founded retirement home at Chelsea. Still, Bridge is a player Man City need, and so the small matter of money was never going to get in the way.

The question is, who else do City need? Or at least where else do they need to improve on? Against Hull a couple of weeks ago their starting team looked like this: Hart, Zabaleta, Dunne, Richards, Ball, Wright-Phillips, Kompany, Ireland, Elano, Robinho, Caicedo. Ball is gone and Bridge is in, so that's one necessary step up, but who else should be making way for someone overpriced and overpayed?

Hart is not a bad goalkeeper, but he's not a great one either. He's only 21 so he certainly has time on his side, but right now City need someone experienced and dependable. They need a Reina, a Cech, a Van der Saar, an Almun...er, that may be pushing it, but they need someone between the sticks who isn't just barely elligible to buy a beer in America. It's no coincidence that Villa's acquisition of Brad Friedel has seen them mount a thus far successful push for fourth place, and if City are to make similar inroads then a goalkeeper with oodles of experience should be high on their agenda. It does seem rather unfair to Hart, but when it comes to goalkeeping, there is no substitute for experience. Hart will have his era in the sun, but right now his place is not in the starting eleven of the richest club in the world.

At right back, Zabaleta is reasonably solid, and not bad going forward either. He's not exactly Sagna or Bosingwa, but he's no worse than Arbeloa of Liverpool or, um, right back of Villa (Cuellar? Reo Coker? It's hard to know what with Shorey proving himself to be so incompetent). The problem with Zabaleta is that in the modern game it seems that you have to be black to be a good full back, but to paraphrase Mayor Tommy Carcetti, Zabaletta is white in a position that ain't (suited to white people). For now I think he'll do though, so no immediate change required.

Centre half was where City excelled last season, but this season Dunne and Richards are having a hard old time not conceding goals, and in Dunne's case, not scoring own goals. Dunne is a good centre back, but is he good enough for a top four club? He wouldn't make it into any of the top three's central defenses, but he might make it into Villa's or Arsenal's, so I'm going to say "Yes" for now. With regards Richards however, the jury is still out. He was of course hyped up to the max last season by the British media, but for once they got it wrong [?]. Richards may come good, but as with Hart, City need someone who is ready to make an assault on the big boys immediately. When Liverpool have Carragher, Skrtel and Agger fit, one of them will not be playing regularly, with one of them being Skrtel or Agger. Can City prise one of these two away? Or perhaps someone like Chiellini from Juventus would do the trick, or Alex of Chelsea.

Left back has been covered, so to the midfield we go. In my opinion, Steven Ireland and Vincent Kompany are well equipped to be City's central midfield partnership for the time being, but perhaps City need someone else in there as Barcelona always do. In their current setup, they boast 5 attack minded players and one defensive midfielder. They could do replacing Elano with someone more solid, and frankly, someone from outside of the British Isles. Someone like Aquilani perhaps. They're on the right track with Marcus Senna, but since he has turned their wads of cash down they just need someone who can do a similar job - i.e. move the ball from back to front. This person represents to key to City's success, and so they must get the right man. His quality will decide whether City will be an Arsenal or a Tottenham.

Wright-Phillips represents somewhat of an enigma for me. I know he's decent, but I'm not quite convinced he's good enough for top 4 status. For me, he's one of those players that you probably just need to bite the bullet with and replace him, even though he's not a bad option. City should hold on to him for the time being, but his place should come under threat with a couple of new signings. As I said in a previous post, Diego should be one of those, and perhaps someone like Gourcuff too. These would be "gambles", but then you're not really gambling when money isn't really at stake. The gamble I suppose is whether they will prove good enough for the Premier League, but if you're not willing to take that chance then you will end up with a squad like Sunderland's, and nobody wants that.

Up front, a striker is a must. But not just a goalscorer and nothing else. They need someone who can link up well with Robinho and Ireland. Someone with presence, who can run in behind defenders but can also get out in front. David Villa might be just that person, or perhaps they could go for someone in the same mold of Adebayor and Drogba. Karim Benzema will probably be on the market next summer, so they could really make a splash by buying one of the hottest prospects in world football. That would certainly be a signing worthy of the wealthiest club in the world.

With these signings, City's starting 11 would look something like this:

......................................Experienced Goalkeeper......................................

Zabaleta....................Dunne.....................Chiellini.................Bridge.........

...............................Kompany..................Aquilani......................................

..................................................Ireland........................................................


Diego.....................................................................................Robinho.........

...................................................Villa............................................................

Whether such an eleven is within the realms of possibility is another matter, but when you have as much money as the Abu Dhabi group have, there's very little it can't buy. There's no doubt that a team resembling the above would break into the top four, and possibly even challange for the title if managed very well. Will it look anything like this come February, or even September. Only time will tell.