Over-rated

I generally don't write into the F365 mailbox anymore, but with all the talk of Chelsea being the heroes of yesterday and Barcelona being "over-rated" I couldn't help myself. Plus I was bored. Here is what I wrote:

Remember that scene in 'A Time to Kill' when the defense attorney says "Now imagine she's white"? Well, now imagine that Chelsea played like Barcelona did. We wouldn't hear the end of it. It's all well and good giving out about Barcelona, but if English sides played as Barca played last night I can almost guarantee they would receive universal praise.

One more thing. To those who are calling Barcelona "over-rated". Who decides how highly to rate Barcelona? Do you? Is your opinion on a team the standard to which we must all bow? The worst thing about people calling Barcelona "over-rated" is that their opinion isn't even based on seeing things with their own eyes over a period of time and coming to their own conclusions. It's based on reading other people's opinion of a team, seeing one game, and then reacting.


My beef with the word "over-rated" is new, but I think it's valid, at least up to a point. The people I'm aiming my criticism at are those who only watch the Premier League and can't stand the thought of anything good in football being outside of it. These people read about Barcelona scoring goal after goal and sit there smugly thinking "Wait until they play a real team", i.e. an English team who play 11 defenders. Last night such an occasion took place, and Barcelona failed to score despite monopolising the ball. Of course it doesn't matter what went before the game. It doesn't even matter that Barcelona were the better team and should have won. These people see the game, judge that Barcelona didn't match up to the things previously written about them, and call them "over-rated". Instead of formulating their own opinion, they see themselves as the moderators of the opinions of others. "I'll tell you how highly you should rate a team, and if you go above that then you are wrong".

I've used the word in question in the past (quite possibly the recent past), but I'm weaning myself off of it. When it comes to football analysis -- heck, when it comes to the analysis of anything -- opinions should be formed proactively, not reactively (in the sense of reacting to other people's opinions). You watch, you take notes, you judge what is good and what is bad, and since we're unique persons, you decide what you like and don't like. To engage in this kind of analysis of last night's game leads me to only one conclusion. Barcelona weren't scintilating, but they were actually quite good. I've seen them a lot this season and I've never thought of them as unbeatable, and certain weaknesses were shown up last night, but I can't help but admire their stlye of play. Anyone who has watched Barcelona play all season wouldn't have been too upset with last night's performance, although Messi's anonymity was certainly cause for disappointment. Anyone who hasn't wacthed Barcelona this season? Well, they're probably the ones calling them "over-rated".

What did you think of Barcelona last night? You can of course disagree with me, but just not on the basis that they are an over-rated bunch of fancy dan foreigners who aren't as good as the hype they get.

Great Expectations

Clearly I thought a lot about this game before it happened, and I've thought a lot about it after. One of the questions to be asked is "What did you expect of Barcelona?" A lot of people are saying they didn't live up to the hype etc etc. Now of course I can understand an element of disappointment at the game in general, but did people honestly expect Barca to tear Chelsea a new one? I predicted 3-3, but that was based on the silly assumption that Chelsea would try and leave their own half. Had I known they would line up as they did, then I wouldn't have expected the game to be much different than it was, and the performance Barcelona delivered would have been quite satisfactory.

Playing against 11 disciplined defenders is not easy. Having nearly 70% possession is not easy. Creating chances when faced with a blanket defense is not easy. Reducing your opponents to a chance created by your own mistake and a header from a free-kick is not easy. To have such control over a game requires skill, knowledge, discipline and courage. One of the criticisms leveled at Barcelona after last night is that their passing was overelaborate or not incisive enough. To a certain extent this is true, but do you honestly expect them to hit through balls every time they play a pass? Opening a team playing like Chelsea did demands patience. You're not going to get many opportunities to slip in a cutting pass, and so job number one is to keep the ball, and sooner or later an opening will present itself. Had Barcelona taken one of the three of four openings they got then we would be hearing a different tune. Alas they didn't, but that doesn't now mean they are overrated.

Making sweeping statements about Barcelona based on last night's game is silly. Their failure to score was not because they were shown to be toothless against a mighty English defense. They had three exceptionally good chances, but didn't convert them. Yes there were disappointments. Messi was on the outskirts of the game for almost all of the second half. Actually come to think of it, that may be the only disappointment. What I expected from others was more of less delivered. Xavi dictated the midfield, Iniesta was always probing, though it never quite came off. Toure did his job wonderfully. Eto'o's finishing let him down.

Personally, I don't believe in the Holy Trinity of Messi, Henry, and Eto'o. I think the latter two aren't imaginative enough. It's not a case of 'stop Messi and you still have the other two to deal with'. It's a case of 'stop Messi and the other two become much less threatening'.

This tie is still in the balance of course. On the evidence of last night Barcelona are capable of scoring a goal at the Bridge. Messi can't possibly be any more anonymous, and Chelsea can't possibly be any more negative. The Barcelona defense will surely be more tested -- and more brittle what with last night's losses -- but this should lead to a more open game. One thing is sure however: Hiddink's comments before the game won't be worth a damn.

Barcelona/Chelsea pt 4

Here is a rundown of the players likely to be playing tonight, and the influence they may have on the game.

Valdes: He is one of those goalkeepers who is called a "good shot-stopper", which tells you all you need to know. Dodgy on crosses, untrustworthy with the ball at his feet, and undoubtedly Barcelona's weakest link. Could end up costing them a regretful away goal or two.

Alves: I like my previous description so I'm going to stick with it - a defender who enters his own half reluctantly. I honestly don't know if Alves is a good defender, but he is excellent going forward. The finest crosser of a ball I've seen since Beckham, his is a threat that is difficult to stifle. Bosingwa may stick to Messi like glue, but that will only mean more room for Alves to scythe through Chelsea territory.

Marquez: An excellent distributor of the ball and a clean tackler, but severely lacking in pace. There was a foot race between him and Toni in the last round and I swear it looked like they were both going backwards. If Drogba, or even Malouda, can get a run at him then don't be surprised to see them breeze by him as if he wasn't there.

Pique: Reminds me a bit of Senderos. That's not a good thing, especially when Drogba is around.

Abidal: If ever a defender relied on his pace alone, it's Eric Abidal. He tends to stay back much more than he used to which works in Barcelona's favour for two reasons: 1. He was never much good going forward, and 2. Barcelona need his pace at the back.

Toure: Your standard holding player really, whose height is important when it comes to defending set pieces. His role in tonight's game may be more as creator however, because when it comes to Barcelona players being singled out by Chelsea for special attention, I expect Toure to be somewhere near the bottom of the list.

Xavi: If man-marked by Essien I expect him to be peripheral for much of the game. If not, then Chelsea will not be seeing much of the ball, whereas Alves and Messi will. How well Xavi plays is generally a good indication of how well Barcelona play. I will be extremely interested to see how Chelsea handle him.

Iniesta: May well be the difference maker tonight. With all the attention focused on stopping Messi, Eto'o and Henry, I expect Iniesta to have an influential game, and he is more than capable of producing the goods. If pitted against Essien then perhaps he can be shut down, but marking Iniesta is a whole different proposition to marking Gerrard. It's about time for people to cease from labeling Iniesta "under-rated" and to start labeling him for what he is - one of the best players in the world.

Messi: His decision making still isn't perfect, but almost everything else is. A joy to watch, and will cause the slow Chelsea centre-halves a world of pain when he cuts inside.

Henry: Some people say he is back to his best. I disagree. He has lost much of his speed, which for a player like Henry is crippling. He is of course still a threat, and he works hard for the team, but I expect him to have a quiet game tonight and to be the first to make way.

Eto'o: Unreliable at this level. His finishing is too erratic, and he gives the ball away cheaply far too often. I expect him to let Barcelona down, much like he did this time last season. And also, if he was as good as he thinks he is -- and as good as most people think he is -- why would Barcelona want to sell him? Simple - there are better options out there.



Cech: A great penalty save at the weekend aside, it is no secret that Cech has not been the same man after getting kneed in the head by Hunt. He is the better of the two goalkeepers on display tonight, but that's not exactly saying much. However, I don't think Barcelona play the kind of football that will cause Cech the maximum amount of difficulty. High punts into the box is not Barcelona's style, nor are they particularly threatening from set-pieces, and so Cech may prove to be a valuable asset for Chelsea when it comes to stopping Eto'o's hit and hope piledrivers.

Ivanovic: I haven't seen much of this guy, but two goals against Liverpool from corners suggests he's a threat in that department. Of the two Chelsea full-backs he will certainly have the easier task, although Iniesta does tend to stay on that side of the pitch, meaning Anelka may be forced to do things he isn't particularly good it. Don't be surprised if much of Barca's threat comes down Chelsea's right hand side.

Alex: Good in the air, but against Barcelona that will only count at the other end of the pitch.

Terry: See above. If I were a Chelsea fan I would be worried about the lack of pace at centre-half. Eto'o may not be a lot of things, but he is definitely quick and can get in behind quite easily. Messi will drift in field more often than not, and can even be the front man for Barcelona with Eto'o shifting right. Will Terry and Alex be able to deal with such movement and pace? I have my doubts.

Bosingwa: He says marking Messi is "no problem". I beg to differ. Keeping Messi quiet won't be sufficient for beating Barcelona, but it will be necessary. Bosingwa will need all the help he can get, and then some.

Essien: Perhaps Chelsea's most important player tonight. I don't know what Hiddink is going to do with him, but it is the effectiveness of Essien that will either swing this tie in Chelsea's favour or lead to an onslought of epic proportions at the hands of the mighty Catalans.

Ballack: A big man for the big occasion in the past, this could be Ballack's swansong, or more likely, it could be the night when it all comes crashing down for him. "His legs are gone" as Dunphy would say, and against Barcelona you could do with three or four well-functioning legs, not to mention two. I expect him to give away a lot of fouls and generally look off the pace, but as with most Chelsea players he poses a considerable threat in aerial confrontations.

Lampard: I'm not his biggest fan, but Lamps has been impressive all season...except in most of the big games. A question mark still looms large over his head when it comes to imposing himself on this kind of occasion. His habbit of scoring goals may come in handy, but if Chelsea are not to be overrun in midfield for 90 minutes they need Frank to put his foot on the ball once in a while and keep possession. I'm just not sure he's up to the task on nights like this.

Anelka: I don't like Anelka. I don't think he's much good, and I wouldn't be surprised to see either him or Malouda make way for Deco/Kalou of the grounds of them being a bit rubbish during the game.

Malouda: I don't like Malouda. I don't think he's much good...etc etc.

Drogba: An absolute beast of a player. If you were to swap Drogba for Eto'o I wouldn't think twice about selling all of my possessions and staking the money on a Barcelona win. Should Chelsea see enough of the ball then Drogba could come away with a brace. The Barcelona defense will simply not be able to handle him if they are on the back foot. He is Chelsea's match winner, and if they are going to get a result tonight I have little doubt that Drogba will be at the heart of that triumph.


With all of that said, here is my prediction: 3-3. I can't see anything but goals, goals, goals, and I honestly can't wait for this game.

Transfered 11

Here is my team of the season, but with the exciting feature of it consisting only of players who were bought at the start of (or during) the season. I may explain some of my choices should you ask, but for now all you're going to get are cold, heartless names.

............................................Schwarzer.........................................

Bosingwa..............Hangeland.............Faye................L. Young


Geovanni............Modric.................Fellaini................Arshavin


............................Robinho...............Crouch.................................


Subs: Friedel, Figueroa (only made permanent this season), Corluka, Nasri, Malbranque, Milner, Beattie.


As an aside, all of these players deserved the PFA award ahead of Ryan Giggs. It just goes to show you the madness of having ex-players as pundits.

Barcelona/Chelsea pt 3

The Barcelona attack is generally the headline grabber, but in order to neutralize the threat from the front if will be up to Chelsea to upset the source. This will mean that two important things need to be done: Drogba is going to have to work his socks off up front, constantly applying pressure on the Barcelona centre-halfs. It is these two players who initiate almost every Barcelona attack, and so if they can be got at then the supply to the midfield and forward line will be much more volatile than it usually is. Whether or not just one striker can apply sufficient pressure on two players is debatable, but I think it's safe to say that Hiddink won't be employing two up top so it will be down to Drogba alone to settle the debate.

The other similar thing that needs to be done from a Chelsea point of view is to mark Xavi out of the game - something that has been done already this season to great effect. It is no easy task, but a player like Michael Essien could well be up for the challenge. Barcelona's m.o. is to knock it around at the back until Xavi is in position, and then feed him. To disrupt this operation is to strike at the heart of Barcelona's game. It's not a sufficient condition for beating them, but it is most certainly a necessary one. Marquez may not be a great defender, but he is an excellent distributor of the ball, both short and long. This is generally not mentioned when it comes to talking about Barcelona's defense, but given how much ball possession they enojoy it is arguable that it is more important for a Barca defender to be a good passer than a good tackler or headerer [?] of the ball. Therefore task 1: Stop Marquez (and to a lesser extent, his partner) from doing what they want with the ball. Task 2: Pratically give Xavi a piggy-back ride for 90 minutes.

There are problems implimenting this strategy of course, none more so than the presence of Iniesta on the pitch. I sincerely doubt both Lampard and Ballack's ability to shut him out. Toure and Iniesta together will be able to initiate enough attacks should Xavi be "raped" by Essien, and so there is only so much Chelsea can do with hard work. A player like Iniesta is extremely difficult to mark. He has a rather unique blend of excellent close control, dribbling technique, speed, and vision. Barcelona will depend on him a lot, and Chelsea don't seem to have a say in the matter. Can Iniesta produce on the night? His outstanding form this season suggests he can, and so it will be intriguing to watch.

Make Or Break

A season of breathtaking football comes down to this. Two weeks that will define the 8 months that went before. It doesn't matter that you played beautiful football. It doesn't matter that your starting 11 contains about 4 of the best players in world football. It doesn't matter that your front three have scored more goals than entire squads. Football can be a cruel sport, because at the end of the day it is the people with trophies in their hands that get remembered. Arsenal learned this lesson the hard way last season, and it is not impossible that Barcelona may learn it this time around.

In the next three weeks -- starting tonight -- they play Sevilla, Valencia, Real Madrid and Villarreal in La Liga, with two games against Chelsea and a Copa del Rey final on the side. In three weeks time Barcelona may well have two hands on one trophy and one hand on two other trophies, what with La Liga all but sewn up and a Champions League final to look forward to. Alternatively, they could have lost the Cope del Rey final, gotten knocked of the Champions League, and somehow -- somehow -- have let La Liga slip out of their grasp. Make no mistake about it. Barcelona are walking on a fine line between glorious success and crippling failure.

Their lead in La Liga is down to three points after a remarkable comeback by Mardid last night. Will such dramatic circumstances play on Catalan minds? After all, they were within a successful penalty of effectively winning the league, but all of a sudden Madrid -- while lacking talent, skill, and many other redeeming qualities -- have momentum and belief on their side. Barcelona disposed of Sevilla easily before Christmas, but when the pressure is really on will they be able to repeat that feat? And will they be able to do so without Messi, who may just miss out on tonight's game?

Assuming things go according to script and Barcelona and Madrid win their upcoming games, then we are in for one hell of an El Classico. It will be do or die for Madrid, and yet even if they do they will still be relying on the kindness of other teams. Still, defeat of Barcelona could trigger much unrest in the minds of their sworn enemies, and who knows what may happen as a result?

Barcelona have the added pressure of two tough Champions League games, where they will be severely tested by a Chelsea side determined to atone for last season's slip up. Will they able to cope with such demands? I hope so, because I would love to see the team who play the best football get rewarded for it - much like Spain were at the Euro's. And also, it would be an absolute shambles to see that dire Madrid team get their talentless paws on a piece of silverware. Could you imagine seeing Gago and Marcelo lifting the trophy instead of Xavi and Iniesta? I think I would cry.

So come on Barca! Do it for the neutrals. Do it for the beautiful game.

Barcelona/Chelsea pt 2

The next part of my prolonged pre-match analysis can be summed up in the following well-thought-out bullet points:

- Florent Malouda is still crap

There have been vicious rumours spreading recently regarding Malouda. Some people are actually saying that he has finally gotten his act together. These people are proclaiming that at long lost we are seeing the Malouda of old, and how he is a changed man under Hiddink etc etc. What these people fail to realise is that the Malouda of old wasn't much good.

Football Focus are the masters of this kind of spur of the moment analysis. If you string two good games together then prepare for an interview where you will be asked about the "tough times", but also about the promising future which may include an England call up "provided I just keep my head down and keep doing what I'm doing". The name Darren Bent springs to mind. Harry came in, Bent got a couple of goals and was suddenly a great striker again, but before long he was back to being no better than Mrs Redknapp, which sadly is a fairer reflection of his limited abilities.

I don't envision Florent Malouda's story ending any differently. Like Bent he has never been a good player. We've seen the real Malouda in the Premier League. His latest performances are simply an abberation, so I don't expect them to last, and I certainly don't expect him to be a thorn in Barcelona's side. It's true that he may find some joy given that Alves has the unique characteristic of being a defender who enters his own half reluctantly, but of all the wingers Alves could have faced in the semi-finals surely Malouda is the most impotent.

However, the impotence of Malouda may prove to be of secondary importance to his defensive prowess. I expect Chelsea to do something of a Man Utd at the Nou Camp and sit back, basically playing with two full backs on either flank. Is Malouda disciplined enough to perform this task? Given that Theo Walcott was Arsenal's most dangerous player on Saturday it doesn't seem likely.

It may seem like I'm just saying this given the topic in question, but one of the sure ways to hurt Barcelona is to have a left winger who can run at people and who uses the ball cleverly. The threat of Ribery was negated in the first leg simply because Bayern were a shambles and could hardly touch the ball. In the second leg however he was a constant thorn in Barcelona's side. It's of course a little silly to base analysis on a meaningless game like that second leg, but I do think the possession of a decent left winger will cause Barcelona far more problems than he ordinarily should. Unfortunatley for Chelsea, Florent Malouda is not a decent winger, and so they will rely on him at their peril.

Barcelona/Chelsea pt 1

The first of a series of previews leading up to the big game in under two weeks time.

One of the big talking points after Chelsea's farcical 4-4 draw with Liverpool was an incident which transported us two weeks into the future, looking at a Chelsea side facing the most in form player in football without their regular left-back. Ashley Cole received his third [?] yellow card, and so the Blues are left with two weeks of mulling over why they sold their only legitimate cover in that position, and more pressingly, just what the heck to do now.

Messi in the Camp Nou is a frightening prospect for the best of defenders, not to mention an out-of-position Ivanovic, and yet it seems that this is the dual we will have on our hands. My question is this:

Will it actually work in Chelsea's favour to have a right-footed player playing a left back since he will be facing a left-footed player playing right wing?

I won't lie. I know little about defending so I could be way off here, but it seems to me that with Messi usually tucking in onto his preferred left foot, it could be advantage to say, Ivanovic, that Messi will also be moving into the area where he too is most comfortable. Of course said Chelsea defender is largely unproven, so even if being right-footed is an advantage he may just be too rubbish to make use of it, but still, I shall be intrigued to see how this match-up plays out.

The one thing that should not happen is that Hiddink plays Essien out there. I'm sure that's not in his thought process at all, but if for some reason it is then somebody needs to show him a tape of the fist half of last year's CL final. Other candidates for the job from hell are Carvalho (simply because he's a defender), Alex (for not disimilar reasons), Bosingwa (if he's fit) and Mancienne (but they wouldn't do that to him, would they?). As a rather lame Irish guy once said, "those aren't great options, are they?" Full-back is quite a "technical" position, if you believe the analysis of Eamonn Dunphy, and I can't think of any reason why you should. Still, he can't always be wrong, can he?

Whoever plays at left back will have one very difficult task on their hands (you heard it here first). However, whether it is an advantage or not to be a right-footed player facing a left footed player will be utterly irrelevent if that poor soul is left on his own. One against one Messi cannot be stopped. In a game of 90 minutes you are guaranteed to be chasing Messi's shadow at least once, if not several times, and when this happens goals are not far away. If the stand in left back is to do a job on Messi he will not have done it alone. Frank Lampard, Florent Malouda, and John Terry will have to swarm around the Argentine like bees around honey, and lets face it, they are going to have to give him a few kicks to the ankle for good measure too. Real Madrid spent a large portion of their pre-match prep for El Classico coming up with a schedule for whose turn it is to kick Messi. Chelsea must do likewise, or hope that Messi has an off-day.

If I know Hiddink like I think I do (I don't really know him at all, but for arguments sake lets pretend I do), he will try to make this blog post as irrelevent as possible, though I think I'm doing a pretty good job that myself. I image he will try as hard as possible to make this game not about Messi v Nominal left back. How might he achieve this? Find out in a later installment of this groundbreaking series.

Cheap Thrills

This will sound like me being a Negative Nancy just for the sake of it, but I have to agree with Eamonn Dunphy - last night's game wasn't all that good. To use a television analogy, it was like an episode of Lost. It had no pattern, people were just making things up was they went along, and there were plot holes right left and centre. Was it entertaining? Sure, but only because it was a farce. People are describing this game as "epic", an historic encounter between two superpowers. I disagree.

Liverpool went 2-0 up without really playing all that well. A great freekick and a penalty probably flattered them, but then with the way Chelsea played you could say that they deserved to be 2-0 down. Chelsea came back into the game in the second half, but only thanks to an horrendous error by Reina. Their second was a freekick, which I think could have been stopped. So that's four goals, three of which came from set plays and one of which was extremely dodgey.

Liverpool looked bereft of ideas at this point, and Lampard put Chelsea 3-2 after a horrible pass by Alonso was punished by a good pass by Ballack and neat play by Drogba. Benitez then withdrew Torres, thus signalling the white flag. Then out of nothing -- aka Lucas Leiva -- the Reds clawed a goal back Frank Lampard style - a deflected hit and hope. A Dirk Kuyt header followed a couple of minutes later and quite remarkably Liverpool were within one goal of going through. Lampard squashed any hopes of a thrilling finish by netting the goal of the game, and that was that.

In short, if I wanted to watch this kind of football I'd tune into the Dutch League, where players of Kesman's quality get 103 goals in 7 matches. Lots of goals does not equal a good game. These kind of mistake-ridden matches may be fun to watch, but give me a high quality 0-0 any day of the week. A game of football should tell a story; a coherent story. As with a great footballer, a great football match should make sense. The true beauty and entertainment of football is not found in the cheap thrills of a-goal-a-minute. I can appreciate people enjoying the game last night. Heck, I used to enjoy Lost. But I cannot go so far as to call it a great game.

**************************

On another note, Ribery was quite brilliant last night. If Barcelona or United sign him they will be fearsome if he can perform like that week in week out.

"It's a disgrace, Bill"

There are already some voices of dissension crying out over the PFA award nominees announced today, and well there should be. Vidic I can accept, Gerrard I can accept, and Rio I can perhaps accept (though I can think of a couple of centre-backs who probably deserve it more). But Giggs? Ronaldo? Van der Saar? In the words of Colonel John Patrick Mason, this is "an act of lunacy," and the footballers who voted for these players are idiots.

Personally, I think Man Utd kept 14 [?] clean sheets in a row in spite of Van der Saar rather than because of him, and I don't think it was a small matter that his run ended when he made a terrible mistake against Newcastle. He has made quite a few similar mistakes in the recent past and is likely to continue to do so until Ferguson buys someone else. He's a decent goalkeeper who was an outstanding goalkeeper, but one of the best six players this season? No way.

Ronaldo we know about. His inclusion in this list is as strange as it is dumb, especially when you consider that he was voted in by the players he has kicked and whinged about all season. Last season fellow professionals were left with no choice but to vote for the prat. His stunning goals tally left them no excuse. This season they had an out, and yet they have refused to use it. If Barrabas is the people's choice then so be it, but if I were Frank Lampard I would feel extremely betrayed right now. This season Lamps has played better than I've ever seen him play. I still question him when it comes to the big matches, but anyone who does this during a season gets my respect. How he was overlooked is an absolute mystery.

And finally, we come to Giggs. The sentimental vote. The fact that he hasn't won this award before is quite shocking, but let's not cheapen the thing by giving it to him now. Sean Ingle from the Guardian likened it to Scorsese winning an oscar for The Deprated, and I'd have to agree. Giggs has exceeded everyone's expectations this season, but only because he hasn't been complete rubbish. That said, just because he has shown that he is capable of starting a third of United's Premier League matches this season without keeling over we shouldn't thrown him a top award. Perhaps if there was an "Old Player of the Year" to go with the "Young Player of the Year" award then Giggsy could walk away victorious, but there isn't. There are only two awards: Giggs is about 14 years too late for one, and not good enough for the other.

The voting was done in February/March, so my guess is that players saw Giggs score that decent goal against West Ham, heard Ferguson and others laud him for being such a great professional, decided to ignore the large chunks of the season which saw Giggs sit on the bench, and just went ahead and voted for him. If people want to turn this thing into a lifetime achievent award then so be it, but if Tugay isn't shortlisted next year then I'm going to make a complaint.

As for some players who I would pick instead of the three I've moaned about, here are a dozen or so names:

Van Persie, Schwartzer, Hangeland, Gallas, Barry, Lampard, Reina, Alonso, Mascherano, Carrick, Fletcher, Ireland, Rooney.

Huh?

"Messi is the best. What he does is from another world.

"He is exceptional.

"After watching Arsenal against Manchester United, I insist Cristiano Ronaldo is one thing and Messi is another.

"There is no comparison. Messi deserves to win the Ballon d'Or this year."

- Thierry Henry, November '08


"When Messi is playing well, he can do things that no-one else can.

"I honestly understand why there are those who compare him to Maradona but I repeat: at least right now, Cristiano Ronaldo is the best. In the future... we will see."

- Thierry Henry, April '09

So Messi used to be the best, but since he has gone on to score over 30 goals and Ronaldo has gone on to perform quite poorly, Ronaldo has become the best again?

Me thinks Henry is playing mind games of some sort. Fergie would be proud.

The Absense of Cesc

I said at the beginning of the season that the form of Cesc Fabregas would make or break Arsenal. It was an admittedly obvious thing to say, but if ever a team was built around one man it was Matt Le Tissier's Southampton...and Cesc Fabregas' Arsenal of 08/09. Last season Flamini, Rosicky and Hleb carried their fair share of responsibility for the Gunners; this season two of those three became ex-Gooners and one of them has effectively become an ex-player. Nasri was brought in (still only 21 years old) and Walcott was given his chance to start regularly (still sporting the facial hair akin to a boy just hitting puberty. Lose the 'tasche Theo. It looks ridiculous). As such the Arsenal midfield had an average age of about 7, and so all depended on whether Cesc could make this group of youngsters tick, and grow them into men.

He couldn't, and it was Wenger's mistake to think anyone could, not to mention a knackered 21 year old.

Fabregas was still feeling the effects of a full season plus a European Championships, and he looked like a guy who needed a break. His performances were below what we have come to expect, and Arsenal suffered to the point of no return. Their five league defeats all came while Fabregas was in the team, and yet when he got injured it was hard to imagine Arsenal doing anything but descending into mediocrity. They were bad with Cesc; surely they would be worse without him.

Not so. Since Fabregas hobbled off at half time against Liverpool, Arsenal have not lost in the league. They lost their most experienced midfielder, and regularly featured a midfield quartet consisting of Denilson, Song, Diaby/Eboue and Nasri. Not a vintage Arsenal midfield it's safe to say. And yet, and yet, these boys (almost literally) have maintained the undefeated streak which started all the way back in November against City. Just look at that list of names again and you surely won't be able to help but wonder just how Arsenal have done it. Remarkably, it seems that it was Cesc's absense, not his presence, that grew these players up. It was sink or swim, and for the most part they have swam, and Arsenal are reaping the benefits as I write this.

Fabregas is now back after almost four months of rest, and in three games he has five assists, - more than he managed in the league in the first three months. Wenger slotted him in behind the srtiker and it has worked quite well. He then moved him back to his usual position in midfield against Wigan in the second half and it changed the game. The closing stages of this season see Arsenal in with a decent chance of winning two trophies, and as funny as it seems, the four month absense of Cesc Fabregas is a major reason for this. He needed time off, and other players needed to take more responsibility.

With Arshavin now in the mix, Arsenal possess in my opinion the best midfield and forward combination in the Premier League. Their defense remains slightly suspect -- especially given recent in jury problems -- but if Arsenal can get across the finish line against Villarreal then confidence will ooze and by Sunday they could find themselves with a chance of winning their first trophy in four years, be it the F.A Cup, the Champions League, or both.

The Question:

Can Bayern go through to the semi-finals of the Champions League?

In a word, yes.

There are two past results that spring to mind when accessing Munich's slim chances. The first is Depor's 4-0 triumph over Milan at the Riazor, having been 4-1 down from the first leg. Munich may not be as good as Depor were, but the Barcelona defense is certainly nowhere near as good as the Milan defense was four seasons ago. Milan were all but through, but Depor came out like a team possessed and just tore into the Italians from the first whistle. Once that first goal went in you could sense the nerves creeping into the Milan team (players like Nesta began to make silly errors) whereas Depor really believed they could achieve what many considered to be the impossible. They did, and the overwhelming favourites for the tie went crashing out.

The second result that springs to mind is closer to home to Barcelona supporters. It was the Copa Del Rey two seasons ago, Barca v Getafe. The first leg was a rout, with Barcelona scoring five, one of which was that Messi goal. The scoreline read 5-2, and Barcelona were all but through. However, the return leg did not go accoring to plan, and the Catalans ended up losing 4-0, thus unexpectedly crashing out when common sense told us all that such a result was impossible.

This is of course a different Barcelona team to the one under Rijkaard. The personnel may be similar, but the attitude and mentality is much better, therefore you would expect that there will be no surprises. However, you just never know in football. If Barcelona approach this game as if they are already through and if Bayern approach it with the feeling that they can cause an upset then there is enough precedent to lead me to believe that you really shouldn't write off the Germans. To go through would eclipse the victories of Depor and Getafe, but I have seen enough football to know that anything that is possible can happen. Probable? No, but possible nonetheless.

First task - keep Barcelona scoreless, something that hasn't happened in La Liga since the first day of the season.

Maybe I Can Be the Manager That Changes Him

"I think that he's had temptations and I think there have been periods when you've seen the effect of it..."

"He's lucky in the sense that people here can tell him the truth and be straight with him and he appreciates that, and he has responded to that."

"If it stays with him and changes him as a person then you have a problem..."

"Fortunately Ronaldo has good human qualities. He's a good guy.

"He knows when he's gone too far and he draws back in after that."

An extract from an interview with Ronaldo's girlfriend Alex Ferguson. What a load of absolute nonsense. Can you believe that one of the best football managers of all time is saying such things about a football player?

Sick.

If They're Anything Like Last Night's...

After two pretty excellent quarter-finals yesterday, I have to first of all say that I was very wrong to completely dismiss Porto's chances against United (even though about 15 minutes prior to dismissing them I said that they had a chance of possibly causing an upset against whoever they drew). I also can't wait for tonight's games! Liverpool have become an interesting team to watch, and I have a sneaky feeling we could be in for a cracker tonight. But even if I'm way off, there is always Barcelona against Bayern to lean on. Two teams who have very little interest and capabilities in the defense, but a range of top attacking talent. Well, Bayern have Ribery (who for the record I'm not entirely convinced of yet, but admittedly I haven't seen much of him) and Barcelona have Messi, Xavi, Iniesta, Eto'o and Henry. I'll be interested to see how the latter two get on since I have expressed doubt about them before. Still, I don't expect those doubts to be realised until Barcelona face a good defense, so we shall have to wait until a possible semi-final to see if I'm right or wrong.

Like last night I'll be watching one game on the television and one on the computer. It is hard not to focus on one game, but it's a decent system nonetheless. Anyway, I'm off to waste time until 7pm, at which point I hope to hear what Dunphy -- RTE's "student of the Spanish game" -- has to say about Barcelona. Hopeless at the back, magic up front I'm guessing. For once I think legitimate students of the Spanish game might just agree with him.

As an aside, one of the many reasons why I love Dunphy -- who else would coin the phrase "the Ronaldo disease"? -- is that he loves Iniesta. Most people do at this stage but Dunphy has done for quite a while now, so kudos for that.

Quel Surpise

They're nervous. They're complacent. They're afraid of missing out on 4 trophies. They're tired. There is a "Ronaldo disease" spreading throughout the club.

These are just some of the reasons the RTE panel gave for Man Utd's latest poor display, perhaps they're worst yet. Dunphy wonders what has happened to the United of two months ago, and it seems most people are incredibly surprised at the state "The Untouchables" find themselves in. I have to say, I think the RTE panel and most others are asking the wrong question. What I want to know is how this pretty average group of players (there are exceptions of course) managed to go "untochable" for so long. The mystery to this United team is not how they are now suddenly fallible; it's how they were ever infallible.

Last night's squad was virtually at full strength. Yes they were missing Berbatov, but can anyone say he has made any difference in big games this season? To point to his absence as crucial is the equivalent of missing your ex-girlfriend even though you dumped her because she was too lazy and didn't work hard enough...or something. Ferdinand was also out, but he has been out before and United have done alright. And yet despite a near full strength squad, this United team looked absolutely bereft of attacking threat. The highlights of their chances said as much. Rooney was game, but then he is always game. Apart from him however, there was no one who troubled Porto. Surely this must be of worry to United fans.

In my eyes, the simple fact is that about half of United's players aren't good enough to play for one of the best clubs in the world. Forget about nerves or complacency. The root of the problem is not attitude; it's ability. Compare Fletcher and Carrick to Xavi and Iniesta. Chalk and cheese, my friend. Chalk and cheese. That's not to say United wouldn't have a hope against Barcelona, but it is to say that Barcelona would completely dominate the midfield. When this Man Utd team face opposition who can keep the ball (something they generally don't face in the Premier League) they're limited ability begins to show itself.

All is not lost of course. A win in Porto is distinctly possible, and I'd still fancy them to go through. The defense is certainly nowhere near as fragile as it has looked recently, so an improvement on that front will steady the ship. Still, the best squad ever? No chance. That they're still on course to win a sackful of trophies is perhaps the most surprising thing to happen in football in the last few seasons. They may still do it, but if I were a gamlin' man I would be backing someone from the other side of the draw to win the Champions League.

Timing

I picked a good time to have a go at Ronaldo, eh? I think the game on Sunday sums him up. Not especially good for most of the 90 minutes, but capable of producing things out of nothing. Two great strikes, and scorer of perhaps United's most important goal this season (I know Macheda got the winner, but you kind of knew that was coming once Ronaldo scored the second, right?). Is all of his prancing about actually worth it when you know he can score goals like he did yesterday? I don't think so, but I could understand a United fan who does.

As for Nani, I don't expect we'll be seeing him in a United shirt for much longer, or perhaps ever again. File him under the same category which includes Kleberson, Djemba Djemba, Bellion, etc. A truly woeful player who is barely Premier League standard not to mention Big 4 standard. And the worrying thing from a United point of view is that in terms of wingers they were only missing Ji Sung Park yesterday.

In fact it's not just United who have trouble out wide. Chelsea also struggle in that department, with Malouda starting on Saturday and perhaps even set to start on Wednesday. Oh dear. Right now Arsenal have by far the most talent when it comes to the wide players in a 4-3-3 or a 4-2-3-1 or 4-5-1 or whatever you want to brand it. Their selection (when all fit) includes Arshavin, Walcott, Nasri, Rosicky, Eduardo, Eboue, Bendtner, Vela - all of whom I would rate higher than Nani and Malouda (Yes, even Eboue). It is for this reason that the Gunners are in with a shout of winning the Champions League, even if that means beating United in the semi-final. As Villa showed in Sunday, decent wingers will cause United trouble, especially if you have a target man who can head the ball (see John Carew and Emmanuel Adebayor).

Below the Surface

So according to the Guardian there is a deal in place to take Ronaldo to Real Madrid for £75m in the summer. Given what I think about Cristiano Ronaldo (I think he's the most despicable person in football) it should come as little surprise that in my opinion this would be excellent business for Manchester United. But not only because they'd be getting rid of a prat, but they'd also be getting rid of a player who could be replaced by something more effective.

Now I'm sure some United fans are protesting, saying that Ronaldo has 17 goals this season, and is joint second highest scorer in the league (though this must be qualified by adding that he has just two goals more to his name than Kevin Davies, so how much do goals really tells us?). A closer look at his goal scoring exploits also reveals the misleading nature of certain stats:

His first goal of the season in the league was a penalty against Bolton at home. His second goal was the second of a 4-0 rout against West Brom, again at home. His third and fourth came against West Ham in a 2-0 home win. His fifth and sixth came against Hull in a 4-3 home win, which brings us up to November. His next two goals came against Stoke at home in a 5-0 thrashing, one of them scored at the start, the other right at the end. That was on the 15th of November. He had to wait until the 27th of January for his next league goal, with this and another being the fourth and fifth of a 5-0 away win against West Brom. He scored a penalty at home against Everton in the next game, a freekick at home against Blackburn, and completeing his league haul thus far he scored a penalty at home against Liverpool three weeks ago.

There are a few repeated words in the above paragraph - home, West, Brom, penalty. In fact Ronaldo's only away goals this season were the two against West Brom, and by then United were 3-0 and cruising.

To make things clearer, here is a list of the teams he has scored against from open play: West Brom (20th), Stoke (16th), West Ham (8th), Bolton (12th), Hull (13th). It shouldn't go unnoticed that three of those teams are the promoted teams from last season, and the games against these three teams comprise of 7 of his goals.

Ronaldo's other goals were scored in the three cups. 1 against Derby in a 4-1 win, 1 against Middleborough in a 3-1 win, and a penalty against Derby in the second leg of the Carling Cup semi-final. He also scored a header againt Inter at home in the Champions League.

Maybe it is unfair of me to do this with Ronaldo, but a look below the surface of his goals tally reveals a player who has contributed little to United's cause, and has only really showed up at home...against promoted teams. And that's not even taking into account each 90 minutes he has spent on the pitch, seemingly unable or unwilling to take on opponents, and more concerned with kicking shins rather than by kicking the ball into the net. The superb irony in all of this is that he was crowned "Best player in the world" during these awful performances, while a little Argentine in Spain was showing the world what a truly great player might look like.

Forget about the argument "But Ronaldo has scored 17 goals this season". He has been largely useless since May, and if it weren't for the United defense they would find themselves in deep trouble coming into the home stretch. To get £75m for him in the summer would be incredible business, and would help Man Utd fund the overhaul that they need (a new striker, a new central midfielder, two new wingers). Will Fergie be willing to start over again? Possibly not, but I think he will need to if United are to continue their dominance. Of course I say that as United are on course for winning the quadruple. Tis a funny ol' game.

The Gerrard Delusion

Where did this "Gerrard is the best player in the world" nonsense come out of? From John Aldridge to Zinedine Zidane there seems to be a world-wide conspiracy whereby we are fed with the notion that Stevie G is the best we have to offer. It was one thing trying to convince people that Ronaldo wasn't the best footballer in the world when he was banging in goals right left and centre, but surely nobody can make a solid case for Gerrard being the planet's best?

His recent performances have been pretty decent, but honestly, he's not even been the best Liverpool player in either of the last two games, not to mention his credentials for best in the world. Torres was better against United, and Reira was better against Villa. Is Gerrard a good player? Of course, but let's not get carried away here people. He has a good shot, and he bursts into the box better than anyone. But is he particularly good at dribbling? No. Is he particularly good at passing? No. In fact his passing is so suspect that he actually can't be trusted in midfield. So what is his actualy position then? For Liverpool he generally plays off Torres in what you could consider to be the Bergkamp role. However, he plays the game almost nothing like the way Bergkamp played it. In fact, he plays the game almost nothing like the way any classic second striker plays it. Generally the second striker is the one who controls the attacks, but this can't be said about Gerrard. Gerrard is the guy who gets on the end of attacks. He won't really be involved much in a tight game, but he may (or may not) pop up with a goal. Is this kind of player valuable to a team? Yes, but I would much rather someone like Iniesta or Rooney on my team - a player who gets on the ball and brings other people into the game. A player who doesn't show up in moments, but has an impact on the game from 0-90 minutes.

Gerrard is an enigma, and enigma's can never be considered the best in the world. The best player in the world has to be somebody who makes perfect sense. You're supposed to look at him and think, 'Now I realise what football is all about'. They are the kinds of players who bring meaning and order to the game. Zidane was this kind of player. You watched him play and paradoxically you tought "I can do what he's doing" while at the same time thinking "What an absolute genius". Something similar is true about Messi, though his speed obviously sets him apart. You look at him and he makes footballing sense. You're not left scratching your head wondering where you can play Messi to get the most out of him. You simply know that he is great at football, and as long as he is on the field then everything will be okay.

With great players the simple becomes the sublime, and the sublime becomes the simple. With Gerrard, it's all about the wonderous, unrepeatable moments. The 30 yard drive, the splendid freekick, the dash into the box and the ripping volley. Game-changing moments, but all unreliable.

Jonathan Wilson (hands down the most insightful, intelligent football journalist I've yet to come across) says that you don't win matches by scoring goals; you score goals by winning matches. I couldn't agree more with this statement, and it is for this reason that Gerrard will never be the best player in the world - he doesn't help you win enough matches.