Preliminary Thoughts Pt 3

Manchester United

If you expose yourself to football-based media and form opinions on the basis of what the general consensus is, you may find it difficult to decide on how United will do this season. In F365's season forecast, the Old Trafford lot were most writers' pick to get their hands on the trophy in May 2010, and yet in the past week the site has been largely critical of the state of this United squad. Lawro of the BBC is sticking with the Red Devils (though you can tell he's not convinced), while most others think they will be there or thereabouts. But then in steps Paul Doyle of the Guardian, predicting a 5th of 6th place finish for last season's champions, a prediction made before the first two games of the season might I add. My own foresight caused me to proclaim them runners-up, which was really just a more precise way of saying that I don't see them winning the thing.

From my own experience, there are United fans who fall into such opposing camps: those who are bullish about the quality of the squad, insisting that Michael Owen will come good etc, and those who bemoan the regression to stone-age tactics, and who hope rather than think that Owen will be prolific.

In a nail-my-colours-to-the-mast maneuver, I'm going to say with Paul Doyle that this United squad is the worst of the Big 4. It is a team running on fumes; the fumes of reputation and a winning mentality that doesn't easily go away. Such fumes are potent, no doubt, which is why I think many people predicted United to emerge victorious at the end of the season. But the reality is that the quality just isn't there, at least not in large quantities.

No disrespect to Darren Fletcher -- a player who has proved me quite wrong -- but when he is your best midfielder, something has gone awry. Rooney is a gifted footballer, but he's not the kind of footballer who can carry a team on his own. Unlike Ronaldo, Rooney needs good players around him to interchange with. Ronaldo is a guy who can pick the ball up, run around somebody, and then whack the ball into the roof of the net from 25 yards. Rooney is just not that guy. He does his best work in tandem, but he's lacking a partner. Perhaps Berbatov will emerge as the one, but all of the evidence thus far suggests otherwise.

Ferguson has said that he won't be spending any more money on strikers. If he buys an attacking midfielder then that would be a huge boost, but if he chooses to buy neither then where are the goals going to come from? How often will Rooney be winning headers from crosses, which is how United scored their first and only goal of the season? In terms of attacking prowess, it's all looking a bit bleak really.

United's cushion is their defensive quality. Though they don't have Arsenal's attacking flair, a strong defensive platform will be sufficient for picking off a team like the Gunners. But the simple fact is that most of the games United play will require little defending and much attacking. They're equipped for the former, but not so much for the latter.

It's a long season, and with the transfer market not closed yet it's still possible that Ferguson will address the rather obvious problems. The problem as I perceive it, however, is that in Fergie's mind he has addressed the problems. Owen, Valencia, Nani and Macheda represent his collective solution to the loss of Tevez and Ronaldo. But not only is this solution wholly inadequate, it also fails to take into account the state of affairs last season. With Ronaldo and Tevez in the squad, United were still far from excellent. Liverpool were the best team in England for the majority of the season, and it was clear to some people before the Champions League final, and most people after, that United were light on quality in midfield. If Ferguson kept hold of his £100m+ duo, there were still areas that required attention. He didn't keep hold of them, so all he's done is replace them with a less than adequate solution, making United far worse than they were last season -- a season when they were already skating on thin ice.

Put the terms "defensive midfielder" and "Big 4 club need" together and the usual team to crop up is Arsenal. But is it not the case that United need one far more than Arsenal do? They also need either a central midfielder who can do Carrick's job better than he himself can, or else an attacking midfielder to shoulder much of the creative burden. Get both of those types of players and Manchester United should be back in business. Get neither and Paul Doyle's controversial prediction may not seem quite so foolish in a few months time.

It Takes More Than A Goal

A snaphot of the game in general

According to most, this game was decided three weeks ago. Man United were imperious against Arsenal, Barcelona were impotent (and extremely fortunate) against Chelsea. I did think United with triumph, but not because of anything that happened in the semi-finals. People don't seem to understand that once United got that first, lucky goal against Arsenal the Gunners were a shambles, or "shoddy" to use Ferguson's word of the week. It may sound like I'm taking away from United's performance, and indeed I am. They haven't looked that good all year, and so the game against Arsenal must be seen as an aberration. Consider their poor record against big-four opposition - 5 points from a possible 18. People talked about Barcelona struggling against English opposition, but the reality of this season is that United have struggled against English teams too - the good ones at least.

Then there's Barcelona - flat-track bullies, big game bottlers, overrated. People were making sweeping judgments on them based on two games, one of which they could have one 2-0. Hopefully hindsight has made people realise that Chelsea were impeccable in implementing their game plan against Barcelona. That's not to excuse the Catalans, but one must appreciate the difficulty of playing against a well-drilled, hard-working outfit content to sit back and hit on the counter.

Unfortunately, much of what passed for pre-match analysis was a glance at United's semi-final, a glance at Barcelona's, and then the seemingly obvious conclusion that Man Utd would trounce them. Incidentally, I wonder what the jingoistic Sunday Supplement guest is thinking now.

To say the game hinged on the 10th minute goal would not be out of order, though of course it takes much more than a goal to completely dominate a game. We aren't to know how things would have panned out had United took the lead, nor are we to know what would have happened had Cesc Fabregas's deflected shot crept in when Arsenal were on the front foot against United three weeks ago. To speculate about such things is pointless really. The bottom line is that United only needed a goal to draw level. Someone said "the game was over" once Barcelona scored. It did look that way at times, but saying that only takes away from Barcelona's ability to make a tight game look like a walk in the park. There were still 80 minutes of football to play, but from that point on only one team really played it.

It wasn't a vintage Barcelona performance, but under the circumstances it was extremely good. The back four did look a little shaky at times, but as always the midfield duo of Xavi and Iniesta played their part in making sure United could never really get at them. It doesn't get any better in football than those two. Xavi has always been a very good player, but in the last year he has just exploded, what with Spain's triumph and a wonderful season with Barcelona. Iniesta is someone I've known since my Championship Manager days. I bought him from Barcelona as a 16/17 year old kid, and while his ratings were average he performances were brilliant. Since then I've always had a soft spot for him, and so I've almost felt like a proud father watching rise up through the ranks, and it was quite startling -- yet wholly justified -- to see him crowned last night by Wayne Rooney as the best in the world (I wonder how Ronaldo will feel about that statement by the way). Iniesta really is that good. No longer can he be dubbed underrated. He may be an anti-galactico, he may be bad for the media, he may be the whitest person in the world, but he is also one of the best players in the world. The best? Let's just say he would be a shoe-in for my World XI.

Another certainty would be Lionel Messi. The Argentine wasn't at his best, but it was he who aided Xavi and Iniesta in weaving their magic, and this was the biggest difference between the semi-final and the final. Unlike Chelsea, United couldn't handle Messi in the centre. This was a simple yet astute piece of tactical nous from Guardiola, who must have watched Liverpool beat United 4-1 with Gerrard in a similar position. Messi found space time and again, with neither Ferdinand nor the United midfield quite sure who's job it was to pick him up. It was certainly Ferdinand's job when Xavi foated that inch-perfect cross into the box, leaving Messi to score his first goal against English opposition. Ironically, he scored it with the part of his body that was adjudged to be the decisive factor for Ronaldo's superiority to Messi. Of course I'm not now saying that Messi is as good as Ronaldo in the air, but it felt sweet to see Messi answer his critics in such fashion - a stunning headed goal against English opposition to cap a fine display.

In fairness to Ronaldo, he was easily United's most threatening player. He held the ball up well, and of course his shots were always cause for concern. But as the game wore on and United became a shambles he was left without a defining role, and suffered as a result of overcrowding in Barcelona's half. Ferguson must take some of the balme for this. For starters, United's problems were in midfield. Carrick, Giggs and Anderson were unable to stamp any kind of authority on the game. You can't wave a magic wand and turn them into great players, but I think the most sensible thing to do at half time would have been to replace Giggs with Scholes. Instead, Fergie replaced Anderson with Tevez, leaving Giggs and Carrick to marshall Xavi and Iniesta. Read that sentence again and see if that's not as dreadful a decision as taking of Riquelme at 1-0 up/failing to bring an 18 year old Messi off the bench. Bringing on Berbatov only made matters worse, but in fariness to Ferguson he didn't really have a choice. All of this played into Barcelona's hands, because once they got the ball to either Iniesta or Xavi (those two again) they could do whatever they wanted with it. It's rare you see a Manchester United team go out with such a whimper, yet even with arguably four strikers on the pitch they couldn't muster up one of those onsloughts they are rightfully famous for. Ferguson addressed the symptoms -- they were losing badly and needed a goal -- but he didn't address the cause -- they just couldn't get hold of/keep the ball.

Some slight changes could have been made to help in this department (and no doubt United missed the industry of Flecther and the bite of Hargreaves), but for me the rather harsh reality is that this Manchester United midfield is just not good enough; not when it comes to this level of football. They're good enough to take three points against the bottom 10 Premier League clubs, but they have failed to convince me over the course of the season. Changes will need to be made. For me, that means Carrick out, Anderson out, Giggs retired. Any suggestions as to who they can bring in?

For Barcelona, this has been a season to savour. I have watched most of their games and so it feels like I have been a participant in this historic season. I will probably never watch as many games of football in one year for the remainder of my life, but I probably couldn't have picked a better time to peak. The question is, can they push on from here? The shocking/mouth-watering truth is that there are numerous positions where they can improve, but the undeniable truth is that in Messi, Iniesta and Xavi they have 3 of the top 5 players in world football, and as long as their alive Barcelona will be a force to be reckoned with.

Rather Pointless

The general consensus in the media is that we're in for a cracking final tomorrow night. We might well be, but honestly, I can't predict what is going to happen tomorrow, which is why I have refrained from writing about a match I simply cannot wait for. Much of my confusion rests in the fact that Barcelona's starting XI remains somewhat of a mystery. Will Henry and/or Iniesta start? Who will be the left-back? These are big questions, and Pep has been very clever in keeping his hand close to his chest. Part of the reason Chelsea did so well against Barcelona was because they knew exactly who they were facing, and could formulate a game plan in advance. Of course the Man Utd team is not easy to predict either, but I have a feeling that it will be the same line-up that defeated Arsenal at the Emirates. Assuming this, and assuming the fitness of Henry and Iniesta, here is a rundown of the players I think will be involved and some quick, rather pointless comments on their potential influence:

Barcelona

Valdes - The keeper seen as a mistake waiting to happen was flawless in the semi-finals, but even if he went 100 games without conceding a goal there would still be question marks over his ability to pluck balls out of the air...and rightly so. I can see Cristiano Ronaldo's freekicks giving him some major headaches, so Barcelona must do their best to commit fouls as far away from the penalty area as possible if they are to keep Valdes from looking quite the fool.

Puyol - Up until recently, I thought his first name was Carlos. It's actually Carles. Anyway, he's got a big heart etc etc, and he is likely to make ay least one unbelievable tackle during the game, but he is also likely to be beaten by Rooney with ease. He won't give as many fouls away as Alves, and he won't give Rooney as much space as Alves would have, but -- and maybe it's simply the long, curly hair -- I just do not trust the man.

Toure - A great defensive midfielder (though aren't they all?), and so his likely shift to the back four is a blow to Barcelona. A fine player who can do a job, but I can see him being troubled by the movement of Ronaldo, Rooney, Park et al. Barcelona's hope is that he won't have much defending to do.

Pique - Was actually quite impressed with the former United reserve against Chelsea, but I can only assume he will be more severely tested this time around (or at least tested in a way less compatible with his own attributes). Capable of producing the goods, but the occasion might just get to him what hime being young and playing against a former club and all. Also, his lack of pace could well be exposed by the directness of Ronaldo.

Sylvinho - May not start, but if he does he will simply stay back and let others roam forward. Not a bad defender, and certainly not significantly worse than Abidal, but his legs might not be up for such a high intensity match.

Busquets - Has done quite well in his first season, but his inexperience means that it is hard to know how he will cope with a game of this magnitude. Usually keeps things simple and has a good aerial presence when it comes to defending corners, but Barcelona need someone more forceful than him if they are to keep United at bay. Unfortunately that person will be their central defender, so to Busquets they must look. Hardly ideal.

Xavi - Was disappointed with him in the second leg against Chelsea. His passing was off, and so while he saw a lot of the ball he didn't really cut Chelsea open. 20 assists in La Liga suggests that he is more than capable of finding the killer pass, and so much of the burden of creativity will rest on his shoulders. He's a better player than those he will be up against, and has played at this level many times before so I fancy him to do his part for the Catalan cause. Especially if he is paired with his partner in crime...

Iniesta - A fabulous player. I predicted (amongst a host of false teaching) that Iniesta would be Barcelona's most important player against Chelsea, and the 93rd minute in the second leg proved me right. If he is fit, then Barcelona's chances of victory will be boosted significantly. He will have no trouble in being man-marked, and his ball retention will help take the pressure off of Barcelona's dodgey back four. He's also good for winning free-kicks outside the box, and perhaps even a penalty. I really hope he is fit. The final will be an inferior spectacle without him.

Messi - Has yet to score against English opposition. His big game temperment has been called into question (rather harshly if you ask me) but he has the chance to make amends for a subdued semi-final by lighting up world football on its biggest stage. Will be tightly marked no doubt, but I have a feeling that Messi will come out of the shell that he seemed to be in against Chelsea. A special talent, and to repeat Dunphy's phrase, if you don't get Messi then you don't get football.

Henry - May not be fit enough to start, but if he is then John O'Shea will find it difficult to suppress the Frenchman. However, will Henry be the difference maker? You could argue that he cost Arsenal the Champions League final in 2006, missing as he did a gilt-edged chance in the second half to make it 2-0. Will such profligacy resurface? He seems to have refound his old form, but I still have my doubts about him. That said, he was good against Chelsea, and he has (I think) a formidable history when it comes to games against United. In other words, I have no idea with regards the possible extent of Henry's influence. Next...

Eto'o - There's not much more I can say about Sammy. Against a good defence he is a liability. United have a good defence, ergo...

Manchester United

Van der Saar - Prone to silly errors once in a while, and since he hasn't committed one in a few games tonight could be the night. It's hard to know who the good goalkeepers are in world football these days, but I guess the Dutchman is somewhere close to the top, thanks in no small part to the players sitting in front of him.

O'Shea - Sir has declared that John O'Shea has earned his place at right back, and it's hard to disagree. Along with Flecther he has been United's most improved player this season, and he now has a chance to make the position his own by putting in a good shift against probably Henry, but perhaps Iniesta, or even Messi (how about it? Messi on the left wing?). He will struggle for pace against any of those three, and of all the United defenders it is O'Shea that will be singled out as the weak link in the chain. Wes Brown was in a similar position last season, and put on an incredible display alongside Rio at centre-half? Will O'Shea repeat the trick? Perhaps, but if I were a Barcelona player then I would be concentrating all of the attacks down the Manchester United right hand side. It sounds harsh given the season John O'Shea has enjoyed, but it's hard to argue with the logic.

Ferdinand - The perfect partner for the more robust Vidic. How he will fair after injury is unclear, but if fully fit he will have the necessary pace to deal with Eto'o's threat, and he will also be crucial in aiding the slower O'Shea when he is inevitably beaten by Henry/Iniesta. Ferdinand, along with Brown, was immense in last season's encounter with Barcelona, and I don't expect anything different in the final.

Vidic - The perfect partner for the more refined Ferdinand. The Serb will clear up any of the aerial "threat" that Barcelona pose, but if there is to be a way through for Barcelona I think Vidic could be the culprit. Torres made him look foolish a couple of months ago, and he appears to struggle against pacey dribblers (see Kaka in 2007, although with that said, who doesn't struggle against players of Kaka's calibre?). I'm by no means suggesting United's player of the season is a liability, but if someone like, say, Messi can upset him early on then Barcelona may find more joy down the centre than one might expect.

Evra - The more he says, the less I like him. To say he kept Messi quiet a year ago is untrue, but he is a fullback who I think is as up for the challenge as anyone else. The problem with Evra is that he tends to drift out of position easily. He did so in the opening minutes of last year's semi-final second leg, and it took a cheeky Paul Scholes 'tackle' to stop Messi from getting into the United box. I do think that Messi will only occupy him for a brief period of time before the Argentine is pushed into the centre and the ineffectual Eto'o is shoved out wide. This I think will be Barcelona's best chance of exploiting United's biggest weakness - central midfield.

Carrick - He was given a chasing by Xavi and Iniesta for England in February, and I see absolutely no reason why there won't be a repeat. Carrick has his qualities, but at this level I just don't think he's good enough. He needs the dynamism of Fletcher (there's two words I never though I'd see together - Flecther and dynamism) to make up for his languid style, and so without that I think Carrick will struggle.

Giggs - I haven't seen enough of Giggs this season to say anything meaninful about him -- although that didn't stop his fellow players from nominating him as player of the season -- but from the little I've seen I would be quite happy to see him start if I were a Barcelona fan...which I am (at least for this game). Giggs is certainly more creative than Flecther, but honestly, against Barcelona you don't need anyone creative. Their defence can be penetrated rather easily, therefore what you need is players who can win you the ball back and hoof it in the general direction of Ronaldo/Rooney. I think that Giggs might just be an unnecceassy luxury, so I would be more inclined to stick Park in the centre and Tevez out wide.

Anderson - If you remember, I said at the start of the season that I don't see what all the fuss over Anderson is about. I think he's a decent player of course, but it is fair to say that his season he has been a tad underwhelming. Still, he is the type of player required for this game - someone who can win the ball back and hoof it in Ronaldo's direction. You know what - I'm going to do one of those stupid predictions where if you get it right you proclaim yourself a genius and if you get it wrong you never mention it again. Anderson to score his first goal in a United shirt.

Park - If God does indeed love a trier, then Ji Sung Park must be his favourite person in the world. You can't fault the Korean for effort, and he has a knack for getting on the end of things to. His persistent hounding will be key to the United cause, and I wouldn't be surprised if he popped up with a goal. Don't get me wrong - I think Park is an average footballer, but he's just the kind of average footballer that more often than not repays Fergie's trust.

Rooney - I'm a fan of the one they call Roo. If Roo don't like Roo then I think Roo are Roopid. Roo will Roo the day Roo ever said anything cRool about Roo. Roo's the man. He is Roo-nited's best player in my Roo-pinion, and as I Roo-minate this final I think Roo will be king of Roo-me.

Ronaldo - I don't know how to tell you this, but I'm actually not Ronaldo's biggest fan. Still, his is a lethal threat, and against a shambolic Barca defense I would expect him to flourish. As an aside, am I right in saying he has never scored against Spanish opposition? It's been made known all about the place that Messi has yet to score against English opposition, but I have an incling that CR7 is yet to score against any Spaniards. What does that tell us? Absolutely nothing, which is why the Messi statistic is nonsense too.


So in a nutshell, I'm expecting performances from precisely none of the Barcelona defence, whereas I agree with the masses in saying that United will be quite comfortable at the back. I expect Barcelona's midfield to run rings around that of United, but I'm not confident the strikers (specifically Eto'o and Henry) will capitalise on the ample possession. United won't enjoy prolonged possession, but I can almost guarantee they will look more threatening than Barcelona. So in other words, this will be exactly like Barca against Chelsea. And yet I don't see it being that way. Why? In a word, Messi. I can only see him being much more influential in the final, and while I don't think Barcelona will win, I think his presence alone makes me slightly less confident in a United triumph. Against Arsenal I was about 95% sure United would win. Right now I'm about 65-70% confident. I don't expect a wild, open game, but I do expect a game of the highest quality. I just hope Barcelona don't crumble at the back and turn it into a joke, but perhaps that's what needs to happen if they are to push on from this year's success and really concentrate on getting things in order defensively.

No way. Just No Way.

Given that the score is only one nil this may seem slightly odd, but my feeling about tonight's game is that it is a tad irrelevant. I honestly cannot see Arsenal coming away with a sufficient win. United may have only scored one last week, but all the signs point to the fact that they are more than capable of adding to that at the Emirates. People may point to Arsenal beating them back in November as hope for the Gunners, but analysis of that game is hardly titled in Arsenal's favour. I can recall United having several gilt-edged chances, which on another day would have seen them bag about three goals. All of this leads me to believe that United will score at least one goal chez Gunners, meaning Arsenal will need to score at least three. No way. Just no way.

Despite my pessimistic outlook, Wenger still has to give his team the best possible chance of proving me -- and most others -- wrong. There is an Arsenal team that will fail miserably, and an Arsenal team that will run United close. The former includes Diaby on the left and Cesc in the supporting striker role. The latter looks like this:

...............................................Almunia......................................................

Sagna....................Toure...................Djourou.................................Gibbs


Walcott...............Fabregas..............Song........................................Nasri

............................van Persie......................................................................

.........................................................Adebayor...........................................


I don't claim that to be a flawless team. I have little time for Adebayor, I think Walcott is green and indisciplined, and the defense doesn't exactly scream "Impregnable". Still, in my mind it's Arsenal's best chance of upsetting the odds. Should United decide not to turn up for one reason or another then this is a team that can make them pay. However, in the semi-final of a Champions League I don't expect any mistakes from the Red Devils.

This is a cliche, and to say that it's a cliche for a reason is a cliche, and to say that saying it is a cliche for a reason is a cliche, but the first goal is just so important it's hard to overstate it. The simple fact is that if Arsenal get it then the tie is all square, but if United get it then Arsenal need three unanswered goals. What a difference a goal makes, eh? Because of this I find it almost impossible to see anything but a Man Utd triumph. It may be close, it may be decided by a late goal, but one way or another it's got to be United for me.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

Right and Wrong

Today I think I was proved right and wrong. Right about the state of the current Man Utd team, wrong about a certain Mr Torres. I still don't think Torres is a "great" player, but I have not seen him perform better in a red grey shirt. I didn't think he was capable of upsetting both Ferdinand and Vidic like he did, but he really was magnificent, especially in the first half. His finish was clinical, and his pass to Gerrard which led to the penalty was quality. In the big games that I've seen him in before he has often left me underwhelmed -- even when he has scored -- but against United he was outstanding. Andy Gray even went as far as to call him "the best striker in the world". From what I've seen of David Villa I might disagree, and Drogba on his day is probably more lethal, but Torres is there or thereabouts. More of these kinds of displays in the latter stages of the Champions League and he may well prove to be the most valuable hitman in the business.

Liverpool as a team were far superior to United, which makes Fergie's claims that his side had the better of it laughable. Carragher and Aurelio were rarely troubled by the industrious but limited Park and the lethargic, unwilling-to-take-on-opponents Ronaldo. The latter was particularly abject, seemingly content to prance about on the wings and hope for something to come his way rather than fight for it. The game just seemed to pass United's front three by, along with their central midfield.

I've never been a fan of Carrick's, or Anderson's for that matter. Carrick is simply not good enough to be the creative spark in a midfield, and Anderson is yet to really contribute anything of note in this first two seasons at Old Trafford (and yet for some reason people rate him really highly?). If I'm not mistaken the two played at the Emirates together earlier in the season and were less than convincing, especially when United were two behind and crying out for them to make something happen. Carrick is grand when you're 2-0 up and the opposition give you space, but his slowness of thought, average close control, and fragility in possession make him a liability when faced against someone of Mascherano's defensive calibre. As I've said before -- perhaps twice -- this is not a good Manchester United midfield. They're decent, but I would take an Alonso/Mascherano, Lampard/Essien, Fabregas/Song over it without a doubt. And when you look at Barcelona's midfield -- Xavi and Iniesta -- well, you begin to wonder about the Red Devil's Champions League credentials. They're unbreachable defense has made them favourites thus far, but now that some chinks have appeared in the armour perhaps some opinions need to be reconsidered.

Of course this could easily be, and most certiainly is, a blip. The wobbly showing at Newcastle, Wednesday's dodgy display and today's disaster don't exactly undo a season of outstanding defensive work. I expect a backlash over the next few games, so watch out Fulham etc. The quadruple is still a realistic possibility, and despite today's setback the league is stil very much theirs to throw away. However, this season, trophies might not tell the whole truth. Can you really win four major competitions and not be a great team? That sounds absolutely absurd, but in my opinion it may just be the case. If this United side were playing the one with Keane, Scholes, Beckham, Giggs et al, for me there would only be one winner, and it wouldn't be the team that has the official best player in the world.

Average Joe's

Paddy Power have already paid out on United winning the treble, which while a little silly is at the same time hard to argue with. If you don't concede goals, then who is going to stop you? Winning the quadruple is actually an extreme possibility for this current United squad, but my question is this: Will they be winning all of these trophies with one of the most average group of midfielders that a successful team has ever had?

There can be no denying United's defensive excellence, whilst an attack boasting Ronaldo, Rooney, and Berbatov is devastating (in theory at least). However, their midfield regularly consists of three of the following players: Carrick, Fletcher, Giggs, Scholes, Nani, Park, Anderson. Bear in mind that Giggs and Scholes are not who they used to be (despite what most people are saying).

For me, that is such a middle-of-the-road midfield. Does anyone on that list get you excited? Scholes in his day was an exquisite player, but he has been shown up in any big games he has played this season, with Ferguson hauling him off early against both Liverpool and Chelsea. Carrick is seen as the creative lynchpin, but I can't help but think of all of the important games I've seen Carrick disappear in. Against a good midfield his shortcomings are there to see. And even though the friendly against Spain recently wasn't important (although imagine how important it would have been had England won), it was notable that Carrick was way out of his depth. Excusers will say that he wasn't surrounded by the calibre of players he finds himself amongst at Man Utd, but are Barry, Lampard and Wright-Phillips really that much worse than Fletcher, Park, and Giggs?

The point I'm trying to make is that what United look set to accomplish is absolutely astounding. Should Barcelona win the treble (La Liga, Copa del Rey and CL), it will be very easy to point to their players and say "That's why". As I've said before, Iniesta and Xavi are the two best midfielders around, and it will come as no surprise if they are part of a successful team. The same simply cannot be said about any of United's midfield players, so what is their secret? I'll be watching them in the Champions League next week so maybe I'll find out then.

By way of closing, here is a statistic related to the above: Outside of their front three, United's highest scorer in the League is Vidic with 4 goals.

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.

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.

The Shame Of It All

Fill in the blank: Figo, Ronaldo, Zidane, Ronaldinho, Cannavaro, Kaka, ______?

Well, there's no right answer to that question, but I think it's safe to assume that one Cristiano Ronaldo will be the next name added to that list, and what a shame that really is. I'm not saying he shouldn't be voted World Player of the Year. However, his triumph will be more of a reflection of the dip in quality that world football suffered this past year than a reflection of Ronaldo's supreme status as the best footballer on the planet.

Cannavaro aside (though some may disagree), you could comfortably argue that each of the names listed above were the best around at that particular time - not just in terms of form, but in terms of talent and overall footballing pedigree too. They were magic to watch, and true stars of the game. Granted some of them had their flaws -- ranging from severe temper issues to consorting with male prostitutes -- but on the football field they were the creme de la creme. To question their place on a world XI would be foolish. These were professional footballers who made the game a delight to behold, a thing of beauty. They didn't go out to put on a show, but the sublimeness of their talent made it impossible not to be entertained and dazzled. (I'm aware that some of these players are still playing by the way. In fact Zidane is the only one who isn't now that I think about it.)

And then we come to Cristiano Ronaldo.

For me, Cristiano Ronaldo's case for winning the award is as strong as van Nistelrooy's would have been in 2003, except unfortunately for van Nistelrooy all of the good players hadn't just finished up their careers or gotten injured or played for a team in disarray, so he didn't really stand a chance, and rightly so. Horseface managed a staggering 44 goals that season, with the winner of the award Zinedine Zidane posting a not especially impressive 15. However, did anyone dispute Fifa's decision? Do we scratch our heads today and wonder how in the world 15-goal Zidane managed to beat 44-goal van Nistelrooy to the award? No, we don't. We wouldn't care if van Nistelrooy scored 74 goals that season, because that's not the point. That's right - goals aren't the point when it comes to watching football. That's the beauty of the game. There doesn't have to be a single score in a match , yet it can still be of the highest quality. And on the flip side, you can watch a 4-3 "thriller", yet it can absolutely abysmal. Sounds strange, right? 0-0 being better than 4-3? Well we all know it's true in terms of matches, but so it is with players also.

I mean if goals were all that mattered, then why don't we see Pippo Inzaghi popping up on the "best player in the world" lists of yesteryear? And where was Andy Andrew Cole's name when Roberto Baggio won the award in '93? The bottom line is that in the grand scheme of things, goals don't mean a whole lot when it comes to the "best in the world", and they are certainly not the measuring stick of success. Zidane or Figo where nowhere near as prolific as Lampard or Gerrard are today, yet the former were unquestionably better players in their time and did more for the beautiful game than either Lamps or Stevie G ever will.

Back to Ronaldo. He scored 42 goals last season, an astonishing feat for anyone, not to mention a winger (although we must bear in mind that he was a winger who took more shots than anyone else in the league, and probably even more than the whole Arsenal team combined). However, if all other things were equal, I wouldn't let him touch the award for World Player of the Year with a barge pole. Fortunately for the modest winger, all other things were not equal. Messi was injured, and when he wasn't, he was playing for a shambolic Barcelona side (the same goes for Xavi and Iniesta). Kaka also suffered an injury, and din't regain his form of old. Ronaldinho continued his downward spiral, Henry officially started his, and football outside of England was just a mess in general. To put it simply, there has been not one truly worthy candidate to win the award save for the 42 goal "genius". Unlike the big scorers of recent times, Cristiano Ronaldo's goals will actually be enough to see him crowned as the world's best, because the rest of the world decided to put its feet up for a year. However, was he the "best player in the world", and is he now? In my opinion the answer to both of those questions is "No". I still think he should get the award, but it should come with a giant asterix attached to it and a footnote that explains the above.

The players illuminating football (or with the potantial to illuminate football) today are Messi, Xavi, Iniesta, Villa, Zarate (I can't believe nobody in the Premier League picked him up), Del Piero (the old dog still has it in him), Xabi Alonso, Deco, Lampard (to a limited degree), Fabregas, Van Persie, Benzema, Senna, Kaka etc. Cristiano Ronaldo would have to feauture somewhere on that list for the goals he continues to get, but he's not the joy to watch that some of the rest are.

In any sane man's books, Messi is the best player in world football right now. He's still got some improving to do, but the pocket-sized Argentinean really is a class above the rest. The two players who play behind him - Xavi and Iniesta - are a close second and third (which, incidentally, is why Barcelona are beating everyone 6-0). They both enjoyed an exquisite Euro 2008, and have continued that form on into the new season. So in other words, discounting January-May, these would be my 1-2-3 for World Player of the Year. You don't have to agree, but I think you'd be doing well to find three more consistent performers who play the game as it should be played. Cristiano is just not at their level in terms of footballing ability, intelligence, and professionalism. For example (and this is petty I know, but still) would any of them - or even any of the previous winners - have said the following:

"I think I did everything that is necessary to win and I want to continue doing even more."

This isn't the only time Ronaldo has backed himself (yes, backed himself) for the award, and it just sums him up really. When you couple this off-field nonsense with his on-field antics of diving, giving out out to his teammates, complaining to the referee, and showboating, he makes for a poor excuse for the best that football has to offer. Yes I'd give him the award, but I would do so with a large degree of shame weighing me down.

Are You Xavin' A Laugh?

Why there are still gossip columns while the transfer window is shut I do not know, but there are, and even worse, I read them. Today's purveyors of lies ran quite an intriguing little story, claiming that Xavi Hernandez might be on his way to Old Trafford for 20m. First of all, I don't believe thid deal will ever take place. I mean why on earth would Barcelona sell the best central midfielder in the world - a player in his absolute prime - to Manchester United for the same amount of money that brought Robbie Keane to Liverpool? It would possibly be the dumbest sale ever to take place, so I can only conceive that Xavi's agent wants more money, ergo he's stirring up some rumours to try and get Barca to cough it up.

But while I don't believe there to be any real possibility of this move happening, it does raise an interesting discussion - something I talked about at the start of the season in an earlier post I think. One obviously can't blame Fergie for being interested in a player of the calibre of Xavi, but it does highlight the fact that he may well see a weakness in United's midifeld, a diagnosis which I wholeheartedly agree with. To spell out the situation in dire terms, Darren Fletcher has easily been Man Utd's best central midfielder this season. Need I say more?

I've said it before and I'll say it again - Anderson is not a replacement for Paul Scholes, nor is he ever going to be United's answer to Fabregas. He has important qualities, but he's just not creative enough, seeming more determined to stick his bulky posterior into the oppostion than make a clever pass. Then there's Carrick, who quite simply has very little quality in my opinion. His passing is average at best (when he's under absolutely no pressure) and he just runs and hides behind games when the going gets tough (see last Saturday, and almost every other big game he has played in). Hargreaves is a useful squad player, but he's basically the midfield version of Saha - decent when fit, but never fit. However, even when he is fit, he's an average holding midfielder at best, and certainly not worth the 18m United paid for him.

With Scholes absent (and even when he's not absent, he's still old), United's distinct lack of quality in midfield is being ruthlessly exposed. They have the players up front and behind to make amends in most games, but when the big games come around it's very hard to see United being dominant in the middle of the park. Even though they enjoyed more possession than Arsenal last Saturday, this was in spite of, as opposed to because of, the likes of Carrick and Anderson. For all the space on the pitch, neither player ventured forward and seized the opportunity to really cut holes through a lightweight Arsenal midfield. And in the dying moments, when midfielders should be getting the ball and feeding it into the box, it was telling that Arsenal were the ones with all the possession, while Michael Carrick was nowehere to be seen.

One may argue that United where shorn of three of their central midfielders against Arsenal, which is true. However, even with a fully fit midfield, the problems do not go away. Fletcher can only offer you so much, and Scholes is on his last legs at this stage (something which Ferguson seemingly understands, having hauled him off early against both Liverpool and Chelsea). In my opinion, if you want a good midfield then you need to go foreign. Generally speaking, English players just don't seem to have the passing range nor the ability to read the game that Spanish and Italian players have. Ferguson invested heavily in two of these English players, and I think he's suffering as a consequence (Yes yes, I'm aware that United won the double last season, but I'll be damned if that wasn't because of Ronaldo's 965 goals and United's almost impregnable backline).

If by some incredibly bizarre turn of events Xavi does end up in Manchester, then United will be maybe one player short of having a seriously good team (that one player being a left midfielder of course). But while I just can't for the life of me see Xavi heading north, it should be positive news for all followers of United that they're looking for a player of Xavi's ilk, because that is exactly what they need if they're going to remain dominant in the years to come.

Ginger Ail

"Paul Scholes was the best player on the pitch before he went off" - Graham Souness - Premier Soccer Sunday

How someone can make such a claim is beyond me. I'm a big fan of Scholes, but it seems to me like the RTE panel are holding onto memories of yesteryear when analyzing his play. He did precious little in today's game against Chelsea, and he did even less against Liverpool last week. He still has something to offer this United team -- his performance against Portsmouth is proof of that -- but in the big games, I would honestly be more inclined to start Fletcher than Scholes, and that's saying something.

The RTE panel talk about him being the cool head and the guy who will keep hold of the ball when the chips are down. Against Chelsea, Scholes was anything but a cool head, basically wandering around the pitch looking to get sent off as quickly as possible by executing a series of vintage Scholes tackles. In fairness to him, he wasn't giving the ball away cheaply, but that's only because he rarely had the ball. He doesn't have the legs to get around the pitch when faced with a team like Chelsea, so the supply coming to him is extremely limited because he's never in enough space to receive a pass.

Against Liverpool and Chelsea, United regularly had to resort to the wings for attacking threat, and without Ronaldo (and even with him today), their wings aren't very threatening. When the big games come, they're finding it hard to go through the centre, and this is where United are most effective. Gone are the days of Becks whipping crosses into van Nistelrooy. Man Utd need the ball through the middle, and unfortunately Scholes doesn't seem to be able to provide that link when the big games come around. And even more unfortunately for Utd fans, they don't appear to have anyone who can serve that purpose.

Fletcher has been surprisingly competent this season, but he's not the solution. Neither is Carrick or Hargreaves or Anderson, good as they might be at various other things. What Man Utd basically need is Cesc Fabregas. I mean can you imagine their potency if the little Spaniard lined up in their midfield every week? He's exactly the kind of player that they need, because he's basically Paul Scholes minus 10 years or so. Until Ferguson finds a suitable replacement for the Ginger One, he's going to have to hope that Ronaldo scores another truck load of goals this season, otherwise United could be playing catch up to Chelsea for the rest of the campaign.

Before I go, I can't help but pass comment on Ronaldo today. Without wanting to sound biased, his presence cost Man Utd dearly. Fergie took a gamble, and it didn't pay off. Ronaldo left his teammates scratching their heads, with Rooney even coming over to the touchline to ask Ferguson just what they heck they're supposed to be doing in terms of positions. Ronaldo was just running all over the place, and of course doing very little tracking back, which gave Chelsea the chance to build things up from midfield.

And then there was the dive. Just shocking really. But, you know, he did score 42 goals last season so nothing else matters and we must all cherish him and welcome him back with open arms. Just wait until he leaves Man Utd. Then we'll see how much love they have for him and his greasy boots and his greasy hair (I meant to type 'green boots' but 'greasy boots' actually turned out better).

An Angry, Self-Righteous Rant

Supporters can be so fickle.

I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but there was a little story involving Cristiano Ronaldo and Real Madrid during the summer. It was fairly low key so it mostly flew below the radar, but the gist of it was that no sooner than Ronaldo had won the Champions League, he was knee deep in speculation about him moving too Madrid, largely because he wouldn't hush it.

As the summer progressed, more and more ridiculous things were emanating from the Bernabeu, chief of which being Calderon's claim that Madrid would be honoured to have Ronaldo on their team. Honoured!? Ronaldo did what any self-respecting footballer would do of course - he continued to fuel the speculation by remaining largely silent, saying only that he would announce his future plans after the European Championships.

Well, having massively underperformed in the game that saw Portugal crash out, Ronaldo's moment to set the record straight and clear up all this nonsense from Calderon came, and he took the opportunity with both hands by saying that he desperately wanted to move to Madrid and was just waiting on United and Real to settle the monetary issues (with the figures being thrown around more closely resembling a GDP than the price of a slave footballer).

To cut a long and painful story short, Ronaldo didn't get his dream move, because United would rather have left him rot in the stands than sell him. Doesn't that just sound like a lovely club to be a member of?

My point here is that Ronaldo had seemingly no regard for what United have done for him. If it wasn't for Ferguson, he'd be another Queresma, and that's not a good thing. It didn't seem to bother him in the least that he'd be moving away from the club that made him who he is. Had United accepted a bid, he would have been out the door before you could say 'arrogant tool'. He treated the club like dirt, and the only reason - the only reason - he's still there is because Ferguson is the most stubborn man alive.

My question is, what kind of fan reaction should a man like Ronaldo get? A man who considers himself a slave; a man who displays not an iota of loyalty to his club? Well, judging by tonights game against Villarreal, such a man should be applauded when he warms up, and cheered without hesitation when he steps onto the pitch.

The only conclusion to be gained from such a reaction is that fans can be so fickle, so hypocritical, that it makes me wonder what supporting a club really means to anyone.

If you really loved a club and everything it stood for, you wouldn't want someone like Ronaldo at it, no matter how many goals he scores. You see, if all you care about is your club winning, then that's basically saying that all you care about is you winning. You don't care about integrity, you don't care about the means by which something is done - you just care about winning. Why? So you can feel good about yourself and the team you somehow chose to 'support'. If an uncommitted, disloyal person helps you to achieve that goal, then so be it - applaud him onto the pitch, cheer him as he runs up and down the touchline, go wild when he scores another 'surprising' header. It doesn't matter. He makes you feel good after a game, and that's all that counts.

I don't mean to sound on a high horse here (actually, I kind of do), and I'm certainly not painting all fans with the same brush. But if you support a certain team, ask yourself why? Why do you want to see them win? (and saying 'because I support them' is not an adequate answer).

Maybe disloyalty and non-commitment are things that you can tolerate. Maybe you justify that toleration by claiming to care so much about a team that you're willing to forgive those traits so long as the person in question helps your team to win games. Well to that, I would say that you're not a fan of a club - you're a fan of winning, with the club being the means by which you yourself win. There's of course nothing wrong with that. I love winning as much as the next man. But to truly love a club and be a fan has to mean more than just seeing them win at all costs. If it doesn't, then what's the point?

Ronaldo will, in all likelihood, score in a coming game and kiss his shirt badge or something silly like that. Many United fans may rejoice in that moment, but I'll just take a few minutes to be thankful for the fact that I don't support a club, and therefore I don't have to embrace nonsense like that. And honestly, I really pity those who do.

Made To Look a Pool

As promised, I watched all three of the previously mentioned matches yesterday. Since there's so much I could write about each of them, and since I don't want to write it all at this moment (or possibly ever), I'll stick to the biggest game of the three.

Blackburn came into it with...

I'm sorry, I couldn't resist that cheap joke. Despite what people might have told you, Liverpool v United was the game of the day. Never mind the 'clash of the cash'. Liverpool vs Man Utd is a fixture based on sheer, unadulterated hatred, and that's something money can't buy. Although it is something that possessing copious amounts of money can bring upon you (see Chelsea Football Club and Oprah).

I've made some snide remarks about Liverpool in this blog alone, and written some pretty horrible things about them in the recent past, all of which were true. However, I have to hold my hands up and say that they played very well yesterday, and thoroughly deserved the win. And while my hands are in an elevated position, I might as well give Dirk Kuyt some praise too, because at times yesterday I could actually see why a club would pay him to play football. Shocking I know, but it's true. He actually played very well, and was Liverpool's best performer in the first half (with Alonso/Mascherano taking over in the second).

The game, from a Liverpool point of view, started out as bad as can get, with them conceding a very goal, and being over ran in midfield. I mean I actually didn't see nor hear of Xabi Alonso for the first 20 minutes or so, and that's barely an exaggeration.

However, they soon began to get to grips with the task at hand, and even before they scored that lucky goal, they were looking the better team. Then from the equaliser onwards, they outplayed Man Utd in almost every department of the pitch. And what's even more shocking, they did so without their talismen - Gerrard and Torres. Now that I think about it, it really was a remarkable acheivment. Liverpool, with a front line consisting of the wildly out of form Robbie Keane, the unproven Albert Reira, the lightweight Yossi Benayoun and the not really very good Dirk Kuyt managed to beat a United team who were really only missing Cristiano Ronaldo. Granted that's a sizeable loss, but are Manchester United that dependent on him? Is Ronaldo to United what Fabregas is to Arsenal?

People (aka Alan Hansen) talk about needing strength in depth to win the title. Arsenal apparently don't have that, Liverpool apparently don't have that, but United and Chelsea supposedly do. Well, I would say that Chelsea definitely do (although if they were to lose Deco that would be a massive blow. However, they'd just go back to being the normal Chelsea and start winning ugly again). With regards United however, they're reasonably hopeless on the wings without the boy Ronaldo shaping up and down them.

It's pretty clear that Rooney is not a winger. It's pretty clear that Anderson is not a winger. It's pretty clear that Nani is a useless winger. And it's also pretty clear that Giggs is an old winger, who's best years are long gone. This is a huge weakness to have in a squad, and it's where United are inferior to the other big 4 (with the exception of Liverpool, but only just). Arsenal are actually arguably the strongest in this department, with Nasri, Walcott, Eboue, Rosicky, Eduardo, Vela, Van Persie and even Fabregas all able to play this position with competence.

The point developing here is that Berbatov isn't the missing piece in the jigsaw. In my opinion, United have major midfield problems, especially on the left, and even in the centre. These deficiencies were ruthlessly exposed by Liverpool yesterday, with Mascherano and Alonso enjoying more possession than they've probably ever had in most games, not to mention games against United. This is not a good sign for the Red Devils, and they need to correct this at Chelsea next week if they don't want to find themselves 9 points behind the leaders so early in the season.

How they correct it in one week is up for debate. Maybe this was just a one-off horrible performance and all will be made right next week. However, while United were uncharacteristically awful yesterday, I do still think there are problems in the camp. Ronaldo coming back will presumably solve some of those, but his return will also pose some new ones, chief of which being who gets dropped, and where does Ferguson play Rooney assuming he doesn't drop him?

United's problems aside however, Liverpool still had to play their part, and they did that as well as anyone could have. If they continue playing like that then they may just be there or there abouts come next May.

Movers and Sheikhers

Do we now have a 'Big 5'? Or are one of Arsenal or Liverpool going to be replaced in the 'Big 4'? This would appear to be Man City's intention, because you don't spend £33m on a player to guarantee yourself Intertoto football, that's for sure.

When writing about the transfer deadline day, I can only really start with City. Being taken over by Arabs certainly had an immediate impact for the lesser Manchester club. City were reportedly putting in bids for all kinds of big names - Villa, Gomez, Berbatov, Robinho. With the exception of Gomez -- whom nobody else seemed to want -- they were competing with Real Madrid, Man Utd and Chelsea in the transfer market. That's just crazy talk. City? In bidding wars with the Madrids of this world? Surely not.

And what's even crazier is that Man City actually managed to out-bid Chelsea and land Robinho for a cool £33m. In other words, they out-Chelsea'd Chelsea! The question is, was it a wise thing to do?

On paper, I don't think it was. People are calling Robinho 'one of the best in the world', but he's not. He's got unquestionable ability no doubt, but he has yet to produce a very lengthy run of form to suggest that he's up there with players like Messi, Fabregas, Deco, Kaka etc. Ask yourself these questions - why would a player move from Madrid to Man City? Why would a club like Madrid sell 'one of the best players in the world'?

One of the possible answers to the first question is that he knew he wouldn't be getting games for Madrid. He knew they didn't want him. An answer to the second question is that Madrid simply wouldn't sell one of the best players in the world. They'd pay him whatever he wanted in order to keep him in a white shirt. It's perfectly obvious that Madrid are in the habit of pursuing the players considered 'the best in the world' when you look at their shenanignas throughout the summer and down the years. So if in fact they already possessed one, why would they let him go? Again I say they wouldn't, which is why I (nor Madrid) don't consider Robinho to be one of the best, and therefore he's not worth anything close to £33m.

I would say paying that kind of money is a massive risk, but that would be the equivalent of me saying that buying a choclate bar I've never before tasted would make me a risk lover. I can afford to splash 80c on some unproven confectionary, and this Arab group can easily afford £33m on some unproven players. While that makes me a little nauseus, it's nevertheless a fact of life.

Robinho could turn out to be a real star of course. I'm not saying he definitely won't. All I'm saying is that he's not yet the finished article, so expectations need to be kept down a touch.

A reliable source of mine says 'Man City to fall to pieces...you heard it here first'. I find that to be a little premature, because City were a pretty decent side before Robinho signed, so there's no reason to suggest they'll suddenly collapse. They can't buy anybody else until January, but maybe that's the best thing for them. It will give them a chance to properly examine the squad and see where the need to strengthen things up a bit. I mean could you imagine what would have happened if City had more time to spend this summer than a day? Merely adding Robinho to the mix is a much easier task than adding 5 or 6 big names (duh), so this will give City a chance to get their feet wet in terms of dealing with the big names of world football, and not be overwhelmed.

Will they crash and burn? Will they become a real footballing force? Their next game (against Chelsea, which is just perfect) will shed a little more light on those questions, that's for sure.

And if City turn out to be only an average team this season, then as Barry Glendenning said on Football Weekly, we'll be reading in the papers that they're 'No Great Sheikhs'. Heh...Sheikhs.

As for the big 4, Liverpool didn't really do anything special. Just the usual business of securing yet another deal for a winger who costs between 6 and 10 million, and in all likelihood will be a major disappointment, just as the preceeding several dozen were.

Chelsea didn't really do anything either, except not sign Robinho, which may turn out to be a blessing for them. The last thing they needed to do was to spend another collosal amount of money on someone who isn't worth it, so they've at least avoided the potantial of that happening anyway. And if any of the big 4 are adaquetly supplied in the midfield department, it's Chelsea, so the non-capture of Robinho isn't really a blow to their title credentials me thinks.

United signed Berbatov for something like £30m, which is again crazy money. I've made some of my feelings known on Berbatov already in this blog, but what I will say is that if it was between Berbatov and no one at all, then they had to get The Moody One. He's a nice player to watch, and he could do very well for United, but I would have serious question marks over his attitude and his big game temperment. I've seen him give up on too many occasions not to be concerned about it.

Also, what will this mean for Rooney and Tevez, and even Ronaldo for that matter? Will Ronaldo finally start crossing the ball again? Will Tevez or Rooney play on the left, or will one of them be benched? Can Tevez or Rooney play on the left to good effect? We shall wait and see.

As for Arsenal, well they did sod all on the deadline day, which is not especially surprising given that, unlike me, Wenger probably wouldn't spend 80c on a chocolate bar, not to mention a few million on a player.

I said before that they needed to buy a central midfielder. They didn't, and they will most likely pay for that against the big teams. Out of all the candidates for the position, I think Song might be the best equipped, but Wenger seems content to start him on the bench every game. Right now Denilson is the starting midfield partner for Fabregas, but he has yet to prove himself worthy of the position. He's promising, but he's not there yet.

Eboue has been good so far this season, but you can't ignore the fact that Arsenal have played 5 very easy games. When Eboue comes up against the big guns, his incompetence is plain for all to see.

Because of the lack of a steady, reliable partner for Cesc, I think Arsenal will struggle to make a title challenge this season. They may prove me wrong, like they did many last year, but Wenger is gambling with his teams chances. There is of course the possibility that someone will step up to the plate, much like Flamini last year. I mean if you had told me a year ago that Flamini would be an integral part of the Arsenal midfield I'd have burned you at the stake for heresy. Maybe someone like Song, Denilson or Diaby will prove the doubters and the sceptics wrong. But that's what Arsenal are relying on - maybe's.

Deh Roo Ron Ron

Pat Dolan -- who's doing for the wig this year what he did for the waistcoat last year -- wrote a quite shocking piece in today's Irish Star (I didn't buy it...honest). I can't really remember specific quotes, but the general idea presented is that Wayne Rooney is rubbish. OK I'm exaggerating, but he basically said that Wayne Rooney isn't even near as good as he's made out to be. The headline of the piece was something along the lines of 'Rooney Myth is as Big as Loch Ness Monster'. I'm sure other possible headlines eventually canned were 'Roo Are Not That Good', 'Ron is Better Than Roo' and others of the sort.

The main thing that struck me is that Pat thinks Rooney isn't intelligent enough to be considered world-class, whereas Ronaldo is. He says that he admires Rooney's work rate as opposed to Ronaldo's, but Rooney is not a defender, so it doesn't really count for too much. Pat complains at length about the English media also, saying that they're deluding themselves into thinking Wayne Rooney is something he isn't, and that there is only one great player at Manchester United - Cristiano Ronaldo.

I of course disagree with much of this, as I do with much of everything Pat Dolan says. Rooney may well be an idiot outside a football stadium. He may well have the IQ of a small child, or Paris Hilton. But when it comes to playing football, he possesses without doubt a good footballing brain. You can't explain it, you can't teach it, but I can safely say that Rooney has it. There are varying degress when it comes to footballing intelligence of course -- Zidane being at one end, Kuyt at the other -- but in my opinion Rooney is up there with the more intelligent players plying their trade today.

In fact footballing intelligence is right now pretty much the one thing Rooney actually has on Ronaldo, so Pat is well off with this remark. Ronaldo may be a lot of good things, but he's not an intellligent player. He's basically Theo Walcott with a better shot, better physique, and less sideburns. That makes for quite the effective player no doubt, but it doesn't make for a 'genius' of the game, which is what Gary Megson and many many others have called him without considering what the word really means.

However, one thing Pat is right about is the hyping up of Rooney from the media (though the media are just as guilty of hyping up Ronaldo too). Rooney really hasn't done it for United since his arrival. He's scored some goals, he's put in the work, he's showed flashes of excellence, but he hasn't been a consistent performer. He hasn't really dazzled or stood out like a Cesc Fabregas for Arsenal, and that should set United and England fans ill at ease.

His form wasn't great all of last season, culminating in a woeful performance in the Champions League final. And worryingly, he's continued that form on into the new season. Tevez is basically everything Wayne Rooney should be, but isn't. In Ronaldo's absense, it's Tevez who has stepped up to the plate, and if things stay as is, it's Tevez who should be starting ahead of Rooney if that's what it comes down to.

While certain aspects of Rooney's play annoy me, I can appreciate that he does have something speical about him. However, if he's not showing that week in week out, then it's foolish to have him on a team sheet without question. By merit, he should not be starting for England next week. If hard decisions like this are made, he will hopefully get the required kick up the backside, and his career will stop spiraling downwards. However, if his mediocrity goes unpunished, then he will have no reason to rise above it, and his 'potential' will never be fully realised, which would be a shame.