Talking 'Bout The Issues, But Keepin' It Funky

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

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

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

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

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

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

Riquelme Love In Pt 1

Riquelme Love In Pt 2

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

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

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

Cutting Corners

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

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

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

Gourcuff pt 2

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

Watch the goal here and be impressed.

Mind Games

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Football In Slow Motion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

World's Apart

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

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

What Money Can Buy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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