Friday, May 30, 2008

Could They? Might They? (or the Delusions of a Chelsea Fan)

It's been a good day for delusional Chelsea fans everywhere. Why? See below:

1. I think Cristiano Ronaldo's god-pater is my new best friend.

"I believe that he has decided he is going to Real Madrid but he is not going to say so until after the European Championship."

His mom is pretty cool too:

"Madrid is my team, the best team in the world, and I'd like him to go there. I love Madrid and I would go and live with him."

Look, I want to like Cristiano Ronaldo. He's pretty unconditionally awesome. I just might cheer for Portugal in Euro 2008. But when he puts on a United Jersey, I can't help but hope that he breaks both his legs. And arms. And neck.

If he went to Madrid, I'd be excited. I like Real Madrid. Let me rephrase that--I have no reason not to like Real Madrid. We haven't met them in the Champions League in recent memory, they haven't taken any of our players or targets of consequence (I'm looking at you Arjen Robben), they're sworn enemies of Barcelona with whom Chelsea have some bad blood. So all pretty good, right? He could go to Madrid, be the best player in the world, score tons and tons and tons of goals and I could be like, "Aw, shucks, Ronaldo. You're so cheeky and fun!" It would be awesome. I'd be a little bummed not to get to see him every week but, you know, he might just be enough to convince me to get Gol TV.

Needless to say, signing the best player in the world would be a pretty good signing for Real. It would probably end the Madrid careers of at least a couple of guys. I can't see both Robinho and Baptista staying on (and getting playing time) with Ronaldo around. Even Drenthe might be in trouble.

I'm not even going to let the silent fear of what Sir Alex Ferguson could do with 50-80m pounds enter my mind. This is too exciting.

2. I've already blogged about Mourinho coming home to Stamford Bridge. I can't think of anyone better for the job. Mancini isn't proven in Europe. Rijkard is out of vogue. Ladrup is too inexperienced (and has fallen completely out of the frame). Big Phil Scolari is untested in club football. Guus is old. Mark Hughes has no European experience. Roy Keane used to play for United. Is there no one else?

Yes there is. There's this good looking Portugese I know. He's snarky, he argues with children, all he does is win. His name is Jose Mourinho and he is awesome. If there's one advantage he has over all the rest, it is his ability to keep this squad together. It seems increasingly likely that Lamps is following Drogba out the door and heading quickly for Mourinho-land. Goodbye 35 goals a year. Mourinho could unite the core of the squad we already have and would likely be given enough of a budget to go after targets to plug the few remaining holes (probably Eto'o or McCarthy, maybe a winger with Malouda going out the door, a new keeper as cover for Cech). The one dealing that has already been done must have made Mourinho smile: Bosingwa is a Portugese who used to play at FC Porto--is there a more Mourinho buy than that?

Now, if it were just me, I'd dismiss it. But Chelsea Blog agrees. Come on Jose. Make my summer. Please.

Among Chelsea fans, there also seems to be growing support for Martin O'Neill. He seems like Diet Jose to me--still very fiery and entertaining and seems to have great control over the training ground. He surely has earned a shot at a big club and, if we can't have Mourinho, I'd love to be the club to give him that shot.

So Ronaldo, go. Mourinho, come. It's really very simple.

Thursday, May 29, 2008

Jared Borgetti Thinks CONCACAF is Hard

Jared Borgetti, Mexico's record scorer (what is it with this blog and record scorers of CONCACAF Nations?), thinks Sven Goran Eriksson isn't right to be Mexico's new manager. Here's why:

"It has to be someone who knows Mexican football, who knows the Mexican players, the lives of the Mexican players and who knows the CONCACAF World Cup qualifiers, which are very different from Europe."

Here's what Mexico has to do to make it to the World Cup:

1. Beat Belize over a 2 leg home/away series
2. Finish first or second in a group containing, at worst, Jamaica, Honduras and Canada (ranked 105th, 36th and 62nd respectively)
3. Finish first, second or third in the final six team group. This group will contain, at worst, USA (21), Honduras (36), Panama (67), Costa Rica (77) and Trinidad & Tobago (88).

It took me like 8 minutes to figure that out using the interwebs. You don't need to know anything about Mexican football to lead Mexico to qualification. You don't even need to know the players' names. I feel fairly certain I could navigate the Mexican team through, at the very least, the first two steps of qualification. And I have no previous coaching experience. And I don't speak a word of Spanish. Mexico are the out and out favorites to qualify. They haven't failed to qualify since 1990. They're more talented than literally ANYONE in the federation (did anyone see how poorly the US played at Wembley? The Mexicans should run us off the pitch--and we'll qualify without blinking an eye). Mr. Borgetti, Svennis would be fine.

Of course, Thaksin Shinawatra is never going to fire him and Sven's not leaving without a huge payoff. So this Mexican thing is kind of a moot point.

Wednesday, May 28, 2008

Weird Guy of the Week

Man United Asst. Manager and Grade-A Douchebag Carlos Queiroz said this today re: Real Madrid pursuing Cristiano Ronaldo:

"Cristiano Ronaldo will never be Spanish, as they will never take Olivenca again. They already did the same with Christopher Columbus, and it now seems they want to naturalise Cristiano Ronaldo. Have they already forgotten what we did to them in the past? We will never lose our patience.

It's being done in a manner to distract the Portugal team, at the height of their preparations for the European Championships. But I am convinced that despite pressure from the Spanish sporting press he will not accept to change his nationality. However, it is an attack with a well-defined strategy and Portugal should be worried about that."

First of all, huh? Second of all, what? Third of all, huh?

Okay, here's what we learned:

1. Cristiano Ronaldo is like the small Portuguese border town of Olivencia in that he belonged to Portugal between the years of 1297 and 1801. Since then, there had been a dispute over who Ronaldo belongs to. It's a touchy subject for both nations.
2. Real Madrid once tried to sign Christopher Columbus.
3. Apparently, the Portugese did something totally bad ass to Real Madrid in the past. Too bad the Madridistas have apparently forgotten.
4. The Portuguese National Team have some sort of learning disability. Otherwise, why would a club trying to sign a player--something that happens literally EVERY day--qualify as a distraction?
5. Real Madrid (all of them, even their Portuguese defender Pepe) want Portugal to lose in Euro 2008.

What we didn't learn:

1. Why Carlos Queiroz thinks that Real Madrid trying to buy the BEST PLAYER IN THE WORLD is some symbol that they're trying to get Ronaldo to betray his country. I mean, geez man, has anyone even mentioned that? Is that a thing? Did the English secretly try to naturalize Ronaldo when he signed for United? God forbid Italy gets into the fray.

Carlos Queiroz, I think you might be kind of a weird guy.

Tuesday, May 27, 2008

A Yankee World Cup?

The Guardian revealed today that the US may be considering a bid for the 2018 World Cup. This stirs up some major shit--the English are pretty sure this one is theirs. It's fair: they haven't hosted one since 1966 and, among European nations, they're certainly due. But, it has been 14 years since CONCACAF last hosted a World Cup--2018 would be 24 years. The US is clearly a formidable candidate and hosting another World Cup with a more established domestic league (MLS will be more than 20 years old at that point) could be a big coup for US Soccer. No other CONCACAF nation can field a reasonable bid either; Mexico probably does not have the infrastructure (and FIFA would be unlikely to award it to them after giving World Cups to developing South Africa and Brazil) and Canada doesn't have the stadiums.

Look, I'd love to see the World Cup in America. I'd love to attend a game (though there aren't many venues in the southeast that would likely host matches). I've been to a MNT game (albeit a friendly) and seen the passion American soccer fans have. They deserve it. But, I can't seem to convince myself it should happen. The soccer-specific stadium debate is one side of the issue; games in Giant Stadium are simply never going to be as good as games at Old Trafford.

(Sidebar: One part of the soccer-specific stadium debate that will probably get lost is the variability of size. I really enjoyed the games in Germany because each place took on its own identity and, I have to say, the games in the smaller arenas (6 of 12 had capacities less than 50,000) had a really different feel from the games in bigger ones. I don't see US Soccer utilizing smaller facilities for a change of pace--most will be NFL sized stadiums that all feel, sound and play the same. Unfortunate. Probably not great for the MLS either--I'm sure it isn't great that none of our domestic league's soccer-specific stadiums will be used because they're simply too small.)

But, the bigger issue, I think, is the ways in which the vastness of America works against having a successful World Cup. Maybe I'm making too much of this--I wasn't really interested enough in 1994 to see how things worked back then. But I can't get over the feeling that having a closer geographic spread is a real boon to a World Cup. It allows fans to bounce more easily from stadium to stadium and see games more easily. It also ratchets up the intensity, I think--maybe that's just me. Anyway, that becomes a huge issue when you're getting ready to stage a World Cup in the US. For example, US Soccer will certainly want to showcase Qwest Field in Seattle which is quickly becoming the premier large soccer stadium in the US. They'll also, inevitably, choose somewhere like Giants Stadium to capitalize on the New York market. The World Cup will then stretch across 3000 miles--it will have no center and, I'm afraid, no real identity. Maybe I'm overstating the importance but I think there's something to be said for compact planning in such a large event. Germany had the great fortune that it's furthest venues were only 480 miles apart. England can offer a similar compact nature along with top class venues. So I'm throwing my support behind them.

Besides, it's the only way they'll qualify for the tournament.

Monday, May 26, 2008

More on Landycakes.

I realized that last post was pretty heavy on Landy-hating without providing substantive analysis of Landy's performance on the pitch or real reasons for disliking him. So here goes a more thorough investigation of America's most successful goalscorer:

1. The Guardian did an interesting investigation into Peter Crouch's goals last year. People were noting Crouch's phenomenal strike rate (something like 14 goals in 20 games) and someone pointed out that most came against lower-ranked opposition. In fact, the Guardian calculated that Crouch's goals had come against opposition with an average FIFA ranking of 67.21. Michael Owen, on the other hand (who at the time had 40 England goals), scored goals against opposition ranked, on average, 45.43. So while most of Crouch's goals came against opposition roughly as good as Panama, Owen's goals were scored against better opposition--closer to Morocco. Landycakes is at a disadvantage here because the United States doesn't often play against top-tier opposition. It is still my assertion that Landy rarely scores in the few top-tier games in which he plays. I'm going to do this the laziest way possible--I'm going to use current FIFA rankings rather than taking the time to look up the rankings of the opposition at the time he scored the goals. I figure, for the most part, the fluctuations in ranking will even out over 35 goals.

Landon's Opponent Average: 65.91 (roughly equivalent to scoring against Angola)

That is to say that he's roughly as successful as Crouch. He has scored three times against Mexico but the simple fact is four-goal games against Cuba and hat-tricks against Ecuador are inflating his tally.

2. I don't like to complain about players showboating or stuff like that. I tend to believe one thing American soccer needs more of (Mexico games excepted) is more fighting, more spitting, more surrounding the referee. I think if we could show Americans that soccer is "played with the same passion as American football" (whatever the fuck that means), it might gain some respect. But I do think Landon is a traditionally disrespectful player. I wish I could find the video of him screaming at an opposing defender after he scored on him or running over and taunting the Chivas bench after scoring. No one thinks you're cool Landon. It's one thing to do something awesome (like Drogba running to the halfway line and sliding in front of Benitez after Rafa called him a diver or Robbie Fowler doing imaginary lines of coke after the press speculated he was on the charlie), it's another to be a total dick.

3. This will probably sound like I'm railing on MLS but I'm not. MLS is 10 years old. The European leagues have a 100 year head start on us. For where we are, we're doing quite well.

However, Landycakes' safety blanket approach to football is embarrassing. I think it's pretty lame that our best player, the savior of American soccer chooses to play in a C-rate league. It doesn't matter that he leads the league in scoring--he should. The defending is largely horrendous and the goalkeeping is even worse (though both are improving). I remember watching goals of the week last year and, consistently, 3 out of 5 of the nominees were from well-struck but largely mediocre free kicks. That spoke to the quality of finishing but also to the quality of goalkeeping. It's a wonder Beckham hasn't scored more--if you get it on frame, it's got a pretty good chance of going down. Simply put, Landy doesn't have the stones to play on the big boy stage. That's probably why he doesn't score more goals against strong opposition.

4. I don't really dislike him for this but his name is spelled stupidly. I know I could go back and correct the last post but, from now on, we're spelling "Donovan" as "Donavon." I'm happy with the decision.

That doesn't mean I don't appreciate the contribution he's made to American soccer. He's clearly one of the great American players of the game and I don't mean to take anything away from him (okay, maybe a little bit I do). I'd just like for us to find 11 other players better than him so I never have to see his rat face again.

Landon Donavon? Starting?

Yes. He is. The NY Times Soccer Blog has asked me to name my starting XI for the US/England friendly and I think I just might. Yes, it's a friendly. More importantly, yes, it's a friendly between two teams who don't figure at all on the international stage (yeah, that's right, England. You heard me). But, it's better than following transfer rumors for another day (other than the extremely exciting rumor that Barcelona want to buy Malouda. Buy him! FOR MONEY!) or speculating who's going to replace Grant at Chelsea. So here goes my favorite futile exercise--expending time and energy on the US National Team:

(4-4-1-1...with the option to turn into a 4-2-3-1 with Dempsey and Beasley pushing up right behind the striker)

GK: Howard
DEF: Cherundolo, Bocanegra, Onyewu, Pierce
MID: Dempsey, Bradley, Clark, Beasley
FW: Donavon
ST: Johnson

I have to admit, I know nothing about the defenders outside of Bocanegra and Onyewu. I picked Cherundolo and Pierce because they seem to have played recently for the national team and both are European-based (which counts for something, I suppose). The problem in picking American defenders to me is that none of them seem to have a real position. Even Bocanegra, one of our longest serving players on the national team, can't nail down a spot--he plays fullback for Fulham (who apparently released him, according to the ever-reliable Wikipedia) but seems only to play center half for the national team of late, despite the fact that he used to play fullback. The lack of specialization is not good: does anyone think John Terry would stand to be shifted to
right back? Hell, Jamie Carragher retired from international football rather than play fullback.

Bradley, despite the protests of some of my closest friends (one of whom should be on this blog shortly), is going to anchor my midfield for the next 8-10 years if I'm coaching this side. He's a good tackler, good passer and a smart player. He's extremely solid and he's not Claudio Reina so he gets my vote. Ricardo Clark is energetic and still young--I figure I'll give him a run-out against England and see how he does. Dempsey and Beasley are no-brainers because we really have no wingers. Both have played great for the national team and have the ability to pull goals out of nowhere. Maybe DaMarcus can recover that World Cup Korea form.

Now, the biggest point of contention--Landycakes. I don't like him. I don't like him as a player. I don't think I'd like him as a person. I get an inappropriate amount of joy out of this:



Beasley's gotta take that one himself. Anyway, I think he's a miserable person and kind of a pansy but who else are we going to put here? Who's going to score goals? No one. Donavon, sadly enough, is the best soccer player in the States and we're stuck with him. Believe me, I'd rather play Adu here but, c'mon, let's not get ridiculous.

I'd put Altidore up top if I had my choice but he's not in the squad. What we need is a target man and we don't really have one. I suppose Jaqua's a big target but he's more shit than anyone in the squad so Johnson gets it by default. Congrats Eddie. Score some goals and maybe someone will show you some respect.

I don't even think the game is on in the States. Hooray. Go America.

EDIT: I just realized I left out an explanation of why I picked Timmy. Because he's awesome. It was so obvious I forgot to write it. My apologies, Mr. Howard. You're one of the few who's actually fit to wear the shirt.

Sunday, May 25, 2008

I'm Calling Your Bullshit.

Dear Rafael Benitez,

I'm calling your bullshit. You said the following earlier today:

"It's more difficult because after two years of Chelsea winning the league and spending big money, United needed to do the same. They started spending big money and Arsenal were also spending big money on young players. We are trying to do the same but because they are continuing to spend big money, it makes it more difficult to catch up ... We will try to do our best and the key for me is to not talk about the title."

Bull. Shit. Your teams, pound for pound, aren't good enough. You haven't bought well. You haven't coached well. You haven't looked cool doing it. But one thing you certainly HAVE done is spend money. You can't chalk it up to that oh Goatee-ed One. Other than Chelsea*, you've spent every bit as much getting significantly less out of your buys. Let's see:

Rafa's Big Buys (in Pounds):
Torres 22m
Mascherano 18.6m
Babel 11.25m
Alonso 10.5m
Kuyt 9m
Crouch 7m
Lucas Levia 7m
Morientes 6.9m
Pennant 6.7m
Bellamy 6.5m
Skrtel 6.5m
Luis Garcia 6.1m
Reina 6m
Agger 5.8m
Sissoko 5.3m
Benayoun 4.5m
Arbeloa 2.5m

Overall outlay? 142m. An average of 35.5m pounds a season. And of all the buys, maybe two great ones? Torres was hardly a visionary buy but proved to be an extremely good one. Mascherano is a solid buy but 18.6m is steep for a central midfielder. Babel, Skrtel and Agger are ones for the future. Other than that, what did you get for your 142m, Rafa? I can tell you.

2004-2005: 5th (37 points off the pace)
2005-2006: 3rd (9 points off the pace)
2006-2007: 3rd (21 points off the pace)
2007-2008: 4th (11 points off the pace)

What did big spending Arsenal and Man Utd spend over this period? I just happen to have that on hand as well.

Since 2004:
United: 107m (Rooney, Van Der Sar, Evra, Park, Vidic, Carrick, Nani, Anderson, Hargreaves, Tevez)
Arsenal: 53m (Almunia, Flamini, Walcott, Rosicky, Hleb, Adebayor, Denilson, Fabianski, Eduardo, Diarra, Sagna)

Rafael Benitez, you got served.

*-The irony of a Chelsea fan serving up a diatribe on transfer dollars spent is not lost on me. However, Chelsea inflate their own transfer fees by not exercising patience and by the simple fact that everyone knows that they can pay high prices. We payed 21m for Shaun Wright-Phillips. I mean, come on. Our squad could have been assembled for much less but it simply wasn't. We're owned by a Russian oligarch. We're in the business of paying a lot. Get over it. And it doesn't change the fact that Rafa Benitez is a total douche.

Make It Rain on them...Potential Transfer Targets.

The Guardian has a list of potential transfer targets for Chelsea and United. Let's have a look see:

Chelsea:

RAFAEL VAN DER VAART 25
Have never seen him play. Have heard wonderful things. Think the last thing we need is another midfielder unless we're moving to a four (or five) man midfield. Even so, bringing him in to a central role would force either Ballack or Lampard out on the wing while leaving even less room for Essien and Mikel (who, along with Kalou, is Chelsea's most important young player to develop). Next.

KAKA 26
Not gonna happen. Would be a great guy to sit behind the strikers in a 4-3-1-2 or a good second striker if we're only going to play one up top. But, realisitically, he doesn't fit into a system built around a strong central striker and doesn't leave much room for Ballack or Lampard surging forward from midfield. It would take 50m+ pounds and a complete change of philosophy (and a purge of some key personnel) to accommodate him--neither of which seem entirely realistic.

KLAAS JAN HUNTELAAR 24 (and the usual suspects--VILLA (26), ROBINHO (24) and QUARESMA (24))
By all accounts, Robinho is on his way. Buying guys (Bosingwa included) before you install a new manager seems strange and risky and strange but I guess Peter Kenyon knows best. Robinho is a solid buy (though I'm not sure is he's worth 25m+) if he can work in with Cole and whoever is playing striker. He's a proven scorer from the second striker position and should be able to drift out on the wing and be, hopefully, more effective than Malouda. Villa and Huntelaar seem dependent on the futures of Drogba and Anelka (whose position gets more shaky by the day). While I like to delude myself into believing that Drogba is staying, this and other articles suggest otherwise. Strange to think he might leave against his own will. It'd be a shame and Kenyon would be a fool to let it happen. Unless we're dealing Cole (or not signing Robinho), Quaresma seems surplus to requirements.

SERGIO RAMOS 22
Put off the Ramos signing for a few years and, instead, make sure Carvalho will stick around. He's consistently as good or better than Terry and letting him go would be a big mistake. In two years, Ramos will have surely fallen out of favor at Real (isn't that what happens to all defenders in Madrid?) and we can buy him when he's a more mature defender for less money. Problem solved.

Manchester United:

IGOR AKINFEEV
22
Who knows? They've already got one of the top young keepers in England in Ben Foster (if he can stay healthy) so it seems a little redundant. But Kuszczak is shit so maybe it's not such a bad idea.

DANI ALVES 25 (along with MICAH RICHARDS (19) and ALEKSANDR ANYUKOV (25))
They need a right back--for god's sake, they played Wes Brown there in the Champions League Final. I don't see Richards crossing Manchester and, if Alves were coming to England, I think he would've already signed for Chelsea or Liverpool (what a crush Rafa had on him!). I wish I had watched the UEFA Cup so that I knew anything about Anyukov (who plays for Zenit) but, alas, I did not because it was the UEFA Cup.

MIGUEL VELOSO 22 (and two guys from Zenit who are, also, presumably holding midfielders)
Arsenal are also fond of this prospect from Sporting Lisbon. Considering that United are pretty well suited at that position (with both Carrick and Hargreaves signed to long term deals), I'm going to say that Arsenal are the favorites. They can't seriously expect for Gilberto to play there next season, can they?

WILSON PALACIOS 23 & LUIS ANTONIO VALENCIA 22
I like that The Guardian only grouped these two together because they both play for Wigan, not because they play the same position or anything. Palacios makes more sense because, someday, Paul Scholes is going to retire and they need someone who can go forward from midfield. But I'm not sure either are really good enough, certianly not Valencia. Can anyone really see him getting a game over Ronaldo or Nani? Nope? Moving on.

LUIS FABIANO 27 (along with the usual suspects BERBATOV (27) and ETO'O (27))
Fabiano is supposedly available for 8.6m pounds which is ridiculous. That's Arsenal money. A solid player and I'd be surprised if they get him for anything less than 15m (a price which very well may push them out of the market). Berbatov and Eto'o are no surprise. But, it seems like if Berbatov were going to happen, it already would've. And Eto'o seems a much more likely target for Chelsea--I can't see him happily splitting time with Rooney or Tevez. However, he'll probably end up at Inter; Jose's always been keen on him.

Saturday, May 24, 2008

You Must Be Kidding.

Once upon a time, there was underachieving Swedish manager at the helm of England. After a series of woeful performances at the World Cup in Germany, he was rightfully sacked. He landed on his feet nearly a year later at a quaint little club called "Manchester City." The old Swede did quite well there. Bought well (Elano, Geovanni, Martin Petrov), kept his best players (Micah Richards) and, occasionally, bought poorly (Bianchi). He won games and, for a moment, the public thought he might finish in a UEFA Cup spot or, perhaps if his players wished hard enough, in a Champions League spot. Alas, it was not to be. His team's form plummeted in the second half of the season.

Still, the old Swede's team did the double over Manchester U (their bitter and hated rivals) for the first time since 1970. And they did finish 9th in the league--their highest league finish since 2002-03. And they DID earn a UEFA Cup spot, albeit through their high finish in the Fair Play Table. And yet, bizarrely, the club's evil Kim Jong Il-like owner decided that he would fire the lonely Swede despite his success.

This story, kids, is all too true. In fact, it's just a long contrived way of saying that Thaksin Shinawatra is lining up Avram Grant as a replacement for Eriksson. What the fuck would Eriksson have had to do to keep his job? In what reasonable world does a man who takes a club from 14th to 9th (winning 13 more points along the way) and does the double over the league champions lose his job? It's like Shinawatra doesn't realize that it's MAN CITY--they're not even a real club.

Avram's a real mediocre choice (especially with the wealth of talent floating around this summer--doesn't City seem like they could be a pretty solid place for Big Sam to land?) but not a horrible one. I hope they do hire Avram and Chelsea hire Eriksson. It will be awesomely ironic when both are fired for not living up to standards again next summer.

Mourinho Back to Chelsea?

If I had one rule for this blog, it'd be to never post on/believe anything written in The Sun. Oh well.

Mourinho's record: 3 years, 2 league titles, 3 domestic cups, never lost a game at home (in the league).

I can't imagine why we'd want to bring Jose back....

He also came out today and proclaimed Avram Grant a loser. I swear, he may be the coolest man alive. Called Arsene Wenger a voyeur, claimed Sir Alex Ferguson had "divorced himself from reality," once correctly guessed Barcelona's team sheet (as well as proclaiming his own) for a Champions League quarterfinal at the Nou Camp. Why wouldn't you want this as your manager?

Incidentally, he's not coming back. Look for Rijkard, Ladrup or Svennis as your next Chelsea manager.