Gunnar Solskjær, still gonna be a demon on the pitch.

Honestly, it's very big news and nobody cares:

Comment of the Week

From Harry Pearson's very odd article about the child "mascots" who accompany players out onto the field (which is totally cool--what would you give to be one of those kids?) comes our innaugural Comment of the Week from Guardian commenter pierrelemer:

"Imagine the stigma and the deep rooted trauma that will curse these individuals throughout their lives? Years later, in a group therapy meeting, a mere shadow of a waifish figure stands up in the gentley lit confines of the support group circle and, in a broken sob admits: " I got Senderos"."

Congrats pierre. Keep up the good work.

I Refuse to Let This Stand

How can the New York freaking Times vouch for this:

"Even so UEFA, the governing body of European soccer, has gone statistic mad at Euro 2008. Part of it is that UEFA makes more money from Euro 2008 than it really knows what to do with and part of it is advances in technology and computing software which allow these statistics to be gathered and organized and, lets be honest, give it some neat toys to play with. Large swathes of the competition’s official Web site, have simply been handed over to the nerds."

First of all, you're talking about UEFA's website, Mr. Peter Berlin. Frankly, who gives a shit. There are much more important things to talk about during this championship--the resurgence of the Croatians despite a rough opening game and the loss of their top striker Eduardo, the overwhelming attacking play of the Netherlands and Spain, the futures of two key members of the Portugese team, Big Phil Scolari and Mr. Ronaldo--than the technology deployed by UEFA, not at the games, not on television but on a website that you can visit voluntarily. And one which really contains no information of actual importance; certianly there are hundreds of websites like the Guardian which are much closer to required reading than UEFA.com is.

But, technology and having more money than you know what to do with. That's what you're complaining about. Cool. I've got a perfect example for you. ESPN has that new stupid ESPN View or ESPN Angle or whatever the fuck they call it where they can go 360 degrees. That is like porn to them. It's not really that useful, it's technology that they pioneered like 4 years ago in golf (and I think I've seen it on MNF too). But, cut to Tommy Smyth and Derrick Rae doing a 360 degree view of two men going up for a header with Tommy saying, "Close your eyes cause here it comes!"--talk about a technology fetish.

But you're going to talk about stats on a peripheral website? Alright man, go with God.

Your many salient points include:

1. "Some flashy graphic invention is dedicated to telling us that Eric Abidal, the French left back, passes the ball often to the player just ahead of him, the left midfielder, Florent Malouda. Surprise!"
2. "Cristiano Ronaldo, who takes Portugal’s free kicks, likes to shoot a lot. Big surprise!"
3. "The player page allows you to search for individuals not only by name, position or country, but also by height and age. Why would you do that?"
4. "Sweden’s average age is 29.15 (or 29 and two months) and Russia’s 26.15. The average ages of the 16 squads are separated by just 3 years. And, if conventional wisdom is right and a player’s prime is between 26 and 30, then all the squads fall broadly in that range."
5. "TV producers have caught the stats bug. They are particularly enamored of the technology that allows UEFA to measure how far any player has run in a game."

Alright, so those are five things that make you angry enough to write an indignant anti-stats article for the Times Goal Blog. And your editor was like, "Right on man! Stick it to them. Couldn't agree with those five absolutely right-the-fuck-on points more. Publish that shit!" Let's see where you might be wrong.

1. That is actually really cool and if you don't see that, you are stupid/don't like soccer. It is absolutely awesome that we're finally going to get some quantifiable information on player tendencies. Sure, it's stupid in the case of Abidal and Malouda but how cool would it be to see to whom Cesc Fabregas makes his passes in an Arsenal match? I'd love to understand how he builds an attack, know how many passes forward and backward, left and right he makes. How much better could I understand my favorite team if I had that information? (It turns out that the passing stats setup is not very user friendly and is not super useful and perhaps this is what Berlin is talking about. If so, cool. But I don't think that's what he's doing--I think he's saying "WHY WOULD I WANT THAT INFO" which is super-dumb.)
2. Of course Ronaldo shoots a lot. You're doing that stupid cherry picking thing like you did with Abidal and Malouda. Hey--here's a thought. I'm pretty sure it doesn't just tell you that he shoots a lot; in fact, it probably tells you how often he shoots on target, how often he scores, how often he passes up shots and passes for assists. In fact, after looking at the website, I now know that Ronaldo leads the tournament with 7 shots on target and in total shots with 13. From that, I can discern that he was probably trying a little bit too hard but he did have a goal and an assist last game so he's likely settling in. THANKS UEFA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
3. Those are hardly even stats. And I might like to know if I was having an argument with a friend over who is taller: Martin Harnik of Austria or Eren Derdiyok of Switzerland (I'll let you guys check out the website and figure it out for yourselves). Or if I wanted to make an informed argument about who's going to have an advantage in the air in a given game. You know, whatevs.
4. That's kind of dumb--it's probably more important to have good players than young ones. But I do think that younger sides like the Netherlands and France have an advantage over a team of grandfathers like Italy.
5. He argues ostensibly that what you do matters more than how you do it--i.e. smarter players make big plays without running much. But how that's an argument against TV producers (mind you, we're talking about a website so what TV producers are doing in the article, I don't know) catching the stat bug, I don't know.

If he was arguing that teams shouldn't be picked (exclusively) by these (sometimes) arbitrary stats, maybe he'd be on to something. Or if we was arguing about some mainstream media outlet, maybe I could get on board. But, he's criticizing a random smattering of stats (and some non-stats) on a third rate website.

I guess my conclusion is: what is the point of this article?

The Greatest Live Online Commentary Ever

I'm not sure who the author is, possibly Chris Murphy, but the live commentary provided by ESPN today during the Sweden and Greece match is quite possibly the best commentary of all time. This is a must read with gems including...

39th- "This is ridiculous. Sweden are sitting in formation and the three Greek defenders knock it between themselves in their own half to a crescendo of boos from the Swedish fans. Amazing. Even for Greece."

40th- "How on earth did this side win the thing in 2004? Astonishing. They should be thrown out of the tournament on the strength of that passage of play alone."

73rd- "Justice, my friends, has been done. The only team on display interested in playing the beautiful game leads by two goals to nil. In your face Greece."

87th- "Thank goodness Ibrahimovic punctured the despondency with a piece of genius,. If he hadn't I can confidently predict we'd be sitting at 0-0 now and rapidly contemplating self harm."

92nd- "That is that, and thank goodness Sweden ensured football was the winner tonight. Having a tactical game plan is one thing, sitting in your own half time wasting after only half an hour is criminal. Greece should be ashamed of themselves. There's no place for such explicit negativity in this celebration of football. Well done Sweden, good riddance Greece."

6+You're an Idiot

EDIT: After Googling "6+5 Rule," it made me realize that confirmed idiot Sepp Blatter, not confirmed idiot Michel Platini is the champion of this rule (though Platini wholeheartedly supports it). My mistake. I'm not going to go through and change the finer points of the argument because it still holds true. It works for everyone, not just European clubs. The rule still holds for American Jozy Altidore (or any other world player): American soccer is stronger if Villareal develop Jozy while, probably, Spanish soccer is a little weaker. Just substitute FIFA for UEFA and enjoy.

A lot of smarter people than me have presented more well thought-out arguments against (and, occasionally, for) Michel Platini's controversial "6+5 Rule" which will require all clubs to start with at least 6 players of domestic origin (I do not know how the rule applies to naturalized citizens and I'm too lazy to look it up--I assume that if Eduardo were to go play in the Croatian league, he would be considered as part of the 6 despite being born in Brazil but I'm not sure) supplemented by no more than 5 foreign players. There are merits to the system. I will not say, out and out, that it's totally retarded which is what I'm rather inclined to do. It could be a huge windfall for England--the FA would gain a significant advantage over clubs (by forcing them to develop talent for the national team) without having to make any decisions of their own or catch any backlash.

But that is precisely why Platini's proposal makes no sense. Why should UEFA care? If a league doesn't want to foster quality domestic players, isn't that their prerogative? Shouldn't this be a directive that comes down from an individual association (i.e. the FA says that we are putting a mandate out that we want to emphasize the development of domestic players so anyone who plays 6 English from the start gets free cookies!) rather than a Europe-wide declaration? I hardly see how it is in the direct interest of UEFA to promote this because such a plan will benefit some European nations while hindering others. In theory, such a plan would help large nations like England whose top youngsters are being pushed out of clubs by foreign players. But, I think the elimination of the current system would actually hinder smaller nations. Under current guidelines, the top players from less fashionable European nations move to other leagues where they are thrown in with other international talent. Take, for example, Nicklas Bendtner, the Danish forward for Arsenal who signed for the club in 2004. He gets the chance to develop in a stronger league against stronger competition and, by moving to England, makes available another development spot available for a Danish player at a Danish club. In essence, small nations get the best of both worlds--the Danes (for example) can develop their own talent as well as benefiting from other nations freely and willingly developing Danish talent. This closes the achievement gap between the richest nations (both in terms of talent and in money spent on a national team) and the poorest.

(Sidebar: there is a whole argument about the richest leagues plundering talent from the poorest and how these poor leagues/federations would be better off if they were able to keep the talent at home. That's the market--if a player is good enough and he plays in a shit league where he doesn't get paid, he's going to move. And while it might work against a nation on the club level, I think it absolutely works for them on a national level.)

I suppose it could be argued that Platini is doing this not with international football in mind but instead with club football in his crosshairs. Ostensibly, I suppose, he could argue that he's trying to even the playing field on the Champions League/UEFA Cup level but all that stuff is so fubar (because of earning gaps, distribution to lower leagues, etc), the 6+5 rule is about the last change that he needs to worry about making.

Anyway, in the same vein as this (and the real reason I wanted to post), I found this on the Guardian website after Idiot McFuckbag (Sir David Richards, Chairman of the Premier League) declared that the Premier League is damaging England. I would go so far as to argue that it's not (with 9 English players in the squads of the two English Champions League finalists) but that's not what's so remarkable about this little gem. Though they don't come out and say it in their feature, "Premier League v. England Timeline," what the Guardian is hinting at is that, somehow, someway, there is a connection between the events which happened in the Premier League and those that happened with the England team. Someone forgot to explain to the Guardian staff the difference between causality and coincidence. Take for example:

"May 1992: The Premier League is established as a limited company three months after top-flight clubs resign from the football league. First Premier League season begins in August

June 1992: A 2-1 defeat to Sweden in Stockholm means England fail to advance past the group stages of Euro'92, just two years after they reached the semi-finals of the World Cup in Italy"

Yes, that's right, the Guardian staff is suggesting, ever so gently, that somehow the Premier League--BEFORE IT HAD EVEN PLAYED A GAME--ruined England's chances to get to the knockout rounds of Euro 92. Yep, this entity which, I would argue, didn't actually exist except in the minds of a bunch of football executives and lawers until the first game was played, caused Per Tomas Brolin to score an 82nd minute winner in Stockholm.

Or, if they're not meaning to draw causation, they are simply saying "England was in the shitter then, they're in the shitter now!" which makes the whole article pointless.

They go on for a while, hinting that the number of foreign players in the Premier League hitting 250 had something to do with England going out of Euro 2008 qualifiers three months later and similar ridiculous shit but I'm too angry to even get into it. As David Cross once said, "It's called coincidence you fucking hippie freaks."

Still Hanging On

Just to offer some perspective on this Ronaldinho to City thing, here are things/players you could buy for only (roughly) 13m pounds:

Paulo Ferreria
Michael Carrick
Yakubu (who's 25...up until a couple months ago, I thought he was like 38)
Alfonso Alves
Louis Saha
2x Alan Smith
13/21sts of Shaun Wright Phillips
UK-based polyurethane specialist Baxenden Chemicals Ltd
An inflation adjusted version of Steve Austin, the Six Million Dollar Man

That was one of the more pointless exercises I've ever engaged in. However, who would you rather have? Carrick is solid, so is Yakubu and (potentially) Alves. Ferreria and Saha are okay. Alan Smith scored 0 goals and had one assist for Newcastle--can Ronny do twice as good as that? SWP (God bless him for continuing to believe his future is at Chelsea) managed 3 goals and 4 assists--maybe Ronaldinho can do 61.9% as well as this?

I know this is cherry picking but this shit is out of control. Transfer fees baffle me because they're so heavily based on speculation rather than based in some rational hierarchy of performance. They're also influenced insanely by who is buying and who is selling (which is why the "Chelsea spends too much" argument doesn't hold water for me--we spend a lot because people know we can spend a lot). But, more and more, player values are being falsely inflated/reduced because of short term performance (almost like the "en vogue" factor) independent of any other factor. Take Gareth Barry for example. I've watched Villa play a lot this season--they're one of my favorite sides outside of Chelsea. Barry is solid. He's good. He's above average. But, Liverpool have prepared themselves to make a 20m pound bid for him. 7m pounds more than Ronaldinho.

Let's do a quick rundown of stats that might warrant a higher/lower fee:

Age:
Ronaldinho: 28
Barry: 27
Advantage: Barry (slightly)

Position:
Ronaldinho: #10/Creative Player/Deep Lying Striker
Barry: Center Mid
Advantage: Ronny (I'd argue finding a creative player is much harder...though it can be argued)

Nationality:
Ronaldinho: Brazilian
Barry: English
Advantage: Barry (with the possibilty of the 6+5 rule, this could be big. This could be 7m pounds big.)

Looks pretty even right? Hang on, I think I forgot something:

Talent:
Ronaldinho: He's fucking Ronaldinho
Barry: Above Average
Advantage: Fucking Ronaldinho

Not to mention the potentials for shirt sales, marketing deals and the growth of the Manchester City global brand. Look, maybe I'm being dense here. I know the deal doesn't make as much sense football-wise as it might have once upon a time (though if he can even sniff the form that made him the world player of the year, he will more than impress at a mid-table outfit like City--hell he'd probably impress at Chelsea if he hit 85% of his best form...that's all it took for Ballack). But if you have the opportunity to buy a player who has huge marketing value and an enormous footballing upside, why not? If all he needs is a change of scenery, if he lights the world on fire next year, this is the transfer of the century. And, if not? Well, he cost less than Chelsea paid for Adrian Mutu so who gives a shit.

Sorry this wasn't funnier but this honestly baffles me.

EDIT: I know I'm just talking to myself at this point but, despite an injury riddled season and numerous complaints about his attitude, he still managed 8 goals in only 17 appearances for Barca this year. It's not life changing stuff here but damn, he's not the hack people would have you believe.

Hang on a Second.

From the Times:

"After having an offer of about £13 million accepted by Barcelona, City have been granted permission to discuss personal terms with the Brazil forward [Ronaldinho], who has twice been named World Player of the Year." (emphasis mine)

Hold on one goddamned second.

Look, I agree that Ronaldinho is past his best. He's looked slow and tired and I doubt that a move to rainy Manchester is really going to sunny up his disposition. But he's still farking Ronaldinho. He still did these things in competitive matches. I'm not saying he's going to light the world on fire. I'm not saying he's worth 200k a week (although, to his credit, Thaksin has done something absolutely ingenious in getting advertisers on board to pay part of his wages--this could be a new paradigm for football or just a really clever way to not shell out so much cash). But, as I've said before, he's still farking Ronaldinho. For 13m, I'll sign him for my imaginary team, Stowe FC and his duties will consist of playing pick up games with my friends and giving me lessons in my back yard.

The transfer market is absolute lunacy. More later.

A Euro 2008 Preview

Guardian Columnist and friend of the blog (NOTE: that may not actually be true) Harry Pearson wrote today that choosing which teams to pull against provided a much more compelling reason for Brits (and, by extension, everyone not involved in Euros) to watch the tournament with great interest than choosing a team to pull for. He says:

"There are so many reasons to detest other teams: because they lured away your star striker, dived outrageously, wore an obnoxious kit, provide the only gap in your 1994-95 season sticker collection, or once featured Andreas Möller in their line-up. Some reasons have historical weight, while others are more trivial. Some people unsupport England because they cannot forgive the Empire, others unsupport us because they cannot forgive David Seaman's ponytail."

I, on the other hand, unsupport England because of Gordon Brown failed to hold a referendum on the EU's Treaty of Lisbon. Seriously, what a douche.

Harry got me thinking--as an American, as someone who has never before watched the European championship with much vested interest, as someone who has no real European allegiances outside of club football, who can I present compelling (or completely inconsequential but equally steadfast) arguments against? What follows is my best attempt at Harry's exercise: it is The Frustrated Striker's first annual Euro 2008 preview.

***Since I'm trying to figure out who I'm unsupporting, cons will precede pros. Deal with it.***

Group A

1. Czech Republic:
Cons: Throttled the USA 3-0 at the World Cup in Germany. Also failed to qualify for the knockout rounds so took those three points for nothing. Prague Spring was totally gay and didn't accomplish anything. Slovakia is much cooler.
Pros: I once scored seven goals against fellow blogger, thedoctor2246, in FIFA 2006: Road to the World Cup with Milan Baros.
Verdict: Pros vastly outweigh the cons. Go Czechs!
2. Portugal:
Cons: Star player is Manchester United winger and collossal wanker Cristiano Ronaldo.
Pros: Star player is soon-to-be Real Madrid winger and all around awesome dude Cristiano Ronaldo.
Verdict: Too close to call. Too much depends on the hopelessly inept Ramon Calderon.
3. Turkey:
Cons: Fenerbahce currently employs Roberto Carlos which everyone should've stopped doing around 2004.
Pros: In Turkey, Colin Kazim-Richards becomes "Kazim-Kazim." Which sounds twice as cool as that awesome Shaq movie.
Verdict: This is literally the longest I've ever thought about Turkish football.
4. Switzerland:
Cons: Phillipe Senderos sucks. According to Wikipedia, they're also know as the "Schweizer Nati" which sounds like a mix of German beer and Natty Light. Gross.
Pros: Geneva's pretty nice, even though it's kind of expensive. They have a cool free bike program.
Verdict: International neutrality doesn't mean that I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I've got my eye on you, Switzerland.

Group B

1. Croatia:
Cons: Stupid uniforms. History of political instability as a Balkan state. Luka Modric signed for Spurs.
Pros: Sympathy vote for Eduardo da Silva and his new KFC two-piece leg meal. (Get it?) Knocked Ingerland out of the Euros giving me weeks of enjoyable reading on the Guardian and lots of jokes to tell my English friends.
Verdict: They're pretty fun to watch and Nico Kranjcar has taken over Pedro Mendes' title as "Portsmouth Player who will shoot from literally anywhere." Croatia, I support you.
2. Germany:
Cons: The Bundesliga is literally unwatchable. Miroslav Klose might be a Nazi. Bastian Schweinsteiger is a player that fellow blogger Rob is "sentimentally attached to" which is strange.
Pros: Torsten Frings is an awesome name. Herr Ballack is in the best form of recent memory and is a Blue.
Verdict: I subversively support them. I support them only so I can see them go out in the semis after three unbelievable Jens Lehmann howlers. Seriously, that guy is a nut.
3. Poland:
Cons: Their three best players (and the only three of their players who I've ever heard of) are keepers. Also, homeland of current "Wait? He plays for Real Madrid?" award winner Jerzy Dudek.
Pros: Coolest badge in Euro 2008. Sympathy vote for that whole holocaust thing.
Verdict: Poland, I nothing you.
4. Austria:
Cons: Red Bull Salzberg were dicks to Red Bull NY when they visited and you don't fuck with America. I knew a kid who went abroad to Vienna and he was a total cock. I'm just going to assume the whole country is filled with losers.
Pros: Hosting the tournament so...thanks for that, Austria. I guess. On second thought, they don't seem that excited about it. I just decided that's a con.
Verdict: Hey, Austria, fuck you.

Group C

1. France:
Cons: I could throw out some sterotypical crap about how they surrender in every war or how their women don't shave their pits and it would be HILARIOUS. But, honestly, I can't think of a con except for the fact that Zidane didn't magically come out of retirement for my personal enjoyment.
Pros: They have extremely exciting talent in Ben Arfa, Benzema, Toulalan (the obvious successor to Makelele in the coveted "guy with repeated l-vowel combinations in his name" category) and Nasri. Plus, a victory lap for the very last of the 1998 World Cup winners like Thuram, Viera and Henry. Their match with Italy is going to be an absolute cracker because you have to feel like they have a score to settle.
Verdict: Yes. On board.
2. Holland:
Cons: Arjen Robben will probably prove me wrong and play really well in this tournament, thereby disproving the notion that he's a total sham and making Chelsea look foolish for selling him. I hate hearing Johan Cryuff prattle on about total football. You guys were awesome--we get it.
Pros: Van Basten seems to know how to play to their strengths which is stick as many guys in front of your shambolic defense and hit out at pace on the counter (which is why Cryuff is so interminable). I don't care what anyone says--I like Ruud van Nistelrooy. Mario Melchiot once pulled off the rare self pass in a Wigan game I watched.
Verdict: I'll watch with muted interest. Watching the whole Dutch team is like watching Robin van Persie--you're excited but you don't want to be surprised or too emotionally involved when it goes down with an injury.
3. Romania:
Cons:
Pros:
Verdict: They play soccer in Romania?
4. Italy:
Cons: Divers. Marco Materazzi. Smug. Every imaginable Italian coach has turned down Chelsea. Ugly jerseys. Ugly players. Gennaro Gattuso. Match fixers. Peroni is nasty crap. Ugh.
Pros: Literally the only reason I can imagine cheering for them is Pipo Inzaghi. And he's not in the squad.
Verdict: Thinking about them turns my stomach. I think they are the definition of the nation I'd like to unsupport.

Group D

1. Greece:
Cons: The 20 or so Euros I paid to go the Acropolis was a total waste. Also, they're like rebuilding the stuff up there. I don't want to know what the Parthenon would look like if it was built half in the 5th century BC and half built in 2008, you Grecian assholes.
Pros: Pita bread is like the most delicious thing on Earth.
Verdict: Pita bread alone, no matter the cons, is enough to convince me to support them. Even if they do field shit footballers like Georgios Samaras.
2. Sweden:
Cons: Freddie Ljungberg plays for West Ham (by choice!) and is kind of a whiner. Henrik Larsson is still on the team despite being 173 years old (estimated).
Pros: Zlatan Ibrahimovich is pretty awesome and if you don't believe me, you should check this out. I went through a whole Swedish band phase and I guess Peter Bjorn and John, I'm from Barcelona and The Hellacopters are pretty cool.
Verdict: Why not? If only to see how awesome Ibra is, I'm in.
3. Spain:
Cons: Might as well call this the LiverRealCelona team. And, of those teams, I love approximately none of them. Luis Aragones also called Thierry Henry a "black shit" so that's pretty fucked up, right? Also, Franco.
Pros: Cesc Fabregas is awesome (although he's stifled in their system by all accounts...so half a pro). So is Fernando Torres.
Verdict: I want to like them. I won't cheer against them all the way until they go out disappointingly in the quarters.
4. Russia:
Cons: Vodka shots make me almost puke every time.
Pros: Fabergé eggs.
Verdict: The Motherland falls to the bottom of the group at the bottom of this tired exercise almost by default. There is nothing cool about this team, not even Guus Hiddink (who was awesome in Australia) . But, seeing as they are at the bottom of the group, I must now root vehemently against them.

Of course, none of this has any bearing on who I think is going to win the championships. Or how. In fact, I don't even really know what games are this weekend. All I know is put down your money now--Wayne Rooney for Euro 2008 top scorer!

Marcus Tracy, MARCUS TRACY!

I don't want to be too much of a homer but this is pretty unabashedly awesome: