Stop Being Assholes

Hey Barcelona, Shalke 04 and Werder Bremen,

Stop being assholes. We all know it's important to get off to a good start to your season. We all know you don't want your players trotting off to the Olympics (specifically your players Leo Messi, Rafinha and Diego) if you don't have to. It's one thing to stop by FIFA's offices and say, "Hey everybody! Are you sure we have to let Messi go? He's really good and stuff and we've got a Champions League qualifier that we'd like to win. I mean, it's like the difference of 20m euros if we lose." But, when FIFA say, "Yeah. I mean, we know it sucks but, c'mon, it's the Olympics. They're pretty important. And, because we feel your pain, how bout this for a compromise. You only have to release U-23 players," you should probably let it go.

You definitely shouldn't appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. And, if you do appeal and win, you definitely should take the players. You shouldn't cause everybody trouble and then just say, "Fuck it." Don't be that guy. If you're going to be an asshole and go to court to take Leo Messi, you better take Leo Messi. Don't be like Bremen and Shalke, that's all I'm saying.

Also, FIFA, you guys should stop being assholes too. You don't have the Olympics on your official calendar? They come every four years, you can set your watch by it. There's some more on 2012--see if you can sneak them on the office calendar next time.

And, in a story that has nothing to do with anything, Franck Ribery just won German Player of the Year. Like just today--it was announced today, August 6th. Didn't the season end three months ago? I mean, what the hey, am I right guys?

In Your Face: Dan Creamer Edition

Hey Dan. Remember that time that you called me delusional because I thought Drogba was going to stay?

Drogba Set to Sign Chelsea Deal

Lalalala Didier Drogba Lalalalala!!!!!!!!!!

Why I Hate Max Bretos (and MLS)

Our good friend Max just dropped this knowledge on us re: Dynamo keeper Pat Onstad:

"He hasn't been in Major League Soccer as long as you think. He did get his 500th save back on May 17th, only the 9th goalkeeper to do that. He's well on his way to 600 with a couple big ones in the last few minutes here."

First of all, I don't have any sense of how long Pat Onstad has been in MLS. My guess would be that he's been in the league for at least 65 minutes as this game is now approaching the 66th minute mark.

Second of all, that's not a stat. That's not even close to a stat. Max Bretos, you should be ashamed of yourself because you know that's not a thing. I used to think you were stupid and kind of a shit-eating grin-wearing asshole but you're not. I've heard you talk about Argentine soccer--you clearly know something about the sport. And yet, here you are, touting this stat as if it's something that every good soccer fan should know. Who can name the other 8 keepers with 500+ MLS saves? If you can't answer that, then fuck you. All I'm saying is, Max Bretos, you're the reason people hate soccer.

And then, after Onstad made a beautiful kick save on a shot from 8 yards out, Bretos informed us that he was "about to stand on his head." He's an MLS keeper that's actually making professional level saves (I was wowed)--he's been standing on his head for a LONG time.

Deja Vu

Hang on:

Chelsea lose on penalties because an underachieving striker missed the decisive penalty in sudden death? And a long-serving defender could've sealed the win with the fifth and final penalty? In Moscow?

I feel like I've heard this joke before and I didn't like it. Mr. Shevchenko, kindly buzz off.

Why Do You Need Andrei Arshavin?

Mr. Ramos,

Hi, my name is Stowe and I think you have a problem. You've been doing a lot of signing and selling this summer and, well, some of us are worried about you. You've already signed Luka Modric, John Bostock, a keeper from Brazil who's not Dida, Geovanni dos Santos, David Bentley and some dude named Paul-Jose Mpoku. You've spent almost twice as much (46m) as Chelsea (24m).

You've got 11 midfielders. You've also got Dietmar Berbatov and Darren Bent. Here's a question--why do you need attacking midfielder Andrei Arshavin? Are you going to play him in place of a second striker? That could work but you'd probaby have to leave Luka Modric out. Maybe you could slide Arshavin out onto the wing? Nope, got Bentley and Lennon (who are both right-sided players, nice choice). Maybe slide him in the center? Jenas'll be mad.

Good luck, Mr. Ramos.

No You Don't

Fabio Capello declared today that he has the hardest job in Europe. Why?

"I'm worse off than Lippi, than everyone. I have Welsh players, Scottish, Irish. In the Premier League only 35% of the players are English. In Italy it's about 72% [Italians]."

First of all, I don't know what the Welsh, Scottish and/or Irish have to do with it. Did no one explain to him that he can only pick dudes from England? Perhaps someone should explain to him that Gareth Bale is, sadly, not available to be called up. (Sidenote: when are we going to make "Bale for England" t-shirts?)

Second of all, no you don't. Mr. Capello, no you don't. I can think of like 50 jobs harder than yours. I think the guy who manages Belarus has a pretty tough job. What about Estonia? Or Cyprus? That shit would suck.

The problem is not that we should keep England English. That's stupid. The real problem is that they don't have a proven striker who can lead the team (I'm looking at you Rooney) and their goalkeepers are, collectively, crazier than a box of rocks. England, however, have a wealth of wide players, a solid defense and a number of impressive holding and attacking midfield players. Just because they didn't qualify for Euro 2008 doesn't mean that Capelllo's job is suddenly incredibly difficult.

I'm actually going to take it a step further though. What if the problem isn't that the Premier League is too heavily foreign--what if the problem is that not enough English players go abroad? England haven't called up any foreign based player of note since Owen Hargreaves moved back to England from Bayern Munich (and, yes, I know they've called up Beckham but, stop being a smartass, we all know playing in America does't count). Look at how many players in top European teams play abroad (based on players who played in their final game of Euro 2008):

Spain: 3 of 14
Italy: 3 of 14
Germany: 3 of 14
Netherlands: 10 of 14
Croatia: 11 of 13
Czech Republic: 13 of 14
Portugal: 10 of 14
France: 7 of 14

So, yeah. While it makes sense that countries whose domestic leagues are traditionally weaker (i.e. not Italy, Spain or England) would pull more foreign based players, even the Spanish and Italians have found some value in pulling in players who play abroad. So perhaps Capello should encourage some of his players to move abroad (Frank Lampard to Inter, anyone?) instead of bitching about all the dern foreigners in the league. It's likely that having to adapt to new styles of play would allow English players to adapt more readily to the challenges of qualifying for an international tournament. Maybe then they could beat Macedonia. At home.

Who?

The Guardian headline read:

"NGOG COMPLETES MOVE TO ANFIELD"

A chorus of football fans responded:

"Who?"

The Guardian's article read:

"The Anfield club described the forward as "one of the brightest young talents in French football" and "lightening quick"..."

A chorus of football fans read on:

"...although Ngog, the cousin of the former Newcastle defender Jean-Alain Boumsong, managed just one goal in 18 matches for PSG last season." (Sidenote: I'm not sure which is worse, only managing one goal in 18 matches or being related to Jean-Alain Boumsong)

Liverpool responded:

"But we also signed Philipp Degen, Andrea Dossena, Diego Cavalieri, Vincent Weijl and Emmanuel Mendy!!!!!!"

A chorus of football fans responded:

"Who? We think you're just making people up."

Liverpool responded:

"No, they're for real. We promise. Rafa says they're going to be gr8!"

Liverpool fans sighed to themselves:

"Rafa, we hate you."

(This morality play was made possible by a generous grant from the Max Bretos Foundation for the Idiotic)

Chelsea's 25, 24, 23-Man Squad

Big Phillip says he wants to cut Chelsea's squad from the current 35 down to "23, 24 players, maximum 25." Sir Alex says we're to old to challege for the title but, frankly, fuck him. So who would be my 23-25 players, you ask? Well, I'll tell you!

GK:
Petr Cech (just signed a new 5 year contract)
Carlo Cudicini
Hilario

DEF:
Ricardo Carvalho
John Terry
Ashley Cole
Jose Bosingwa
Alex
Wayne Bridge (just signed a new 4 year deal)
Paulo Ferreria
Branislav Ivanovic

MID:
Michael Essien (just signed a new 5 year deal)
Michael Ballack
Frank Lampard
Deco
Joe Cole
John Obi Mikel
Shaun Wright-Phillips

FWD:
Didier Drogba
Salomon Kalou
Franco Di Santo
Andriy Shevchenko

IN:
Robinho

Already OUT:
Steve Sidwell
Claude Makelele
Khalid Boulahrouz

OUT:
Juliano Beletti
Tal Ben Haim
Florent Malouda
Claudio Pizarro
Nicolas Anelka

That's 23 established(ish) players remaining and, after sending the three of them off on loan through December, I'd add Sinclair, Sahar and Mancienne to the mix. But 23 is more than enough.

And yep, that's right. I'm keeping Shaun Wright-Phillips. But you guys already knew that.

I'm Watching MLS

Yep, it's gotten that bad. Almost a month after Euro 2008 and I'm bored enough to watch MLS. On FSC. That's doubly bad.

Wanted to share this bit of lunacy from the guy who's not Christian Miles. 25th minute, Beckham setting up for a free kick in a central position 20 yards out. Non-Miles shares this little gem:

"If the wall jumps, he could also drive this ball, put it under the wall. It's very difficult for a keeper to react to a low shot."

Yeah, because that's a common, easily-executed move. I've seen it done only once, by the magical Ronaldinho back when he was at his most magical. So yeah, Beckham can definitely pull it off. I mean it's a once in a lifetime goal for a player (even a player of his caliber) but I'm sure he just saved it for this magical July night at Giants Stadium.

Beckham, unsurprisingly, smacked it into the wall.

It was followed shortly by some shambolic defending by the Red Bulls and Ruiz got on the end of a Buddle cross that most high school defenders could've cleared. MLS!

America Kindly Requests that you Suck It

The Times composed a list of 50 football moments that you wish you'd been there for. The Miracle on Grass made the list:

"25. The United States beat England, 1950

One of the greatest upsets in World Cup history, as England somehow lost to a team of part-timers (many not born in America) in Belo Horizonte, the only goal coming in the 57th minute."

Okay, Times Online. I don't want to argue. I know this was probably your least favorite moment to write about, being Brits and all. You know, we Americans don't have much when it comes to this "football" thing. We've got a semi-final appearance in the first ever World Cup and a win over Engerland in 1950.

So you could at least take some time to do some research. For example, if you went over to Wikipedia, you could learn in three seconds that Joe Gaejtens scored the only goal in the 38th minute (so you weren't even close). You could also find out that "many not born in America" is a crock of bullshit--8 of 11 were American born. So shut the fuck up.

AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'd Make that Deal (Edition 2)

This is absurd:

"Frank Lampard's future remains uncertain after sources in Italy claimed Internazionale are preparing to offer Chelsea a part-exchange deal of £15m plus the Brazil striker Adriano."

Maybe I wouldn't make this deal. But, at the very least, I'd have to strongly consider it. Inter, you just bid 8m for Frank Lampard who has one year left on his existing contract. 8m is good value for a player who's going to peace out with no compensation when the season is over. Now you're offering twice that value plus Adriano? Adriano is worth no less than 10m (he's a Brazillian, he's a striker, he's 26...if 27 year old Peter Crouch can fetch 11m, surely Adriano's worth at least 10) so, essentially you're offering 25m for a dude who's 30 and, although I've defended him all these years, who has a negligible amount of value. I know I just posted 2 days ago about how much more valuable Lamps is that Gerrard but, come on--when both Lampard and Ballack were hurt, Shaun Wright-Phillips ably performed Lampard's role. He was able to muster some impressive performances and it was a damned shame when he was pushed out of the side. Dealing Lampard makes room for Mikel in the side and creates a space for SWP to slide onto the bench. I can get excited about a lineup that looks like this:

Cech

Bosingwa Terry Carvallho A. Cole

Mikel

Essien Ballack

Deco J. Cole

Drogba


With a bench of: Hilario, Alex, Wright-Phillips, Kalou, Adriano

That's right, I'm advocating for a 4-1-2-2-1. Or, if push comes to shove, a 4-1-4-1. Down 1-0 at half, tell me you wouldn't be excited to be able to mix in Kalou, SWP and Adriano to push for a winner. Or Anelka. I'm Big Phil and I'm already excited about that idea.

All I'm saying is 25m is damn hard to turn down for a 30 year old. That's all I'm saying.

Grammar Lessons for No One in Particular

What's that you say? This isn't a grammar blog with a soccer theme? You wouldn't know it from the content of this post:

"While he has no complaints with the new manager at Stamford Bridge, Luiz Felipe Scolari, relations with Kenyon appear to have broken down, leaving the midfielder with three options: sign a pre-contract agreement with Inter to join under the Bosman ruling next summer, or relax his stance and sign the four-year deal on offer at Stamford Bridge. The third path - to leave under the Webster ruling - would be the most complicated, and most inflammatory in terms of his relationship with the club's supporters."

Dear Guardian writers, why not just write "...sign a pre-contract with Inter, relax his stance and sign the four-year deal at Stamford Bridge, or leave under the Webster Ruling. Without a doubt, the third path would be the most complicated...". If you're going to precede your list with a clause which includes three options, you should provide each one of the options within the parameters of that sentence. Otherwise, I say to myself, "Shit, the Guardian totally left out one of Lampard's options" until I read the next sentence and realize you're all idiots.

File this one under pedantry.

You're Kind of an Asshole

Hey Frank Lampard. It's me, Stowe. Big fan. Loved that goal you scored against Liverpool in the Champions League semis--what a moment for you and what a moment for Chelsea. Truly inspiring. You're a real Chelsea legend.

Just wanted to drop you a quick note to tell you to stop being such an asshole. Nothing personal, you've just been kind of an anus over this whole contract thing. I mean, the club did offer you 130,000 pounds a week for four years. That's pretty generous. It'd make you the best paid Englishman in world football (better paid than even $tevie Me!). Let's face it--you're 30, Frank; you're not getting any younger. And it's not that we wouldn't love for you to celebrate your 35th birthday at Chelsea but, hey, let's cross that bridge (or that STAMFORD BRIDGE HAHAHA!) when we get to it. I'm pretty sure we won't want to pay you 130,000 pounds a week at that point but maybe we can work something out. Maybe you can even slide into a coaching role--Scolari has said he only wants to work five years, maybe you could slide under his wing for a year before your old pal Mourinho came back. Huh? Huh?

Oh, you're going to continue to be an ungrateful bitch? Cool man. Cool.


BONUS ASSHOLE ALERT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

From commenter Sé on the Times Online article about Lampard:

"Lampard is grossly over-rated. This is a guy who failed to score in the World Cup finals despite his much renowned shooting skills. Crouch, by contrast, scored two. What does the not so special one, the one who spend lots of Russian money, see in him anyway?"

First of all, you totally nailed Mourinho. I mean it's not like he ever won anything without Russian money, am I right fans of FC Porto?

And yes, Sé, you're totally right. Lampard is overrated. I mean, what kind of asshole can't score in a World Cup? I've scored three World Cup goals and I've never even officially played a game. Too bad Lampard can't be more like his super-awesome compatriot Steven Gerrard. He scored two goals in the World Cup finals. Take that Lampard, you un-clutch son of a bitch!

What's that little rhetorical device birdy that just whispered something in my ear? You mean to say that Lampard is better than Gerrard at scoring goals and generally doing attack minded things? I don't believe it!

Lampard:
2003-2004: 58 games, 16 goals, 7 assists
2004-2005: 65 games, 20 goals, 16 assists
2005-2006: 51 games, 20 goals, 10 assists
2006-2007: 67 games, 23 goals, 16 assists
2007-2008: 39 games , 17 goals , 11 assists
Totals: 280 games, 96 goals, 60 assists
Averages: 56 games, 19.2 goals, 12 assists per season

Gerrard:
2003-2004: 47 games, 7 goals, 7 assists
2004-2005: 56 games, 13 goals, 5 assists
2005-2006: 52 games, 22 goals, 12 assists
2006-2007: 55 games, 14 goals, 10 assists
2007-2008: 49 games, 20 goals, 17 assists
Totals: 259 games, 76 goals, 51 assists
Averages: 51.8 games, 15.2 goals, 10.2 assists per season

So, essentially, he's been worth an extra 4 goals a year (and 2 assists) over five seasons. No wonder his team has always finished above Gerrard's over the course of this period. Yep, overrated. Sé, you should probably stop being such an asshole.

I'd Make That Deal (Edition 1 of Many)

Famously, Dan and I once decided that we would NOT have sold Benjani to City for 7.6m, thereby making us more qualified to run Portsmouth than their chief executive (we would've sold David Nugent and maybe Pedro Mendes to raise funds for Defoe--thereby creating a pretty impressive mid-table strike force of Benjani and Defoe supported by Utaka and Kranjcar). Ever since then, we've been asking ourselves, "Would we make that deal?" Welcome to the Frustrated Strikers first edition of I'd Make that Deal.

Spurs have decided that they absolutely gotta have Blackburn's bald-headed winger David Bentley. Their offers:

Offer 1: Bentley for Aaron Lennon + 7m
Offer 2: Bentley for Darren Bent and Paul Robinson
Offer 3: We've also got Anthony Gardner and you can have him if that makes any difference!!!!

Me, I'd take Offer 1 or Offer 2 or, hopefully, a combination of 1 and 2 that gives me Lennon and Bent and leaves Robbo as far away from my team as possible (I mean you just don't want that shit anywhere near your training ground). Lennon is younger and faster than Bentley and Bent is pretty unabashedly awesome and thrives when clubs rely on him (which Blackburn would no doubt have to do after they let Santa Cruz go). I think I speak for Paul Ince when I say, "Make it happen."

A Lot of this is Wrong

Folks, we're nearly to the midway point of the transfer window. Very few deals worth noting have actually been signed which means it's time to speculate wildly. Apparently, the Times writers are tired of spending their time surfing the interwebs and sporadically playing games of UEFA Euro 2008 and have composed a "Story so Far/What Happens Next" transfer summary for each Premier League team. Lucky for us, they're wrong on a whole lot of stuff and I too am bored enough of Euro 2008 to spend time pointing out their mistakes re: Chelsea. Here we go:

"The story so far Luiz Felipe Scolari has replaced Avram Grant, Peter Kenyon, the chief executive, has signed a right back who can defend, Roman Abramovich has seen what he has been missing at Euro 2008 and Deco has signed for £90,000 a week."

Paulo Ferreria, Asier del Horno, Khalid Boulahrouz and Juliano Belletti are all crying in corners somewhere because of that right back jab. That's some mean shit, Times writers.

The assertion that Deco is "what Roman Abromavich has been missing" baffles me. Unless "Deco" is secret code language for fiscal responsibility and leaving a coach like Jose Mourinho the fuck alone after two Premier League titles, I'm not sure he really fits the bill. I know this is probably just a shitty example of metonymy but I'm not really sure he's what Chelsea needs either. Another aging midfielder? Sign him up! (Incidentally, I'm excited he's coming but are we any better with him than we are with Malouda or Lampard or Kalou? No.)

"What happens next? Didier Drogba is replaced by Samuel Eto’o Andriy Shevchenko takes off to Barcelona, Branislav Ivanovic joins Juventus, Steve Sidwell signs for Aston Villa or Newcastle United and Claude Makelele moves to Paris Saint-Germain."

I don't know who Samuel Eto'o Andriy Shevchenko takes off to Barcelona is but I think he's going to be a hell of a replacement for Didier. Great editing Times Online Staff!

Happily, it's not just forgotten commas that we get to nitpick. The Drogba/Eto'o deal makes only minimal sense--it's certainly not a like for like and while Mourinho was an enourmous admirer of the Cameroonian, he didn't come to Chelsea precisely because Abromavich (and Kenyon presumably) didn't think he was worth all the cash they'd have to shell out. And while I can usually get jazzed about 27 year olds coming off injury riddled seasons who have never played in England, I just don't see this one working out. Berbatov is not cut-price like Eto'o but would be worth the money; Santa Cruz is a viable option. Or best-available-striker David Villa if we'd like to not repeat the Franck Ribery/Fernando Torres debacle from last year.

Why anyone, much less Barcelona, would be interested in Andriy Shevchenko is beyond me.

The Branislav Ivanovic to Juventus rumor is the strangest thing in this whole article. Why? How? Who the fuck did you hear that from? The boy has yet to make his debut for Chelsea--what would compel us to sell? And will his great form for the Chelsea reserves compel the Old Lady of Turin to buy?

I don't see Makelele moving--he's been offered a coaching role at Chelsea and could probably feature in enough games (15-20, depending on how Big Phil takes to him) to keep him happy. If he wants to go to France, so be it and it's such a meaningless deal at this point (dude's 35) why even mention it?

And it was reported like a month ago that Chelsea and Villa had already agreed a fee for Sidwell, opening the door for Barry's exit. So there's one. Congrats TOL!

Guardian Editors Succumb to Fox News-like Standards

and, in doing so, they give us the following headline:

Newcastle deny Bin Laden Link

Hilarious. Foreign regimes have to deny links to Bin Laden. Shady dictators have to deny links to Bin Laden. Now we can add Newcastle United to those ranks? Excellent.

In essence, a group of people related to (but not) Osama bin Laden are considering a 300m pound bid for Newcastle. The article is very tasteful and notes that the company, run by Osama's half brother Bakr, has long since cut ties to the al-Qaida leader but, with a headline like that, why would you even bother to read on. As far as I'm concerned, they're no longer the Magpies--let's call them the Fatwas. After all, it's better to be terrorists than perennial underachievers.

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: