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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.