A Sting to Brentford’s 2014/15 Tale?

The First Statement: Dealing With The Rumours:

Brentford v Rotherham – January 10th

Oh, Brentford. What have you done.

So the news we were kind of expecting – but still in denial about – broke today. A week after speculation about Mark Warburton’s future first became public, Brentford released a further Club Statement confirming that Warburton (plus Sporting Director, Frank McParland, and Assistant Manager, David Weir) “will leave Brentford at the end of the 2014/15 season.”

It makes no sense on the face of things to have divulged this, officially, at this point in the season. That said, reading between the lines of their February 10th Statement, it felt like Brentford’s board and owner felt obliged to try and dampen the fire of rumours that had spread to the press. So let me deal with that, first.

More than just abating gossip, it didn’t feel the most professionally-written of statements; normally we expect to hear a characterless piece, with token phrases and empty soundbites. A flat denial could have been fine – uninformative, unclear, but still fine. However the statement from February 10th had every sign of a guilty conscience that’s been caught red-handed. Which is unnecessary, if they believe in the vision. Presumably, the fear is in the consequential negative PR.

Clearly, Brentford’s search for managerial guidance elsewhere escaped the close quarters it was meant to be solely privy to – and thus alarm bells tolled: ‘why would Brentford be enquiring about managers when they already have Warburton and are doing so incredibly well? Is something happening with Warburton?’ And, it begins…

My point being, it seemed like they felt compelled to explain a reason for every motive – when surely, if innocent, it should speak for itself? The club came across to me as overly keen to absolve their behaviour:

“As with every other sensibly run club, we plan for various possible eventualities. We are a progressive club who do talk to other people within the game to learn about other ways of doing things, and to consider novel strategic approaches to the game. Those conversations continue internally, and are part of a healthy dialogue.”

Instead of simply denying the rumours, that Mark is leaving, they felt the need to justify that they are a ‘sensibly run’ and ‘progressive’ club – i.e. this is sensible and progressive behaviour. The reason they’ve been engaged in talks with other people is ‘to learn about other ways of doing things.’ Implication: it’s research and education. Actuality: their ‘other way’ is one sans Warburton, and he is not on board with their vision of ‘novel strategic approaches to the game.’

Note too, the reassurance that these conversations are part of ‘a healthy dialogue’; ergo they are routine and nothing to concern ourselves with.

This next line in particular struck me for its emotive inference; it’s like ‘the club’ has taken it personally that their conversations were leaked. I guess this is the result of being an owner and a fan.

“Football is sometimes called a village, and in any village, gossip and rumours can spread like wildfire, whether or not such rumours are true. It would not be in the Club’s interests to disclose any of those discussions, but Brentford FC do want to confirm that Mark Warburton remains our manager.”

The village metaphor is merely opportunity to have a dig, it doesn’t offer anything in terms of clarity – just the implication that false rumours were being circulated. Which, it turns out, wasn’t really true… as we found out today. Clearly the upset is the breach of confidence, and the misunderstanding of motive, not the accuracy of the information.

We knew there was something afoot when all Brentford could confirm was that Warburton was going to remain the manager, in present tense. Inference being: we aren’t sacking Mark (yet). “Mark will continue to lead the club in its push for Premier League football.” (But no further than that). We just hadn’t been officially enlightened as to why, at that point.

The Second Statement: Dealing With The Truth:

And now Brentford’s top level have seen their hand forced once more, releasing a confirmation that the rumours about Mark are no longer merely rumours, but they have substance. Warburton is leaving Brentford at the end of the season.

Anticipating the backlash, the club felt the need to remind everyone that owner, Matthew Benham, is “a Brentford fan since 1979, who has owned the majority shareholding in the Club since June 2012,” and “has decided to make changes in order to ensure the long-term prosperity of the Club.”

The Bees at The Valley – February 14th

By seems of things, then, it is a clash of philosophies more than any personal distaste for Warburton’s chops as a manager. Because based on his record alone, and the performances and results he’s got from this Brentford side since his appointment, there is no logic to relieving Warburton from the role. Not when he’s been instrumental in getting Brentford this far – to being Championship play-off contenders. In fact, it’s only since the revelations about Warburton’s future were made public that Brentford fell out of the top six (having lost twice, 2-1 to Watford and uncharacteristically 3-0 away to Charlton. I was unfortunate enough to have made the trip to The Valley to support The Bees, last Saturday).

So we hear, now, that Benham has a long-term vision for the future of Brentford FC, which includes appointing a Head Coach to work alongside a new Sporting Director. Interestingly, perhaps tellingly, the statement confirmed, too, that: “As part of the new recruitment structure, the Head Coach will have a strong input in to the players brought in to the Club but not an absolute veto.”

It becomes far clearer as to why Brentford are in this situation. Warburton is alleged to disagree with these additions to the coaching staff, and perhaps lacking the final say on player acquisition.

“The new structure is unusual in English football, although commonplace in other European countries and in other sports. We would have loved for Mark to stay, working within the new structure, but he feels that this is not right for him. We understand that completely and had to weigh up the benefits of the new structure against losing a fantastically successful manager before taking this decision.”

And herein lies the problem- for Brentford’s image, anyway.

It’s just the timing of this revelation that the football public dislike the taste of. Warburton has been an admirable character, for his quick and thorough success on the field, but also his character and back-story that saw him enter into football coaching and management. He is well respected, so this looks – on the surface anyway – to be a bit of a kick in the teeth, and a lack of gratitude for what he’s done for the club during his tenure. Certainly while other managers are being spoken to about a position Warburton already fills so well.

Even if the departure is amicable, English football being the way it is, in this scenario the fans and a lot of the media are always going to sympathise with the manager more than they make allowances to understand the intentions of the owner. There is some resentment for owners that meddle too much in the pitch-side details of management and coaching, which still makes Benham and co the pantomime villains here. No matter how long he has been a fan, or how good his intentions are.

So in the immediate aftermath, it can go one of two ways. The players unite to see Warburton gets a glorious exit: promotion to the Premier League. Or, the team morale crumbles under the weight of the upheaval; the disappointment at losing a manager they clearly respect, and the tangible reflection of uncertainty about their own futures – and Brentford fall short of making the play-offs after all.

Yet, lest we forget, Brentford had only just been promoted to the Championship. So – say none of this had got out – one wouldn’t say, really, that Brentford had failed in not being promoted to the Premier League. It might be easy to blame the board if the latter is the case (aside: would they get the reverse credit should they get promoted? Doubtful.) but it isn’t so cut-and-dry as to lay it on their door.

I suppose, perhaps only good can come of this for all involved – supposing both owner and manager will always be resolute in their differing visions, a change is inevitable. Whether he gets them promoted or not, Warburton’s CV looks dashing and he has some great connections. Benham’s long-term vision has worked for him, and Brentford, so far – there is nothing to say his structural re-org won’t continue to reap benefits. At the very least, there is no point in Benham and Warburton continuing to work together when they have disparate ideas and ideals regarding future strategies. It makes the managerial position untenable, particularly when the club are looking to create a model that works exclusive of who is at the helm in the dugout.

Obviously the biggest issue short-term is the negative PR: this makes Benham and Brentford look bad. Insensitive and perhaps illogical – to fall foul of the ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’ adage. It seems to make more sense to continue with this working and winning strategy, with Warburton at the helm, until it stops working or reaches a plateau, instead of putting changes in place so immediately. I think this has perhaps been a bit of nativity on the club’s part, and now it’s out there they have felt obliged to act with a strong hand – they don’t want to be seen as indecisive or having an unclear vision for the future, so perhaps they have committed to the new direction before they have confirmed the best route.

The long-term issue of course falls at the feet of Benham; trusting that this model – and making the changes to accommodate it immediately –  are the right thing to ensure the success of Brentford FC. You might be inclined to say he is taking a big gamble in relieving one of the Bees most successful managers of recent memory – but then remember he is a professional gambler. He has a physics degree and has worked for a City hedge fund – this isn’t the place for bad judgement, but it is a place for big-winning risks. Having already invested £90m into the club since he bought majority in 2012, it’s fair to say his decisions have been the right calls to spark life into Brentford so far. Bees fans have to trust he has the club’s interest at heart, and knows when to limit the risks when the odds are no longer in favour.

In the meantime, so long as Brentford can minimalise in-fighting and dissent, and retrieve the lost-confidence brought about from the revelation as well as recent results, then they can still have a strong close to the season. The manager, players and staff can finish 2014/15 on a high, and leave Benham to figure out the details of what’s next.

“If it ain’t broke…”: The beauty of a clean sheet

In the same edition of The Football League Paper, I also came across a rather frustrating guest column by Graham Westley.

The main article was one campaigning for the importance of dealing with head injuries swiftly and comprehensively, which is definitely a valid case to argue for. But my issue is with his five points to improve football, which preceded it.

They are as follows:

1. Make score draws worth more than low scoring wins
2. Make high scoring wins worth more than home wins
3. Make away wins worth worth more than home wins
4. Do more to reduce the cost of ticket prices for families
5. Allow assessors to intervene and use their bird’s eye view to help referees from the stand in key situations to prevent them making catastrophic major errors in a game

“If those changes were made I think we’d get more entertainment, more goals, more open games, more fan satisfaction, and fewer pressurised decisions. All positive steps forward.”

So, I totally disagree with the first three points. They seem to be undermining the nature of football itself. Ticket prices are a political issue, and something I wholeheartedly agree needs dealing with. The assessors point is to do with improving an aspect of the game – not altering the fundamental rules, as we see in his ideas about changing goal and win values. But changing the value of wins, draws and goals? That’s just not football, is it?

1. Make score draws worth more than low scoring wins

Preposterous? To win a football game, with presumably a solid defence and effective attacking tactics, but earn less points than a team whose defence went AWOL but still scored plenty seems madness. It certainly sounds like disrespect to the art of defending.

2. Make high scoring wins worth more than low scoring wins

As above – I still feel like good defending is being overlooked in this point. The notion that a goal is more valuable than a well-timed block or goalkeeper save, is naive and a little depressing for someone who’s team cultivated the offside-arm-raise as part of Arsenal’s ‘famous back four’. Watching Raphael Varane blossom under Mourinho at Real Madrid was as beautiful as seeing Jese’s enthralling offence. They say beauty is in the eye of the beholder because what might garner “more fan satisfaction” for one person, won’t cut it for someone else.

I’ve watched Arsenal and Barnet more than most this season – and tactically they each have something very different to offer. What I love and admire about Barnet’s tactical play I don’t comparatively enjoy in the same way when I watch Arsenal, because I prioritise different critiques and expectations across the different groups of players.

At Barnet, I love a solid 1-0, 2-0, 2-1 win; Martin Allen bringing on a fifth defender and relieving the likes of creative Luisma, once the game is in hand. At Arsenal, in many cases, I hope for more goals and, frankly, expect to concede some too. In short, my appreciation of different aspects of the game alters in different contexts.

3. Make away wins worth worth more than home wins

I’d give a tiny bit more room to wiggle on this idea… and then say ‘no’ again, anyway. It’s all about the fundamentals – and as far as home and away advantage, that is on the effectiveness of the 12th man (the fans) and the quality of the pitch and facilities. A lot of the time, it is the calibre and noise-levels of the fans that is important in terms of inspiring the players – and that is the case for home or away fans; if they’re loud, they’re loud. I go to The Emirates a lot, so can tell you playing with 50k more fans doesn’t mean we are louder – it doesn’t mean we offer the audio-advantage for the players. Similarly, not every team automatically has a fantastic home-record. Charlton haven’t won at home since October 21st.

It implies games can’t be thrilling, unless they have a goal. (What about chances created?) It implies tactical nous is unimportant (for who would praise a team that concedes four goals, just because they scored four also?) Remember Mourinho’s comment’s after Arsenal’s 5-4 victory over Spurs?

“In a three-against-three training match, if the score reaches 5-4 I send the players back to the dressing rooms as they are not defending properly. So to get a result like that in a game of 11 against 11 is disgraceful.”

I’m not saying there is no value or joy to be had in a high-scoring game – they are thrilling every once in a while, and fan’s certainly leave feeling they’ve had their money’s worth. But that’s based on a one-off game/result. I can’t say I’d feel as happy about conceding four-goals on a regular basis. Simply, logically, one would have to look at the team and say: the defence needs tightening. But then, who would do that if winning 2-0 at home with good defending and forwards that take their chances meant taking home less points than drawing 3-3?

It adds ulterior motive to performances and results, and undermines the essence of tactical decisions and effective defending.

To give a little insight as to what you’d be missing with Westley’s ideas in place, here’s a review of the enjoyment of a nil-nil, after Luton v Shrewsbury’s encounter:

“I watched Luton play Shrewsbury on Thursday night. It was a 0-0 draw but it was an enthralling encounter. The game constantly evolved and it was a fascinating tactical encounter. Until, that was, Shrewsbury suffered a pair of really soft yellows and a resultant red in the 70th minute. I was commentating on the game and couldn’t believe what I was seeing. It was a terrifically enjoyable and competitive game. Tackles were hard but honest. And there was absolutely no need for a red card to destroy the match. 

Please can we have some common sense in the refereeing of games? Small decisions should be made in the context of the big picture. Games that are getting out of hand need steps to be taken. But cracking contests between top teams should be decided by players not by debatable decisions.”

What we saw here was an “enthralling” 0-0; “a fascinating tactical encounter” that was “terrifically enjoyable and competitive”, despite the lack of goals – perhaps even because of it!

And who penned this praiseworthy commentary of a 0-0? Graham Westley of course. And not just that, it was printed alongside (thus totally discredited) most of his five points to improve football.

I rest my case…

“Blame Referee”

Reading The Football League Paper on the tube home, I couldn’t help but notice the proliferation of complaints about refereeing this weekend.

The further on I read, the more managers I found to be lambasting decisions, or lack thereof, from their appointed referees. From The Championship to League 2, it started to feel like every other game had a poorly performing official.

Starting off at Portman Road, Mick McCarthy gave both barrels to journalists waiting after the game.

“Informed that counterpart McClaren had hailed the ref’s performance, McCarthy laughed. ‘Well if that’s what he thinks, I’ll have to give him these,’ he said reaching for his reading glasses.
“Come on. The game has gone. Let’s come out here and say it how it is. Is it a f*cking penalty? Yes. Is it a f*cking foul? Yes. He’s got his arm out here. The ball hits his hand, it’s a penalty.
“With the Eustace one, I asked the referee at half-time what was going on. He said it was an accidental collision. Well I have to tell you – I’ve had some accidental collisions in my time, It’s violent conduct. He body-checks him from the side. He’d been booked already and he would have had to go off. It was a very strange decision.”

This mood of fury and disbelief set the precedent for what was to follow throughout the rest of the Saturday afternoon press conferences.

Neil Lennon followed suit in criticising his referees penalty calls – however he did manage to bite his tongue better than McCarthy bothered to.
“I’m not convinced it was a penalty, in fact I’m not convinced ours was a penalty either, so you can obviously read my thoughts on the referee’s performance overall.”

The Gills stand-in coach, Steve Lovell, was disappointed with their penalty decision:
“I thought the penalty was a bit of a soft one and the referee didn’t have the best afternoon in the world but that’s all I’m going to say about it.”

Both managers condemned a penalty call at XX as Barnsley scored a controversial penalty against Yeovil Town. Barnsley’s Danny Wilson agreed the goalkeeper “got a touch on it.”

Yeovil’s Gary Johnson stated: “We think it was two bits of unprofessionalism. One from our player to get sent off because that was stupid… the other is the penalty. We had two at Bristol City over Christmas hat we know aren’t penalties after seeking clarification.
“And we believe this will be another one that the officials will end up telling us wasn’t a penalty.”

Dean Smith of Walsall was furious with his referee’s performance in their 4-1 defeat against Scunthorpe.
“I’ve seen it again as well and it’s never a penalty. It’s cost us the chance of getting back into a game that I thought we were getting back into.
“He couldn’t give the earlier one quick enough either – he looked almost disappointed that he didn’t have to give it. To be honest I wasn’t even angry about it – I felt sorry for him more than anything because I thought it was such a poor decision.”

Leyton Orient manager, Fabio Liverani, was so incensed by a foul on Bradley Pritchard that he found himself sent to the stands. Being away from the dugout wasn’t enough to cool the Italian’s mood ahead of the post-match press conference, as he unleashed:
“The match has been badly conditioned by the referee’s decision. It’s impossible to say anything to my players after that because the referee got it wrong.
“Certainly it was our mistake for the goal, not the referee’s and we didn’t have a very good first half. But besides the first 30 seconds we played in my opinion very good football in the second-half.”

Bradford’s Phil Parkinson gave another no-holds-barred post-match interview, after seeing his side lose 2-1 to Rochdale.
“They’ve got a penalty and he’s been sent off – it’s never a sending off, it’s an absolutely atrocious decision. We knew it was at the time, and when you see it again it looks worse.
“It summed up the referee’s performance – he was terrible on the day. I won’t hide away from it, there was a pitch inspection this morning and he was telling me how he’s come up from Surrey. If that’s the best ref we can get and we’ve brought him up from Surrey the God help us. That performance was shocking.”

Latics manager Lee Johnson blamed solely the officials for his team’s draw with Doncaster.
“The game changed on some poor officiating. Sometimes you get three of four poor decisions but in fairness it was probably more 18 or 19. It’s not a great challenge from [Joseph] Mills, but the manner in which the officials dealt with it was very, very poor.”

Portsmouth lost to a Newport goal they believed should have been judged as offside. Andy Awford commented:
“It’s difficult to take. I’m as honest as the day is long and if the players don’t do enough they get a kick up the backside, but they did enough. I’ve got to be careful what I say because I don’t want to get fined, but we’ve been done by something out of our hands, which is disappointing.”

Neal Ardley held the referee to account for AFC Wimbledon’s side’s 2-1 defeat at Stevenage.
“It doesn’t surprise me that the penalty went that way, I thought the officiating all game was awful. It was a scrappy, tough League 2 game and I thought in the end he was giving bad decisions for us to counteract the ones he’d given against us.”

It felt unlikely that refereeing on the whole was this error-strewn throughout the Saturday 3 o’clock’s. So what does that say for the conduct of the managers?

Make no mistake, no winning managers had a bad thing to say about the refereeing. In fact, on a couple of occasions (notably Newport’s Justin Edinburgh and Stevenage’s Graham Westley, for a correct penalty call and offside decision, respectively) there was room for post-match praise for the jobs of their officials.

For the losing managers, are they using the referees as a scapegoat for other issues, and poor performances across 90 minutes; is it so simple that one decision defined the course of the match – or is it just more convenient to summarise it that way? Could they perhaps be using their post-match pressers to equally criticise systems, tactics and players – of course they could. It’s just far easier to deflect blame and hang that particular hat on the official, who rarely has a voice to answer with.

Saturday 10th was certainly a bad day at the office for the men in black – be it because they were at fault, or because they had to simply shoulder the blame anyway.

Cyclical-soccer; the prophesies of old

Re-reading through Tony Adams’ autobiography, Addicted – while an incredibly enjoyable experience second time around – it also raised a few interesting points that are still relevant now.

That quote about history repeating itself stops Adams from sounding so ecclesiastically prophetic.

This season in particular, I am referring to his comments about Manchester United’s forgoing of the FA Cup competition.

#Elections2014: 20 years of democracy

*Apologies, this was scrolled on my iPhone on my commute!

So today marks a landmark day as South Africa’s “born frees” can experience their first democratic vote. It is the first without Madiba, as RSA moves towards hopes, now, of more economic freedom.

Applicable, at least, to those who are not too apathetic to vote; and those who can decide or find balance between the self and the beloved country when selecting a candidate.

Unsurprisingly, Zuma’s govt is fave to remain in place – but is there hope of change for those failed by the current state? Will Zuma invest as much to protect the women of the townships as he did, purportedly for his wife, at his own Nkandla home?

Anelka, la ‘quenelle’, et “Rien à ajouter”

The Anelka / quenelle saga is so infuriating. Whatever he says, the fact it was for Dieudonne suggests it is at least by proxy anti-semitic.

He can cry ignorance all he wants – it didn’t help Giorgos Katidis. While, admittedly, these incidents are incomparable because one looked like a Nazi salute and the other only ‘might’ be… The uproar is no less different; same for the political tensions surrounding their gestures’ connotations in their respective countries (Greece and France).

If Anelka is such good friends with this displeasing Dieudonne, he cannot plead to know not of how his comments correlate to that gesture.

Dieudonne’s quenelle has been specifically linked to anti-semitism and extremism in an official January 2014 circular, issued by French Minister of the Interior, Manuel Valls, which also lays out the legal justification for banning anti-semitic performances by Dieudonne.

In other words, in France, Dieudonne is a well-known political antagonist – but since the Anelka incident, he is now more globally recognised – famous and infamous in the same breath, dependent on one’s nationality and belief-system.

Lest it be said that Anelka’s gesture raised prominence for this man’s anti-Zionist (anti-semetic?) beliefs to a global audience, by accident. Perhaps he thought he would get away with it, because it is a paralinguistic and vernacular understood more commonly in France? But there is little doubt he wanted Dieudonne – and his supporters – to recognise his solidarity to the cause.

But which cause? One could err on the side of caution and say maybe it was only anti-establishment, maybe he didn’t intend any racist incitement, maybe he didn’t understand the gesture could be interpreted in this more controversial way…

But what message would that send, really? In light of the Spurs fans who have allegedly been charged under Section 5 of the Public Order Act for using ‘the Y word’, at White Hart Lane, how can they be punished and Anelka allowed to slip through the net under a guise of political-correctness, cowardice and football-vs-financial implications to West Brom and the Premier League.

Enough people have been affronted by it and its connotations via Dieudonne’s movement, for its use – misguided or not – to warrant a maximum punishment for breaching FA Rule E3. It is on West Brom as much as the FA to react appropriately to the charge.

Ballon D’Or: “Switzerland calling!”

Ballon D’Or 2013 Player of the Year: Cristiano Ronaldo

Instead of writing a sycophantic poem about why Cristiano Ronaldo is a combination of deserved 2013 Ballon D’Or Player of the Year, Dad of the Year and Human Being of the Century… I will leave that to the less biased pros and instead have a little nosy at the voting list that got him the trophy.

I am  perusing the full list of Ballon D’Or results – as published on FIFA – and it is so interesting to see who voted for whom! So thought I would note a few of the voters and the choices that caught my eye… It’s such a political balancing act, trying to select the correct ‘top three’. (Votes come from national Captains, Coaches and the Media).

It seems to be a blend of – amongst the common sense answers that include Ronaldo and Messi without question –  selections based on friendships, loyalties, club and national biases – but also omitted rivals.

Namely, they seem to be choices that players can happily honour on their return to club training.

The fact that neither Ronaldo or Messi voted for each other is one favourite observation. Naturally, they didn’t.

Messi’s were predictable – his Barca team-of-the-year comrades: Iniesta, Xavi and then Neymar in third-place.

Ronaldo went a little left field (and tactical) in selecting former Pichichi and Madrid-based competitor, Radamel Falcao, in top place; then current teammate Gareth Bale in second, and the person the Welshman replaced – former Real teammate and numerous goal-assistor, Mesut Ozil, in third!

Steven Gerrard rightly selected Ronaldo and Messi in the top two, but left third spot for early-2014-contender and Liverpool teammate, Luis Suarez.

France goalkeeper Hugo Lloris predictably selected Ribery in first place – but interestingly omitted his rivals, Ronaldo and Messi, in favour of fellow ‘keeper, Manuel Neuer, and former Spurs mate Gareth Bale.

Vincent Kompany selected Ribery, Yaya Toure then Eden Hazard – ergo, a team and national colleague.

Casillas kept Spanish politics alive, in omitting Messi from his top three. (Ronaldo, naturally, first choice – then Ribery and Robben. No Messi.)

Poland’s Jakub Blaszczykowski used his third vote for national teammate, Lewandowski.

Our Tomas Rosicky voted for the reverse order of results (Franck, Messi, Ron).

Arda Turan is a man after my heart – not only does he have a splendid beard, but he picked Ozil as his player of the year! (Ronaldo second, Messi third).

Exactly like Turkey coach Fatih Terim.

Ashley Williams tried to keep a Welshman in the running by letting Bale top his  ballot card. (Then Xavi, Ronaldo).

Same for Chris Coleman, only substituting Xavi for Messi.

Argentina coach, Sabella, voted for the top three – with Messi naturally top (then Ribery, Ronaldo).

Belgium coach Marc Wilmots thought Zlatan, Lewandowski and Hazard all did a better job than Cristiano Ronaldo last year…

Italy also not impressed enough with Ronaldo, in choosing: Pirlo, Lahm and Lewandowski.

And Spain’s Del Bosque, who picked Spaniards Xavi and Iniesta in first and second place, neglected to select any other La Liga players like… Ronaldo and Messi! to complete his three, favouring Ribery in their place.

Our Roy went for Ronaldo, Zlatan then RVP!

Here are all the Captains who didn’t select Ronaldo or Messi in their Top 3:

• Messi, Argentina
• Fuchs, Austria
• Kompany, Belgium
• Debebe Gebreyes, Ethiopia
• Lloris, France
• Pandev, FYR Macedonia
• Kankava, Georgia
• Nurse, Guyana
• Nurdauletov, Kazakhstan
• Briffa, Malta
• Solorzano Sanchez, Nicaragua
• Ronaldo, Portugal

National Team Coaches who didn’t select Ronaldo or Messi in their Top 3 (!?)

• Antigua & Barbuda
• Austria
• Bahrain
• Belgium
• Bulgaria
• Croatia
• Guyana
• Israel
• Italy
• Jamaica
• Korea Republic
• Lebanon
• Liechtenstein
• Mauritius
• Mexico
• Netherlands
• Nicaragua
• Nigeria
• San Marino
• Spain
• USA

I’m pretty sure there is something to say for ‘regional’ voting – that is, that Europe seems to favour Ribery, while South America leans towards Messi.

And the Media vote actually went in favour of Ribery, too.

… but a cöup for Arsenal

Part ii:

So I guess it’s pretty clear that Madrid’s loss is Arsenal’s gain. For the German’s arrival to be compared to the likes of Bergkamp is incredible, and quite true. We haven’t signed anyone of this proven stature for a long time – so hopefully it impacts on the club as we all wish (immediate performances; boosting team morale; encouraging more credible signings to follow suit,) etc.

Yes, Arsenal fans are living up to a grumpy reputation too though, but it is not without reason, in fairness. Yeah of course this Ozil signing is phenomenal. It is, phenomenal. It means a lot to us, to the players and to the status of the club – it shows that we do have ambition to head in the right direction (up the table, away from 4th place). But, not enough in the right direction, or else, the sensible signings (the CB and CF cover) would also have been long done. And done before 10.30pm on the last day.

Why Selling Ozil is madness for Madrid…

Part i:

Anyone that knows me, or has followed my social media for enough time, knows I am a long-term lover of Mesut Ozil. As one of ‘my boys’ at Madrid (That’s CR7, Pipita and Ozil) – I was shocked to hear the rumours a week or so ago, that he might be on his way out. Higuain, we knew since last season. Same for Albiol, Kaka, Carvalho, Callejon – no big surprises. If and when Bale finally arrived, the player who has been deemed most at risk has been Di Maria. So to hear Ozil was on his way out of the Bernabeu was unexpected and to me, a mistake.

(One I will happily accept, however, as he is now a Gooner and I can’t believe it! But from Madrid’s POV, I am left a bit bereft and actually, uninspired).

Although he has not played his best at Madrid, that is not to say he has been poor. Far from it. In fact, ask many and they would have told you he was the most important player for Los Blancos, after a certain Cristiano Ronaldo, such is his influential vision, movement and technique – and all those invaluable assist stats you all now know about. This is why his sale has left a bad taste in the mouth of Madridistas. For all the joy of Bale, to lose Ozil in exchange is suddenly a far less glossy deal. The fact that fans used Bale’s unveiling as a stage to protest Ozil’s sale, says a lot…

Are You Fan Enough?

Inevitably, there has been a fall-out from the opening weekend of the season; our loss at home to Aston Villa.

Whether it is the AST’s insistence that Wenger’s contract talks should be postponed; the letter to Gazidis from the Black Scarf Movement; or the various degrees of anger expelled in-situ, online and amongst ourselves… every Arsenal fan has an opinion about the current status of the club; those views are thereabouts homogenised. But what about how we express it?

God knows we are all entitled an opinion about our club; the law permits a degree of free speech, too. But does (or should) the weight and validly of one’s opinion correlate with their degree of fandom at Arsenal? When it comes to expressing an opinion, how important is the medium? And does biting your tongue make you noble, and as such a ‘better’ calibre of Arsenal fan? How much blame should we apportion to the moaners (myself included)?

Arsenal: Season-Eve

It’s a new dawn; it’s a new day… but not so much a new life, at Arsenal. And no, since you ask, I am not feeling all that good, either.

At least not as good as I was anticipating hoping to at this point of our rapidly ending pre-season…

I shalt not dwell on such things too much – for we all know the score with Arsenal. Simply because nothing has essentially changed; so what I opined at the end of last season (and indeed in times before then) – it all still applies.

I just thought, seeing as it is the dawn of the new season, I should like to write a little something to mark the occasion.

I vented most of my frustrations already, last week: ‘Once Bitten, Twice Shy: Arsenal, Suarez & Déjà Vu‘. But managed to upset myself further this week with revelations that Higuain wanted to join us, and by re-reading my hopes for summer signings at the end of last season… Heady days.

Higuain wanted Arsenal move, says Sid Lowe

The excerpt from The Spanish Football Podcast:

Sid Lowe: I think Higuain’s a very, very good striker; he went for 38 mil in the end I think it was, wasn’t it? I think he’s somewhere between 25-40 mil Euro striker – I know that’s a big range, but I think that’s more or less the right sort of price for him. Perhaps a tad on the expensive side…

Phil Kitromilides: He scored 107 in 190-odd-games, he’s the first-choice centre forward for Argentina and only 25…

SL: The disappointing thing from Higuain’s point of view was that he didn’t actually get the club that he wanted… [PK: Because he wanted to go to London…] He wanted to go to London, to Arsenal, but Arsenal didn’t force it through and I think he will be genuinely disappointed by that.

But Real Madrid are relatively happy because if he was going to go, they got a good fee for him.

Gareth Bale: No Quiero

I’ve said it incessantly over the summer: Gareth Bale, no quiero!

No players can reach the ability, return and respect that Ronaldo and Messi command within the game – and so it is ridiculous that anyone else should be valued with a fee to match them.

While even I can suck it up and say that Bale had a good season (diving and left-footed-dominance aside) – how he has found himself rated at a price above Ronaldo’s transfer fee to Madrid (particularly after his relentless 2006-09 seasons!) is beyond me.

I say ‘beyond me’, that is in terms of rational thinking… and, as we well know from experience, this is not Real Madrid’s strong suit when it comes to signings under Perez. The man is Mister Galacticos.

I guess that is what’s frustrating about his legacy – as much as it is recalled as halcyon days, for the presence of Figo, Zidane, Ronaldo (the first, not ‘real’) – its epoch is haunted by a misguided notion that if the club doesn’t make a signing of magnitude that it is in some way failing. Like a lot of things at Real Madrid; it is ego. And misplaced ego at that, for they are so blinded by the grass of others (Barcelona, Neymar) that they are missing the pitch-perfect condition that their own turf is already in!

The signings they have made are already good enough to be excited about, let alone settle for. They have bought home-grown boys for once, and good ones at that, in Dani Carvajal, Asier Illarramendi and especially, for me, Isco. Like Varane before him, he is a Galactico-to-be. And that’s the thing; this is so much better! Give me Isco over Bale any day – even his pre-season has been a dream.

Once Bitten, Twice Shy: Arsenal, Suarez & Déjà Vu

So football is back. And I can’t say I’ve missed it. I’m not sure if attending both days of The Emirates Cup has capitulated my already beleaguered hopes for next season more, or if this negative state-of-being is now my permanent Arsenal-stasis. Either way, I feel like a cliche and a caricature of an Arsenal-doomsbody – particularly as I imparted the old: “It’s all changed since David Dein left,” line on my dad on Sunday evening, for shame of lacking some originality!

So a break from all things Arsenal, Wenger, and Gazidis was much welcomed this summer. It still is, as it stands, for I cannot abide any more platitudes on signings and mental-strength of our thin squad. A squad that has, yes, finally rid itself of some deadwood, end-of-contract, end-of-tether players – but not bolstered in any of the positions that have been flawed and under-covered for too long. It is perplexing, frustrating and demoralising.

A Fair Reflection? Oscar Pistorius & South Africa’s Hall of Mirrors

Reading Jonny Steinberg’s article about Oscar Pistorius last week was almost as frustrating as the sycophancy of most of the comments – who praised his assertions without question.

Alas, while I could follow what Steinberg was getting at – he ended up being almost as bad, and misguided, as the journalists and commentators he was criticising at the start of the piece. See, I raised the issue of Oscar Pistorius’ unjust personification of South Africa months ago – (in the weeks following the shooting, during the ‘trial by media’ which saw plenty of journalists insist that Oscar was, by proxy, to blame for all of South Africa’s crimes and failings.)

I am a little tired of coming across as an ‘Oscar apologist’ – I don’t want to be that. However, I would prefer his image not be used as a reflection of South Africa’s misgivings – because it is not a narcissistic love affair, but constrained within a Hall of Mirrors, being distorted to fit a series of expansive editorial agendas.