benaitkenhead

[benaitkenhead]

Messi vs Ronaldo

The ten differences between MESSI and RONALDO (found in an obscure corner of the internet): 1. When RONALDO scores he points at himself. When MESSI scores he points up 2. RONALDO will do five tricks to beat one player. MESSI will do one trick to beat five players. 3. RONALDO is compared to Messi. MESSI is compared to Pele and Maradona. 4. RONALDO shoots. MESSI passes to a teammate in a better position to score. 5. RONALDO plays for himself. MESSI plays for the team. 6. RONALDO is known for his looks. MESSI is known for his magic. 7. RONALDO scores goals. MESSI breaks records. 8. RONALDO loves fame. MESSI loves the game. 9. RONALDO is good. MESSI is the best. 10. RONALDO will make your day. MESSI writes history. 

[benaitkenhead]

Video Replay – A Dangerous Threat To Football

So Ifab wants to use video replay on a trial basis next season and the FA are keen to offer the FA Cup as the guinea pig. This is a dangerous mistake. We will rue the day. The clamour for video replay has been incessant for years from the usual suspects. The "we have to get it right" crowd. The "there is too much money at stake for errors" crowd. The "we have the technology and just want to help" TV crowd. All should be ignored. Each argument is fundamentally flawed, and if we let them have their way the essence of our beautiful game will be terribly damaged. The Getting It Right Argument First, we do not have to get it right. Really, we don't. It’s ok to have errors. Football isn't immutable science or maths logic. It is a game, it is art, and human error is part of the mystery and unpredictability of humanity. If you want perfect refereeing decisions you should play FIFA16. Really, take the entire production onto computers, get rid of human players and referees altogether and turn football into an online gaming championship. Second, video won’t make us “get it right” anyway. The vast majority of refereeing decisions are subjective. That is why we can all watch the same video 20 times, and we still cannot agree on what the right decision was. GLT is objective and thus works, plus it really is instant. You don’t hear commentators or pundits say “for me that’s a goal” or “I think the ref got that wrong” about GLT. But you hear that endlessly about fouls and offsides even after watching replay. So video replay will not make sure we get it right. All it will do is stop the game, potentially a lot, and we’ll still argue over decisions. If video proponents can identify other objective decisions for video, lets have that discussion. But don’t pretend that video replay means we will “get it right” on subjective decisions. It does not and we won’t. Third, this obsession with "getting it right" is a cultural import from America, who, don’t forget, invented instant replay. For cultural reasons, the Americans want to be able to appeal to a higher, scientific, non-human, objective power to get justice. They instinctively distrust a single human decision-maker, for them a single ref is like a monarch and they want the right to appeal to a trustworthy objective higher power. The proponents of video are almost identical. They also want to appeal to a higher, unquestioned and unquestionable authority, video. They want to live in a world where there is objective right and wrong, where human frailty is replaced by technical certainty, where context as an influence on decisions is irrelevant. The Americans revere the Constitution and empower the Supreme Court. Video replay fans revere technology and want to empower a fifth official. The real world does not work like this, and I want no part of American legal or cultural instincts invading the world’s game. The Too Much Money At Stake Argument This argument should be ignored. It has no merit at all. Football results do not exist for financial reward. Football is not investing. It is artistic and cultural expression. Periodic wrong decisions by referees do not undermine the fiscal health of the sport. No major investors/owners, sponsors, blocks of fans say, "well, I would have poured in my money/gone to the game/watched on TV but that Howard Webb's failure to give a penalty last week means I am keeping my hard earned in my pocket". No team got relegated or promoted as a result of bad referee decisions – league tables do not lie. The prize money for winning the CL or getting into the CL is not the reason teams are purchased or transfers entered into. It's a preposterous suggestion that bad refereeing decisions cause clubs, players or the sport to suffer financially. And it is also daft to suggest that the interests of bettors and bookies should come first in the application of the rules of the game. Finally, the influence of money has been almost wholly negative for the sport anyway. We Have The Technology and Just Want To Help Argument This is the argument the TV crowd trot out and dress up as altruism, “we just want to help”. The argument is bogus and the TV companies should be distrusted. They have a huge conflict of interest. They are begging for reasons to stop the flow of the game so they can sell more advertising (time outs, water breaks, video replay). If you think they won't run ads you are naive and should spend some time watching US sports, the mecca of instant replay. Within a season of replay's introduction they were off running commercials during the interruptions. Once the novelty of televising Mark Clattenberg looking at a video monitor wears off, and it will, we’ll cut away to adverts. Then we’ll return to the stadium for the announcement of the review once the ads are over. Even if the TV crowd were altruistically minded (Sky?), TV should be an observer of events, not a participant in them. The game was not invented for or by TV. It isn't popular because of TV. TV has already changed the game in ways no one could have predicted (fixture list, money) and replay would invite it in deeper, to be part of the game itself. Do we really want TV to be actually participating in the game by providing information to the referees on the decisions? I do not. TV’s power is already too big. Finally, if video replay were used it would further add to the advantages of watching on TV versus going to the game itself - the home viewer can see the replays, the crowd cannot. Try sitting in an NFL stadium watching everyone stand around while the real action is on TV. The power of TV has already made us ask who is more important - the viewer at home or the fan in the stadium? Video replay definitively says it is the viewer. I am sure many of you think this is all too theoretical. I can hear you now, “oh come on, there are OBVIOUS errors we can fix”. Ok, lets be practical. How would video replay actually work in practice? I think it will be a mess. First, who determines which decisions should be reviewed? Do we review every goal, every offside that might have led to a goal, every tackle in the penalty area, every red card, every yellow card, every corner decision, every free kick 25 yards out (or 35 yards if Ronaldo is playing), or throw in? Do we review everything a coach or defender disputes? Do we ask the ref to ask for help every time he isn't 100% certain? How do we prevent every player berating the ref to ask for a replay? Think there is too much chatter now? Add video and it'll be a farce. The usual answer to this concern is to artificially limit the number of replays per match, the "we'll give each coach three challenges" approach. I bet Chelsea's wage bill it won't stop there. In the NFL it started off there as three challenges per team per game. And they spent hours promising it would be “instant” and not alter the flow of the sport. Now? Every scoring play or turnover is "automatically reviewed" and the refs send anything of note to the replay booth, and reviews take minutes not seconds. Don't say "that'll never happen here". You are already adopting the American’s invention by using video in the first place. And once you start with "we must get the decision right", why artificially limit the decisions (or the time to reach them) that are subject to review? You cannot. You won't be able to. It's not logical to do so. The slope is too slippery. Second, while we wait to see if someone decides to review, and then to find out the result of that review, the emotion, celebrations, atmosphere drains into a stand-around-and-wait process. Don't believe me? Watch the NFL - everything is reviewed, refs abdicate responsibility for decisions to replay, major incidents are in limbo for at least 120 seconds. I am in New York now watching a major NFL game stop for 283 seconds to wait for a replay ruling on an OBJECTIVE decision. Atmosphere evaporates as a result, even in the NFL, a sport that stops-starts by design. Why is real football so exciting? The uninterrupted flow leading to that moment of insane anticipation and excitement as a goal is about to be scored, and then the "lost it" emotional release in the 15-30 seconds afterwards. Goodbye to all that with video. You can't explode with unconfined joy if, in the back of your mind, you know it's all potentially subject to time consuming video review. Imagine Agueroooooo's winner in an era of replay.....Wait a minute, hold the celebrations, did Balotelli foul the defender, will Hughes "challenge" to save SAF's and Man United's title, lets check the free kick-to-City decision that allowed the move to start. Goodbye to the greatest spontaneous celebration in City's (and Premier League's) history. Hello to waiting around for at least 120 seconds, best case, to find out if replay says it was a goal...(or a penalty, a red card, offside, a foul). Once you decide technology knows the right answer, it’s impossible to draw the line of where to stop asking the technology for answers. And every time you ask, EVERY SINGLE TIME, you drain atmosphere and change the essence of the emotional dynamic of watching football. So don’t be fooled by the mirage of “getting it right” and the TV crowd’s promises to help. We are endangering the essence of the sport in a futile pursuit of getting it right in a carbon-copy import of American legal and cultural instincts. And, for God’s sake, the beautiful game isn't broken, so we don't need to fix it. Football is the best game in mankind's history, an art form, a source of passion and inspiration more popular than any other sport in history, a testament to the brilliant simplicity of the rules and to the ways it is played. And referees have made mistakes throughout the history of our incredible game - it is part of the game, and it's ok, no one dies, the sport survives and thrives. If you don't like our wonderful game as it is, I pity you. If you want a version with "perfect" decisions, go play video games, don’t make the real game a video. And don't fall for simplistic arguments that the greatest game in the real world will benefit from video. It won't benefit. It will be endangered.

[benaitkenhead]

Why Chelsea Fans Are Melting Down

Q: Why are Chelski fans melting down so spectacularly? A: They just lost more than a coach, they just lost their best symbol of belonging in the big club league, and best chance of being worthy of respect. Chelsea FC and fans have always behaved like the old Millwall chant ("no one likes us, we don't care"). But it's an act and borne of an inferiority complex. They actually REALLY care. They know down deep they're a small, nasty, racist club rescued from rotten roots and bankruptcy by a nouveau-riche classless oligarch, and they despise themselves. And like many people who despise themselves, they want to be loved and they seek validation from others, from external sources. In Chelski's case, they are so desperate to be liked by others that they don't care how they achieve it. Like so many deprived people they confuse the trappings of success with being worthy of respect and being liked. In this case they assumed trophies would bring at least respect and admiration, and hopefully embrace as a good club, to be mentioned alongside the Uniteds, Liverpools and even Arsenals. Enter RA and his ethically dodgy oligarch wealth, and then enter The Special One. Not only did he win, JM embraced Chelsea FC, he loved them. He was the father figure the love-deprived children of The Shed clung to as a symbol of the big time, of having left their past and joined the admirable ranks of respected clubs. After all, Mourinho could chose to go anywhere and he chose Stamford Bridge. Surely that meant acceptance and respect in the game. Tragically for the desparate Chelski fans, JM was not the man to deliver respect and admiration. Neither was RA. In fact it turned out that HOW you try to gain acceptance and being liked really does matter. Endless spending, a thug captain, a spiteful coach and parked buses might get you trophies, but still no one liked them. In response, the intensity of the "us against the world" in Chelski land just grew. It's hard to find out that what you assumed would get you entry to a world you longed to enter actually doesn't get you in. JM's dismissal of the establishment, the respected and admired clubs and managers who would not admit Chelski no matter how rich they were with trophies, fueled the sense in the descendants of the Shed that here was the guy who understood them, a blood brother and a father figure who delivered something to be proud of after 50 years of small club futility. If the world still hated Chelski, here was a winner who loved them and would fight for them. And now he is gone. The one symbol of big time winning and opportunity for respect and admiration that has ever existed for those fans. Like abandoned children who grabbed the first person who didn't disdain them, Chelski fans turned JM into a demi-God father figure, and they are now devastated to lose him. Cue the meltdown, the lashing out, all based on the awful feeling that they now have no one who symbolizes big time winning, certainly not the players who betrayed JM, and they have lost a superstar outsider who could have chosen anyone but chose them. United have Sir Matt and Sir Alex. Liverpool have Shanks, Paisley and Dalglish. Even Arsenal have Chapman and Wenger (part 1). And Chelsea? Ken Bates followed by a revolving door with Mourinho going round twice. But the Special One failed against Father Time and never built a dynasty for Chelski like those other legends. He wanted to and he knew what it meant to the club and fans, longevity might give him and them admittance to the ranks of respected legends. Thus the potency of the dynasty declaration 2 years ago, this was upping the stakes, daring the world not to accept Chelski even if JM stayed for a decade and built a dynasty of trophies to rival the legends. And now that is all gone too. So it remains true. No one likes Chelsea or Chelski or the Special One. He was the best (fatally flawed) chance of being liked, and the only example of Chelsea being chosen and loved by a football God. But he is gone, fired again, the manner of his going illustrating devastatingly that he is no Shanks or Busby. Thus not only will Chelsea never join the ranks of clubs that are synonymous with admiration, respect and being liked, but their best shot at being respected and liked proved to be a crushing failure. No matter what they say, Chelsea and Chelski care about that a lot. The meltdown proves it.

[benaitkenhead]

More Lessons from Spain Diego Simeone prowled the SuperCopa sideline dressed in pantomime black. On the pitch, his Atletico team played the much more serious role of "the bad guys". Very physical throughout and consistently intimidating the referee, they set out to draw Barca into an alley fight. It was (another) throwback to the days when physically aggressive football was more common. Barca prevailed, just. But the game became a forceful reminder of what happens when the referees do not protect creative players. Both teams exaggerated contact, both teams played the referee (even Messi complained to the referee at half time), sending offs came (but too late to affect the outcome), and the officials barely maintained their authority. How on earth Diego Costa was not sent off for aggressively getting in the referee's face late on is highly instructive. As regular readers will know, your correspondent has sounded the warning several times that the way Barca was "Bayern'd" in the UCL included a highly physical approach. Brazil beat Spain in the Confed Cup similarly. Teams of 5-foot something ballet-dancer players have no chance of winning against Mourinho-model 6-footer physical players if the referees ease off the protections enacted since the nadir of Italia 1990. Looking back, the first example of this was Holland nearly battering Spain to defeat in the 2010 World Cup Final under Howard Webb's tolerant eye. The lesson has been learned by the sophisticated Machiavellian coaches, and refined. Simeone, Mourinho, Scolari will employ this approach unless the referees provide better protections. The irony is that Italy, via Prandelli's genuis, has shown how to counter tikki takka by defending passing lanes within the rules. That strategy would force tikki takka to adapt and evolve, a fascinating prospect. But it is hard to execute, and most teams lack the sophistication. Supplementing a defend-and-counter approach with cynically fouling the opposition's creative players, and turning a match into a physical battle, is a much easier and more accessible way to counter creative teams. It also leaves tikki takka with no evolutionary response,. Instead it forces a wholesale adoption of a lowest common denominator physical approach. But this physical approach requires officials to go back to allowing it as they did in the 1970s and 1980s. The biggest lesson from Spain last night was that the officials are increasingly allowing it. The trend is continuing, and it is not good.

[benaitkenhead]

Early Thoughts Two (or three) games in and it is ridiculous to draw conclusions. But here are some early thoughts. None of the EPL big 3 is a complete team. United lack creativity in midfield, Chelsea lack a striker, and City lack central defenders. The next few days in the window will be critical. Spurs, Liverpool and Arsenal (in that order) will fight for fourth. In La Liga, Real Madrid are playing against a ghost called Mourinho. Promising the fans a breath of fresh, attacking, air, Ancelotti is playing with one holding midfielder. Real are highly vulnerable to being counter attacked as a result. Meantime, Ronaldo and Benzema are being extremely wasteful in font of goal. Barca, on the other hand, have changed personnel a little (Villa out, Neymar in), but stuck to their style. The only change appears to be a more physical side to tikki takka (see SuperCopa first leg). Pep has kept the Bayern juggernaut tuned and on the autobahn so far. But Dortmund are not going to fade, and the competitiveness of the Bundesliga means few easy matches. No one should bet against a German repeat in the UCL. In Ligue 1, no one has done anything to dispel the idea that manufactured teams of high priced stars will take time to gel. PSG has had the most time together and it shows. Finally, in Serie A it appears that the race to challenge Juventus has been won by Napoli. Neither of the Milan giants or Rome clubs have impressed. But Rafa Benitez's Napoli certainly have.

[benaitkenhead]

Early Thoughts Two (or three) games in and it is ridiculous to draw conclusions. But here are some early thoughts. None of the EPL big 3 is a complete team. United lack creativity in midfield, Chelsea lack a striker, and City lack central defenders. The next few days in the window will be critical. Spurs, Liverpool and Arsenal (in that order) will fight for fourth. In La Liga, Real Madrid are playing against a ghost called Mourinho. Promising the fans a breath of fresh, attacking, air, Ancelotti is playing with one holding midfielder. Real are highly vulnerable to being counter attacked as a result. Meantime, Ronaldo and Benzema are being extremely wasteful in font of goal. Barca, on the other hand, have changed personnel a little (Villa out, Neymar in), but stuck to their style. The only change appears to be a more physical side to tikki takka (see SuperCopa first leg). Pep has kept the Bayern juggernaut tuned and on the autobahn so far. But Dortmund are not going to fade, and the competitiveness of the Bundesliga means few easy matches. No one should bet against a German repeat in the UCL. In Ligue 1, no one has done anything to dispel the idea that manufactured teams of high priced stars will take time to gel. PSG has had the most time together and it shows. Finally, in Serie A it appears that the race to challenge Juventus has been won by Napoli. Neither of the Milan giants or Rome clubs have impressed. But Rafa Benitez's Napoli certainly have.

[benaitkenhead]

Schuster: 'In My Day, We All Took Something'

Here it comes.....football doping scandal...

Doping in sport has become an epidemic. Fans are disgusted, and at the same time want to pretend it is not widespread. But fans are the worst judges. The facts do not lie. Just list them off, the major sports bedeviled by an exposed culture of doping; baseball, American football, cycling, track...

[benaitkenhead]

Arsenal's Psychology One of the great things about sport is how the demands of competition illuminate the mental state of players, teams, clubs and even supporters. Watch carefully and it is like viewing a kind of live psychological study. Right now Arsenal's mental state takes strength to watch, unless you are a Spurs fan, and the club has become a psychiatrist's case study. Sadly, while Arsenal's issues are increasingly easy to diagnose, they are extremely hard to fix. For several season's Arsenal have consistently played best ONLY when they feel they have something to prove in the face of adversity. The pattern fits individual matches and even fits the past few seasons. Last season's case studies include both matches against Chelsea, away to Spurs, home to both Manchester teams and both UCL matches versus Bayern. The season itself also fits the diagnosis. Arsenal had their typical strong run-in following abject early failure, allowing the team to "shut up the critics" by clinching 4th by the skin of the teeth. What is interesting about this is twofold. First, what Arsenal typically feel they have to prove is that they can still prevail despite adversity. Even more interesting, the adversity is subtly largely self-inflicted as it arises from their own holier than thou stand against what it takes to win (notably participate in the dirty world of the transfer market). Second, and more importantly, a mindset based on defending your actions (especially when you know deep down the actions are indefensible if you want to WIN) is corrosive. It is not a forward-looking motivator for winning, nor does it instill the killer instinct necessary to compete for victory versus avoiding failure. Instead it provides a motivation for crisis responses which are not sustainable over a long season. As a perfect example, take the match versus Villa. After a summer of abject, self-inflicted failures to improve the squad, Arsenal felt pressure to prove the current squad was good enough. They started superbly. But once they scored, they subconsciously were satiated, believing they'd proved the point. Thus mentally deflated, they completely eased off and let Villa back into the match. After a succession of their own errors (no defensive midfielder to deny Villa space, two schoolboy errors leading to two penalties), and bad luck (dubious penalty and laughable red card), Arsenal predictably stirred themselves for a fight back. Where was that urgency at 1-0 with 11-men? Satiated by Giroud's goal, that's where. And why did it re-appear in the face of largely self-made adversity that could be blamed on the ref when losing 1-2? Because a point had to be proved again.....But the squad is too thin, especially with the injuries, and down to 10 men was all too much. This psychology is a direct result of Wenger's approach. He creates the adversity by stubbornly refusing to do what it takes to win the EPL. And then he stakes his personal credibility on a group of youngish players who do not have the standing to question the approach. They feel enormous pressure, they perform fitfully, the best and most senior leave, and the cycle perpetuates. Solutions? Wenger needs help. It will either be in the form of a David Dein figure to get Arsenal the squad that Wenger can work with from a position of strength, or it will come from a contract not being renewed (bonjour PSG). Either way it promises to be an agonizing 2013-14 season on the psychiatrist's couch for Arsenal.

[benaitkenhead]

The start of a World Cup season is naturally rife with predictions of who will win in Brazil next summer. Perhaps it is also a good moment to reflect on recent World Cup history, and attempt to place Brazil 2014 into the context of the evolution of the world's greatest tournament. Strange as it may seem to people under the age of 35, in the 20 years prior to 1994, the World Cup was routinely won by teams that neutrals loathed. The roll call of tragic defeat for football artists who thrilled the world bears repeating. In 1974 and 1978 the brilliant Dutch were victimized by home nations Germany and Argentina. Football was a loser. In 1982 Italy denied Brazil's transcendent football and West Germany stole a semi-final from Platini's exquisite France. The beautiful game was on life support. West Germany repeated the theft against France in the 1986 semi-final en route to defeat by Maradona and 10 artisans. And the nadir, 1990, when West Germany bludgeoned the tournament, meeting the woeful Argentina, who had brutalized it, in the final of the worst tournament since 1962. Since then something has happened. Negative football, especially setting out to physically stop the creative opponent, has ebbed from the scene. In its place artistic teams have risen to triumphs that neutrals typically welcomed. Romario's Brazil in 1994 were hardly 1970 or 1982, and the final was a dud, but this was a creative team first. Zidane's France in 1998 may have ridden home nation luck, but it was a team of artists not stoppers. Ronaldo's Brazil in 2002 was a joy to watch. Tikki-takka's Spain of 2010 re-invented the game before our eyes, forcing a succession of teams to focus first on physically stopping them, and failing. Only Pirlo's Italy in 2006 could not claim a pure artist's inheritance, but this was no catenaccio Italian team either as anyone who recalls the thrilling semi-final with Germany will attest. How and why did the artists triumph, and are the reasons still secure? First, the universal revulsion after Italia 1990 inspired important rule and emphasis changes. The net effect was to make the Steilikes and Gentiles essentially obsolete. The physical combat was lessened. Go back and watch 1974 to 1990 clips. Today, that physicality would cause a bevy of red cards by half-time. Second, ironically, robbed of the physical defensive strategies, teams adopted more sophisticated but less physical defensive approaches. Attack-minded teams had to respond with elevated technique and guile. Protected by referees they were allowed to, and the creative attackers became supremely good and left audiences breathless. Third, the world changed. The Cold War conflict ended. The old ways of knee-jerk thinking, of defending first and exploring second, were less relevant. Instead, we had a surge of globalization, cultural especially, abetted by inspirational physical mobility and technological advances. For a period of time the sense of the possible has eclipsed the sense of entrenched deadlock. Football, mankind's greatest communal artistic creation, reflected the new world. Is all well on these fronts and can we rest secure in the ongoing triumph of artistic football? Probably, but not certainly. Recall for a moment two seminal matches last season. Bayern's demolition of Barcelona in the CL semi-final, and Brazil's demolition of Spain in the Confederations Cup Final. The best team won on both occasions. No argument. But the manner of victory was notably physical. And the referees let it happen. Go back and watch the tapes. This is not to say Bayern or Brazil lacked for creative, jaw-dropping brilliance and creativity. But both physically beat their opponents, who were typically 4-6 inches shorter and not ready for a more refined type of the tactics the Dutch deployed in the 2010 final. In this way Bayern and Brazil reminded this writer of Argentina circa 1978: explosive in every sense, including carrying a physical battle to the opponent. Will this be the next evolution in football? The pendulum swings, both in football and in life. Perhaps the day of a more physical approach is returning, albeit in a style that is still far from the 1990 nadir. Perhaps this is a good thing. But pay attention to the small, early signs of a big change. Complacency that the bad old days can never return is the first step to letting the bad guys back in. It promises, as always, to be an incredible World Cup year on many levels.

[benaitkenhead]

Doping - How Vulnerable Is Football?

Doping in sport has become an epidemic. Fans are disgusted, and at the same time want to pretend it is not widespread. But fans are the worst judges. The facts do not lie. Just list them off, the major sports bedeviled by an exposed culture of doping; baseball, American football, cycling, track and field. And major sports where the whispers are growing louder include tennis, golf and the big one, football. What is the likelihood that a major doping scandal in football will emerge? Unfortunately, they are high. Here is why. First, the culture of football is ambivalent about deliberate cheating. I am not talking just about "simulation", I am talking about a victory at all costs mentality that condones it if you can get away with it. Other sports with a long-standing wink-wink cultural attitude to cheating? Cycling and baseball stand out. Second, a lack of a testing infrastructure is evident in football. In every sport that has become serious about testing, the scandals have flowed. If football adopted biological passports.....? Until it does, it is naive to presume innocence, and the odds of a doping scandal remain high. Third, the financial rewards of success in sport have created enormous temptation for athletes. The financial rewards are highest in baseball.....but also very high in football. Why would football players be immune to the same economic calculus of baseball players? Fourth, the physical demands on players continue to escalate. There are no summers off any more. There is a relentless to the demands on the body which encourages "medical help" to sustain performance and heal injuries. The betting scandals that have already afflicted football are probably a more serious threat to sporting integrity. Bets create fixed matches. Doping does not. But it is highly likely that football players have found themselves attracted to doping by the combination of culture, weak testing programmes, financial rewards of success, and physical demands placed on them. The authorities should introduce biological passports as a first step. Warn everyone that the passports are coming. Then ban offenders for life. Until the risks of cheating outweigh the rewards, it is naive to think cheating is not happening or common.

[benaitkenhead]

EPL Predictions

It may be billed as wide open, but it is really a two horse race between Manchester City and Chelsea. Here's why. 1. Squads: Both the City and Chelsea squads are deep, high calibre and reinforceable with more if needed. It's a Petro-dollars arms race. FFP? No(t yet). Manchester United beat a very soft EPL field last season, and have not upgraded an aging squad materially. They cannot conceive of life outside the CL, and the squad should be enough, but there is a real chance they'll have to sweat for it this year. As for Arsenal, Tottenham and the Merseyside duo, they simply don't have the squads to compete, although Spurs and Liverpool are progressing. Ironically, who ultimately gets the last UCL spot behind Chelsea and City (and United) may be determined by Liverpool's and Spurs' respective abilities to keep their megastars, and not just build around them. If Arsenal get Saurez, they become a threat to finish as high as third. If they do not get Suarez, the CL qualification streak is jeopardized. If Liverpool keep the Uruguayan, with Coutinho, Sturridge and Sterling, they threaten fourth. As for Bale....Spurs had a good summer, and if they keep Bale it may be enough for CL qualification. 2. Managers: Chelsea lost the league last year mainly because they self-destructed over DeMatteo and Benitez. There will be no repeat. Mourinho is both brilliant and comfortable, and has loads of EPL experience. City's Pelligrini is the other major managerial upgrade, but with no EPL experience. Advantage Stamford Bridge. Wenger may be the best manager of the lot, but his failure to build a squad renders it moot. Moyes and Rogers have the same core MO, they did a lot with a little, but neither knows (yet)!how to play with more chips. In addition, Moyes is obviously a downgrade from SAF - no disgrace there - and United will have to adjust. AvB has done a good job at Spurs, but he is not in Mourinho and Pelligrini's class. 3. X-Factor, aka DESIRE United can afford to not win the EPL. The excuse is ready made. Plus SAF drove them relentlessly last season in a quest to erase "Aguerooooo", and that cannot be sustained. None of the North London or Merseyside clubs believe, really believe, they will win it, or that they HAVE to. Every one of them would take third right now if offered it. But City and Chelsea would regard third as a disaster (and probably so would United simply out of habit). They HAVE to win it. Conclusion: Chelsea to win it as Mourinho's experience is the edge. There is also a sense that City are looking more at the UCL title and will expect Pelligrini's pedigree to shine first and foremost there. United to finish third, Liverpool or Arsenal fourth based on the Saurez outcome. Spurs, with or without Bale, won't score an endless supply of 85th minute winners again, and will slip back. Let the mayhem begin.

[benaitkenhead]

Olimpia brings out the spirit of Copa Libertadores

Fireworks. Full stadium tifos. It was a night to remember in Asunción.

Read More

[benaitkenhead]

Rockaway NYC

[benaitkenhead]

Brazilian Triumph - Implications Brazil's 3-0 demolition of all-conquering Spain in the Maracana tonight was sensational. It encapsulated the rapid growth of the team, both as a team under a strong coach, and as an emblem of national unity and ambition. Rarely has football offered such a perfect example of its ability to reflect, illuminate and inspire culture. Fantastic. In a strict footballing sense, though, what are the implications for the World Cup next summer? After all, the Confederation Cup is just the appetizer. The Big One counts. For Brazil, victory is a double edged sword. It creates belief, and it creates expectations. A month ago it was not a team, but a collection of individuals. Scolari has a proven pedigree at this level, but he must be in awe at how everything fell neatly in to place for his team to emerge at this tournament. From Neymar's early goal against Japan onwards, it was an adversity-free ride. The team now believes. And so do the Brazilian people, evidenced by the awesome intensity in the stands. But expectations come with success. And stifling pressure comes from expectations. It is much easier to perform as underdogs than favorites. And Brazil are now amongst the favorites. This is not a role Brazil has occupied well in recent times. Heavily favored in 2006 and 2010, they failed. Written off in 2002 going into the tournament, they won handsomely (under Scolari). The failures were telling. In each case, as favorites, the first sign of serious adversity in the tournament led to capitulation versus France and Holland respectively. Having qualified as host, and triumphed as Confederation Cup champions, there will be no moment of true adversity to overcome before the World Cup is upon us. No opportunity for this team to learn the crucial lesson of how to deal with trouble as favorites. And no opportunity to play a meaningful game with the expectations of being favorites. Brazil may live to regret winning the Confederation Cup so easily. For Spain this is a wake up call similar to the shock 0-2 defeat to the US in the Confederations Cup in 2009. That proved to be an excellent antidote to over confidence. This will be similar. But Spain have to recognize that they got hammered tonight a la Bayern Munich's demolition of Barca. Athletically out-gunned, physically out-fought, and second in intensity, Spain looked old, or at least tired. It is not "just one game" set in the context of Barca and Real's struggles with faster, stronger, more athletically explosive teams. A response is needed. I suspect Spain stick to their philosophy. It may well work. Do not write them off. The others? The biggest winner tonight was Argentina. First, they have the athletes and physical pedigree to compete in a Bayern'd world. Second, expectations are lower now that Brazil is South America's standard bearer. Third, they are all resting on vacation. Germany are the runners up tonight. They too can thrive in a Bayern world, and are on vacation. But the angst and expectations are very high after consecutive semifinal defeats, and no European team has ever won the World Cup in South America. In 1978 Argentina surged to World Cup glory at home. Cesar Menotti's team was explosive in every sense, highly physical, and driven on by a national manic support that generated unsurpassed intensity and intimidation. Brazil's win tonight had echoes of that World Cup. Scolari would love to ride that Argentine model to repeat triumph next summer. Ironically, as one looks at the dynamics post-Confederations Cup, it may be Argentina that is best placed to halt the Brazilian march.

[benaitkenhead]

Brazil, "FIFA-ready" and Culture The situation in Brazil is more complex and important than football. Equally, the outcomes of recent protests matter much more than the result of any match. But, one of football's great gifts is the ability to illuminate culture, and it is impossible to understand events in Brazil without understanding the dynamics of Brazil hosting next year's World Cup. As regular readers may recall, the "Mess at the Maracana" in early June before Brazil-England (http://tmblr.co/Z44i6smV3j9g) reflected competing visions for what constitutes "ready" for a World Cup. FIFA's corporate and European-centric vision of stadia and facilities represents the global trend towards homogeneity (think Starbucks colonization). Brazil's indigenous football culture, reflected in stadia built for poorer and more passionate fans rather than affluent and picky consumers, was never given a chance to breathe. The costs imposed on Brazil to realize the "FIFA ready" vision have been a (the?) critical spark that helped ignite the inspiring protests. Of course that spark fell on pre-existing flammable social conditions. And the sense that modern Brazilian leadership, born in protest, did the bidding of foreign masters while ignoring ordinary Brazilians was particularly galling to those who elected them. To repeat, the broader outcomes of the protests are incredibly important for Brazil and arguably both the emerging world and the "advanced" economies. Perhaps we have reached a moment where the frustrations of the global aspiring middle class have found a loud voice. This eclipses football. But, in a football context, one hopes that the outcomes include the end to the spread of corporate football with its anti-septic stadia, sanitized for the consumers protection like a hotel toilet seat. FIFA should stop imposing these unsustainably expensive and culturally alien "FIFA ready" standards (unless it wants World Cups only in rich countries). A World Cup should celebrate difference and cultural independence. It should not force hosts to chose between domestic needs and foreign-import luxuries. Brazil's government got that message these past two weeks. It would be very good if FIFA got it too.

[benaitkenhead]

Barca's Neymar €57M Gamble Barca do not have the greatest track record with high profile signings. Neymar is dripping with potential but it is still a big gamble. 1. He is Messi-lite in style and role, and can they coexist in the same system? (but surely Barca's thought through how to integrate both of them......) 2. He lacks maturity (see involvement in Copa Libertadores on-field brawl when Santos won 2 years ago) and loves a theatrical tumble. There is a risk that these reflect a self-absorbed, coddled mindset that rarely translates to success when the standard of competition gets higher. How will he respond when the going gets tough? 3. Barca need to reduce their Messi reliance, so another goal scoring forward is sensible. But they REALLY need a defender or two, not to mention a good goalkeeper if Valdes is leaving. €57M on a striker feels like betting the ranch on black. The prospect of Messi and Neymar torturing Europe's best defenders is enticing. But will it happen? Rosell has certainly gambled big that it will.

[benaitkenhead]

What The Maracana "Mess" Really Meant and Means It is a World Cup tradition for Europeans to worry about the ability of an emerging market country to host the tournament. It is one reason why Brazil 2014 is the first in South America since Argentina 1978. But after South Africa successfully pulled off 2010, despite all the dire warnings, we are still getting the rash of European press stories about "behind schedule" and "inadequate facilities" for Brazil. The latest such story was the messy "game off/on" involving the alleged safety readiness of the iconic Maracana to host the Brazil versus England friendly. Below the surface and obvious "safety first" moralizing, the alleged "mess" is partly a debate about what type of event to hold. In Europe, home of FIFA, football is inching ever closer to a form of entertainment for precious paying consumers and beholden to corporate sponsors. This is FIFA's desired World Cup model. But in South America futbol is an emotional spectacle that passionate fans actively participate in. It is edgier, less controlled and much less corporate. The stadia on each continent reflect these differences (plus differences in wealth). South America's stadia are generally more rudimentary, older and less comfortable when compared to the modern, luxe, all-seater, amenity-filled European counterparts. FIFA wants Brazil to "Europeanize" the stadia as a price for having the World Cup. This is the context in which to view the "mess" at the Maracana. While your correspondent has not been there, and is not equipped to know if the stadium is ready, having been to big matches on both continents, it is quite certain that European and South American definitions of "ready" are very different. As regular readers know, your correspondent is convinced that the atmosphere in South American stadiums far exceeds that in Europe's. The South American fans are not coddled by luxury or priced out of their passionate loyalty. And they come regardless of the lesser facilities or the hassles getting in and out of older stadia. The atmosphere they generate reflects this passionate commitment. These are not picky consumers. These are fans. FIFA should be very careful not to enforce an alien version of what football supporting is onto their Brazilian hosts. Part of what makes a World Cup enticing is the host's idiosyncratic rhythm, style and way of doing things. You cannot make World Cups homogeneous and keep the romance. This isn't Starbucks. As an aside, the "we know best" of affluent cultures is not limited to football. One of the many tragedies of the Euro crisis is the attempt to German-ize Southern European culture to conform to the Protestant work-ethic. The Maracana "mess" is but a minor skirmish in this bigger battle. But Brazil is right to fight to hold a Brazilian World Cup. And northern European media should recall that it was the violent behaviour of their own nations' fans that largely mandated the "advanced", atmosphere-robbing, corporate-safe stadia. The Brazil-England match seemed to go well. I bet that the World Cup is sensational - few countries on earth match Brazilian scale and passion for futbol. If fans have to "put up with 'lesser' facilities", its all part of being a real fan. Pilgrims don't complain about the state of the roads en route to Mecca. So enough of the moralizing angst about wether Brazil will be ready. Sit back, accept and enjoy a Brazilian World Cup.