Why I Want Blackburn To Go Down

I want Blackburn Rovers to get relegated.

I think I should make it clear first and foremost that I have nothing in particular against Blackburn as a club; they're perfectly acceptable and haven't really done anything to anger me recently.

Why, then? It's simple: I'm sick of football club owners being daft, to put it bluntly. It spoils my enjoyment of the game when you have honest fans having to suffer through the unjustifiable decisions of their club's owner.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not expecting club owners and higher-ups to be perfect, to never make mistakes. For example, West Ham co-Chairman David Sullivan recently elaborated on the inner workings of the deal that allowed Newcastle's Demba Ba to leave West Ham for nothing, calling it "one of the worst mistakes I have ever made in my life". These things do, unfortunately, happen. The faux pas Everton made with Dan Gosling, which Newcastle also profited from, is another example. It's an honest mistake on the business side of football and while it's not a smart thing to do, you can see how such an error can be made. It's more of an administrative problem.

What is far more of a real issue is insane managerial appointments and sackings, because to me it represents a fundamental misunderstanding of how football works. And it might sound arrogant for me, a simple fan, to be telling the owners of a Premiership club that they "don't get it", but it's kind of hard not to take that attitude when you look at some of the decisions that they have been making recently.

Blackburn removing Sam Allardyce and replacing him with Steve Kean is one of them, but Wolves are just as guilty for sacking Mick McCarthy with no replacement ready to come in and having to resort to, in Terry Connor, an assistant who simply cannot cut it at this level (at the time of writing he has 1 point from a possible 24).

Tranmere Rovers also earned my ire for hiring their physio Les Parry to replace the sacked John Barnes. These appointments are almost always guaranteed to end in disaster, so why on earth do chairmen persist with it? It beggars belief that these people can actually expect somebody with no management experience - in Parry's case, no real playing experience either - to walk in and do a good job.

Steve Kean has been under pressure for
most of his tenure at Blackburn

I understand that some of it is motivated by finance - I imagine Terry Connor is on less  than Mick McCarthy was, and Les Parry was certainly on less than Barnes -  but you have to spend money to make money. You need a good manager to keep your team performing well, which will net you more winnings. It's basic stuff.

The importance of the position of manager is one that cannot be underestimated under any circumstances. You cannot just promote the assistant and say "yeah, he'll do." You cannot sack an experienced Premiership manager, seemingly on a whim, without an equal or superior replacement lined up. You cannot expect players to readily accept this change. There's a reason the manager, more than the players, gets put under pressure when a team is on a bad run (or lauded when they are doing well), and that reason is very simple: it's one of the most important positions at any football club, if not the most important. Even in Spain and other countries, where the manager is more of a "head coach", the position is still of utmost importance.

As a fan, this to me seems incredibly obvious, and should be basic knowledge for anybody who is in the business. It's simply not a position that you can cut corners on. If you're Jez Moxey, Wolves' chairman, you shouldn't sack an experienced Mick McCarthy unless you are absolutely sure Alan Curbishley is going to replace him. And yes, that would involve negotiating with Curbishley while McCarthy was under contract, but so be it. Even that would be better than what they've done - hire Terry Connor, who resembles a rabbit in the headlights.  With that said, if I had my way they wouldn't have sacked McCarthy at all - to this day it still strikes me as a bizarre sacking, even with no replacement ready to come in. Perhaps something happened behind the scenes that I'm not aware of.

Now, would-be tough managerial sackings aren't always terrible. When Newcastle sacked Chris Hughton he deserved plenty of sympathy - I did not feel he deserved that after not only getting them promoted, but into a solid mid-table position during their first season back in the Premiership. But it would appear that Mike Ashley actually had Alan Pardew - a manager with a better record and more experience in the top flight - lined up. So while it was incredibly harsh on Hughton, who I feel had proved himself, you can't say Ashley made the wrong decision there. Especially since Pardew has actually far exceeded what Hughton was doing.  That, I would say, is an example of a tough sacking done right - unlike when Newcastle sacked Sam Allardyce and got relegated (hmm, seem familiar?).

Wolves Chairman Jez Moxey handled the removal of
Mick McCarthy and hiring of Terry Connor horribly

Sunderland's record when they sacked Steve Bruce was not particularly terrible but it would appear Sunderland had a superior replacement in Martin O'Neil ready to come in. That would also be an example of a tough decision done right. It's a decision that some pundits might have disagreed with at the time, but it's clear that forward planning, knowledge of the game and knowledge of the current managerial environment was present. This is in sharp contrast to hiring your physio as manager, or removing former Republic of Ireland boss Mick McCarthy and replacing him with former Wolves assistant manager Terry Connor.

So I want Blackburn to go down not because I have anything against them personally, like I said, but because their relegation would hopefully be a lesson to owners and football higher-ups everywhere to think before they pull the trigger on their managers.

As a side-note, I actually completely understand where Blackburn's fans were coming from in their hounding of Kean earlier in the season. Obviously I don't condone some of the things that were being said (or screamed), but their frustration is understandable. In the current climate, a manager with the record Kean had at the time and his total lack of top-level management experience can reasonably expect to be sacked. The fans could also reasonably expect him to be sacked. When he is not sacked, then, and results do not improve, it was inevitable that the calls for his head would only get louder.

To bring up Steve Bruce again, he was sacked from Sunderland when they were in a better position than Blackburn (on top of Bruce being a more experienced manager than Kean, and thus having earned a little more leeway), so for Blackburn fans to see that and for Steve Kean to still be there would certainly be surprising.

English Football kind of exists in a bizarro world where a bad run of, say, 6 games puts the manager under pressure immediately, and to see your club not conforming to that bizarro world is naturally going to provoke anger and confusion. Especially when the fans didn't want Kean in the first place. So I don't even hold that against Blackburn - my issue is solely with what their owners did and what it means for football.

In the end, Blackburn's relegation would hopefully bring a wider issue to light and that's a net positive, even if it means a decent club has to go down. Wolves going down would maybe do the same thing, thanks to the McCarthy sacking and their subsequent results, but they were in trouble anyway. Meanwhile, I sincerely doubt Blackburn would be in this much trouble if Allardyce was still there. The (almost literal) bottom line is that hiring an assistant with no managerial experience to replace him was foolish and, if nothing else, almost deserves to be punished with relegation.

The Great Break Debate

If you've met me, you'll know I have strong opinions on certain footballers and footballers in general. I don't believe in the archaic and, for me, naive idea that "they get paid too much money for kicking a ball about", because only certain players can kick a ball about that well. 

OK, the ridiculous amount of money Man City are paying their players is probably going too far, but still. Even a League 2 footballer is a lot better than the average man of his age, and deserves to be paid accordingly.

That doesn't change the fact that footballers are lucky to have the necessary talent to get that far (though hard work is also involved), that many of them seem pampered, that many might be out of touch with the fans they play in front of every week. I understand all that, it's valid, and I agree with some of it.

But it would appear some people are almost taking that idea too far, not actually giving footballers enough credit. Indeed, in the arguments for or against a winter break in English football some act as though the amount of money footballers earn forfeits their right to feel burnout or natural human fatigue. Commentating over the Christmas period, Ray Wilkins acted as though the plethora of injuries clubs are picking up - and always do pick up at this time of year - is made somehow OK by the fact that "it's the same for everyone". This after the usually objective Martin Tyler had spoken with disdain at people always "banging on" about a break.

This is ridiculous. In a shocking revelation that might surprise many, the modern footballer is, actually, you know, a person. They are not slabs of meat that a manager assembles to take on 11 other slabs of meat. This isn't some corny "but they have feelings too!" defence - they can look after themselves - this is just simple, cold logic. And the simple, cold logic is that Premiership players look exhausted at season-ending International tournaments (and not just the English ones; what did Torres, for example, contribute at the last World Cup? Or any other Premier League player?), and that squad depth is more important now than it ever has been.

Injuries like this one to Anderson are brought
about because of the busy Christmas schedule.

I don't want to rob the footballing world of English Football's famous Christmas schedule. Even if I did, the TV companies wouldn't go for it anyway. Far too much money made when there is at least one Premiership game per day for an entire week - in the past I've discussed football's pecking order, but the clubs are just pieces on a board compared to the TV companies.  I accept, too, that our footballing schedule is different to ones you find on the continent. We have an additional cup competition, for one thing, which makes a winter break logistically much harder to include.

Personally, I think the Carling Cup is a good thing to win, in the same way I appreciate winning the Europa League. I've never been one for what I think is an over-the-top level of pragmatism in football, where trophies are cast aside in favour of - wait for it - finishing 17th. Or even 4th. And this is from a Spurs fan who treated 4th as the holy grail for the longest time, but ultimately, it's 4th. You didn't win anything. You didn't even win a hypothetical Bronze Medal. So don't think I take the competition lightly or anything like that.

But the schedule should be drastically truncated. There's no reason for the early rounds to be completed as quickly as hey are, only for the semi-finals and final to drag on over two months. The semi-finals are in progress right now but I can barely even remember the Quarters.  Why can the Carling Cup Final not be completed before the 3rd Round of the FA Cup, for example? Why not hold the final as the last game before a winter break, and make 3rd Round weekend the first thing back? That way the heavy Christmas schedule is "rewarded" with a break, almost.

I'm not saying it's logistically easy to do, but I certainly think with the way athletes are trained right now and the very real potential for burnout, it has to be taken into serious consideration. Instead it seems to be shunned and cast aside by this overly "no-nonsense" old guard, people like Wilkins. Like I said, there seems to be an underlying belief among certain fans, pundits and commentators that because footballers make so much money they have forfeited their "right" to tiredness.

This is an attitude that needs to change. If I was going deep with this, I could even say this kind of old-school attitude is what keeps English football in the relative dark ages on the international stage. This "shut up and get on with it" attitude - like I said, the overly "no-nonsense" crowd. The media is dominated by ex-players who have a perspective that is skewed by their own playing days. "Why should they get a winter break? We didn't." seems to be the prevailing idea, but the difference is these people, like Wilkins, like Mark Lawrenson (ugh) played before things like strict dieting and modern fitness conditioning techniques were introduced.

Ray Wilkins' attitude towards
a break seems out-of-touch and naive

Footballers are actually treated like athletes now, as they should be to ensure optimal conditioning of players. This was not the case in the 80s. Alex Ferguson's rejection of an alcoholic Paul McGrath when he first took over at Manchester United was one of the first steps English football took towards this, though the introduction of managers like Arsene Wenger took it even further.

So basically, I get the arguments for and against the winter break. I don't want to kill the traditional Christmas period, though I feel it could perhaps be lightened slightly. Personally, yes, I believe we should have a winter break - but I also appreciate that the Carling Cup among other things makes it more logistically difficult here than in other countries.

However, the discussion always seems to be roadblocked by the same archaic attitudes. The attitude Wilkins had the other day, "it's the same for everybody", was shockingly out of touch, especially for somebody who was very recently an assistant manager. It's sad that he is far from an outlier on this issue. The arguments I have presented here - like the pitfalls of rearranging the Christmas schedule, whether the Carling Cup is necessary, and whether or not the lack of a break really is the reason Premiership players are underperforming at international tournaments -  are the ones that actually, logically matter when deciding whether or not we should adopt the break.

But they always seem to be something of an afterthought. The main focus seems to be that players don't deserve it because they get paid too much money. That's what it comes down to - they get paid so much money that they don't deserve to stop. Ever. Until eventually they will become broken, sad shells of what they once were. Then everyone will wonder what happened, and I will just shake my head and say "I told you so."

...OK, maybe it won't quite be that grim, but that's not so far from the truth. I get the disdain towards how much footballers get paid, especially with the economy as it is. But people's perspectives are being skewed by the numbers. It's the right time of year for cold logic, so let's use some. 

In Defence of Newcastle United

Yeah, you read that right. I think, for once, a defence of Newcastle United is in order.

It's now November and, after their 3-1 win at Stoke, they are unbeaten and third in the league. This is an outstanding achievement and a testament to the work done by Alan Pardew since his controversial appointment a year ago.

As I pointed out in the Premier League Preview, Newcastle have a young, talented, hungry side. I believe this would be an opinion shared by more people if the likes of Cabaye, Ben Arfa, Marveaux and Obertan were English, rather than bargains from overseas (with the exception of Obertan). Instead, they were disregarded at the start of the season; many thought they would struggle. That's a reasonable conclusion to come to I suppose, if only because the cloud left hanging over them by the ridiculous sacking of Chris Houghton still lingered.

Newcastle's performance at Stoke was impressive

But now, in order to justify the belief that Newcastle are in some way a fraudulent outfit, people are now bringing up the idea that they have yet to play a top team. This is a silly, non-point for a variety of reasons. For one thing, they got draws against Tottenham and Arsenal, both of whom will be in the running for 4th place at the end of the season. Admittedly, it's true they have yet to face one of the true title-contending teams (Chelsea, Manchester City or Man Utd); however, to say that this is causing the league table to "overrate" Newcastle is simply ludicrous.

The cliché response is "you can only beat what is put in front of you," and while that's true,  I think it's more pertinent to actually consider Newcastle's achievement. Getting 22 points from 10 games while going unbeaten is not an easy task, and it does not matter which 10 games that is. You could take any selection of 10 games from a league season and this would still be impressive for a team that, two seasons ago, were in the Championship.

Undermining Newcastle's achievement by saying they have yet to play anyone "really good" is frankly a silly idea. In fact, it's arguably a testament to the club, the institution of Newcastle itself, that people are seeking to undermine this achievement. When "underdog" teams like Reading were unexpectedly performing well in the league, you got no such criticism. Now it's all about playing down Newcastle's success and poking holes in their great run.

 They have performed solidly in their matches against the two top 4 contenders they have played against, and got some solid away draws against Aston Villa and QPR. Meanwhile they beat Sunderland away, which is a huge result, and the defeat of Stoke was an intelligent and efficient away performance; they were tactically and physically superior to Stoke,  and there are many managers who will tell you how difficult it is to do that at the Britannia.

Pardew has exceeded every expectation in his tenure
at Newcastle so far.

There is obviously a large gap between the top and the bottom - just look at any league table from the last 10 years or so - but conversely, in individual games, "anything can happen" (this entry is becoming like a game of cliché bingo), and, most importantly, anything has happened.  As well as QPR beating Chelsea and Stoke drawing with Man Utd, Blackburn (another team Newcastle have beaten in the league) have beaten Arsenal and Fulham have held Man City.

Yes, the Manchester clubs also hand out regular maulings - even to each other - but they also have tight games on a regular basis.  That Newcastle have been able to put together wins (or at the very least some solid, impressive draws) against these teams is to be commended, not brushed off as some fake achievement.

Will Newcastle be there at the end of the season? The reasonable assumption is to say they will not be, for a variety of reasons: Demba Ba will surely hit a dry patch at some point; their squad isn't enormous; the fact that on paper at least their squad isn't as good as Tottenham's, Arsenal's or Liverpool's; Jonas Gutierrez must surely run out of energy eventually; and, in the end, it's still Newcastle United. But that doesn't change their current achievement, the fact that in the end Newcastle are still in a top 4 place in November. They've confounded the critics and that is to be commended. It's just a same some critics refuse to accept when they've been confounded.

I'll be the first one laughing at them if and when it all falls apart, because quite honestly there are few things funnier in football than Newcastle's semi-regular implosions, but for now they deserve every ounce of praise they have been getting; it should not be tempered with "oh, well they haven't played anyone good yet" - that's insulting. Not only to them, but to the rest of the league.

So just for once, let's give them some credit.

The Grim Future of English Football

It seems all at once, football reached the twisted future that every fan dreaded.

First, Liverpool Chief Executive Ian Ayre said he wants Premier League clubs to be able to sell their TV rights individually. 

Discussing everything wrong with this would take an unholy amount of time, but I'll try anyway. Firstly, Ayre brings up a comparison to the Spanish model, where Real Madrid and Barcelona currently make billions on selling their TV rights abroad. They are two of the hottest tickets and biggest draws in the sport, so subsequently foreign stations pay vast sums to secure the rights.

The result? In the last two seasons Real Madrid and Barcelona have finished over 20 points above everybody else in the league, with them both getting over 90 points. In comparison, the 90-point barrier has only been breached six times since the Premier League switched to a 20-team, 3 points-per-game format. Real Madrid and Barcelona have done it 4 times between them in two years.

Ian Ayre's TV rights proposal is as self-serving as they come

That Spanish model really keeps a league competitive, doesn't it? Ayre's plan is so sickeningly self-serving; put forward solely because of personal bitterness that they have been supplanted at the top of English football by the money of Chelsea, Man City and to some extent Man Utd, and fueled by a desire to "fix" things. This plan would certainly give them the money to compete - it's surely no coincidence that Liverpool would be the ones that have the most to gain from this.

Right now, it's comparable to a never-ending fight between Lennox Lewis and Audley Harrison. The best Harrison can hope for is that he gets some medical excuse to legally pump himself full of steroids (read: a massive cash injection like Man City and Chelsea received); something that might redress the balance a bit between the two competitors.

If Ayre's proposed changes were to be introduced? It would still be like Lewis/Harrison, but now Harrison's arms are tied behind his back and Lewis is wearing knuckledusters. In this case, it doesn't really matter how many steroids the local guy takes. All it does is help him take the punches a little better.

Alright, so it's pretty grim in either case, but at least in the former there's still a chance for change. The latter turns the entire thing into a dull, uncompetitive procession. The gap will widen further and at that point Gartside's two-tiered Premiership might not be such a bad idea.

Fortunately the proposal was shunned by both Man Utd and Chelsea, which would indicate it is off the agenda - at least for now. But this is just the warning shot. Ayre says it's a "debate that has to happen", and, inevitably, it will.

After that we have Richard Bevan claiming that foreign owners want to put an end to relegation. This has been far more widely shunned and is less of an immediate threat. Dave Whelan, chairman of Wigan - a club that would certainly benefit from there being no relegation -  said he would pull Wigan out of the Premier League  if it was removed.

Much like the discussion over TV rights, this is in no danger of happening in the immediate future, but the mention of it by a higher-up like Bevan indicates that there has been some sort of discussion on the subject. The total rejection of the idea by the footballing community is probably what forced such rigorous denials by the foreign-owned clubs involved, but it will surface again, maybe in one year, maybe in ten or twenty. 

You can see the logic; look at America's system. The NFL, essentially a league of superteams, is almost sustainable by definition. From the pure moneymaking perspective it makes some sense. It's just sad that, when it gets to the point that clubs are so desperate to stay in the Premiership to secure their own long-term future, when the Football League becomes that hazardous to a club's self-sustainability, the Championship and below will be cut off.

Scenes like West Brom's famous escape in 2005 would be a thing
of the past if the plan to remove relegation from
the league was carried through.

Almost as if to expediate this process, the last and probably most disheartening story - though the one that seemed to receive the least coverage - will almost inevitably lead to major infrastructure changes in a lot of Football League clubs.

The Football League has overhauled the system by which young players are bought and sold. The tribunal system - whereby a tribunal would decide the fee for a youth player when another club wanted to buy him - has been scrapped.

Now, the tribunal system itself was no bed of roses. It was somewhat flawed and still tended to undervalue players. For instance, Tottenham's purchase of John Bostock was marred in controversy. One of Crystal Palace's most promising youth prospects in years, Bostock was valued (after various add-ons and clauses) at around £4m by Crystal Palace. The tribunal set the fee at a mere £700,000. I will freely admit this was farcical (it even led to Chairman Simon Jordan's departure from the club), but this new system will likely do even more damage to football league clubs.

The most damning part of the above article is not simply the pitiful numbers that football league clubs can now expect for their best young players, it was this:

"Had clubs rejected the plan, the Premier League would have withheld their funding for youth development – a fee currently over £5m per season."

This is essentially blackmail, a "know-your-place" jab, a reminder of football's pecking order. Admittedly, the Premier League was never obligated to provide said youth funding, but that the Premier League can bend over the rest of the Football League by simply threatening to take their ball and go home is indicative of the twisted nature of money in football.

It's not all grim, though. Maybe it's just natural fear of change. Maybe that also explains why I don't want goal-line technology. Maybe the fans are the crazy ones and the businessmen know what they're talking about, know what's best. Maybe-alright, nope, sorry. I can't be unbiased here. This sucks.

The Pecking Order

So in an attempt to shore up an ailing defence with the riches they acquired from selling Cesc Fabregas and Samir Nasri, Arsenal have put in a bid for Bolton's Gary Cahill. 

Yes, this is the same Gary Cahill that has been linked with big-money moves to every Premiership club that has it to spend. Owen Coyle himself has valued Cahill as highly as £20 million, while some reports put him in the £15-16 million range.

Arsenal's bid? Supposedly, as low as £6 million.

Needless to say, this has caused quite the reaction. Owen Coyle described the bid by saying "derisory does not even cover it," while Arséne Wenger has defended himself with his typical self-righteousness. He firstly accused Bolton owner Phil Gartside of deliberately misinforming the public about the bid: "That number is completely wrong. If Gartside can say I am lying I am ready to confront him," Before going on to say: "If you ask do I want to buy your house and you are not happy with the price you say no, that's it."

This is doubtless a fair position to take, but Arsenal fans outraged at Barcelona's low offers for Cesc Fabregas should take note. This summer has seen Barcelona offer £27 million for Fabregas, which is, admittedly, a laughably low offer given the current state of the transfer market. That is only 4 million more than what Man City paid for Mario Balotelli, 8 million less than what Liverpool paid for Andy Carroll, and just over half what Chelsea paid for Fernando Torres - not to mention lower than what they were offering last summer.

Bolton manager Owen Coyle said the
offer for Cahill "wasn't in the right ball park".

It seems what we have here, then, is yet another example of the footballing pecking order. Barcelona are taking part in what is essentially an arms race with Real Madrid in their ludicrous attempts to outdo each other in the transfer market, as they both make marquee signing after marquee signing.  The signing of Fabregas is one of the greatest indicators of this, given that what Barcelona really needed this summer was defensive reinforcement  (maybe they should have gone for Cahill...).

Meanwhile, Bolton are a mid-table club looking to improve a little further. Since Gary Megson left, they've improved drastically and even gone some way to shaking off their stereotype of long-ball, ugly football. Between the two you have Arsenal; without doubt one of England's top clubs, and yet increasingly being left behind by an inability to keep up with Manchester United and Chelsea's spending - and with Manchester City finishing above them last season before improving their squad again, Arsenal are falling even further behind.

This is not the first time this summer that this has happened. Chelsea's opening bid of £22 million for Luka Modric was just as derisory as Arsenal and Barcelona's respective bids. That's the same thing:  the bigger, more successful club underestimating the resolve of the smaller.

Maybe it comes down to a simple business decision. Smaller clubs are generally less financially stable and often need the money that a big transfer would provide. To put into perspective just how significant player sales are for generating cash flow, take a look at Champions League earnings. Tottenham's Champions League campaign saw them gain around £27 million for reaching the quarter-finals.

This is, without doubt, a lot of money. But this was the result of the club's most successful league campaign since the 89/90 season and a Champions League campaign that saw them go further than could have been expected. Two seasons' worth of hard work, then, to make £27 million.

Barcelona's first offer for Fabregas this summer
was reportedly lower than last year.

...Alternatively, they could have accepted Chelsea's second offer for Modric, which was still thought of as a low valuation, and bring in the same amount of money. That's what we're talking about here. I'm not underestimating the effect of Champions League prize money (especially when you compare it to the pittance you get for playing the Europa League), but players are so overvalued, the market so distorted, that from a business perspective it's almost better to become a midtable Premier League club, that buys players before selling them off for a huge profit without ever achieving tangible on-pitch success than it is to go off on some romantic chase for success and risk potential financial problems.

So yes, maybe it is a bit of craft from chairmen, in the same way a club can expect to get players for cheaper than they normally would have done if their club goes into administration. But we are not dealing with clubs that have to sell here. We're not dealing with clubs that are fighting for survival. Arsenal and Bolton are financially stable, so that's not an issue. What is basically comes down to, then, is the big club hoping the smaller one will see the shiny money and salivate, before hastily accepting the offer. A bit like a teenager fooling a five-year-old into trading aluminium foil for a videogame. Sort of.

But what about when you get two big dogs? There seems to be a mutual respect there. For instance, Real Madrid's two massive signings in 2009 came from two established European powerhouses; they signed Kaka' from AC Milan for £56 million and Cristiano Ronaldo from Manchester United for £80 million. Both times there were talks of negotiations, and even some complaints from Utd about the way Real Madrid were treating the transfer in the media - but no reports of a low bid. In fact, in the end the deals were well in excess of the players' "objective" worth (if such a thing exists).

Chelsea's £50 million signing of Torres was similar in that regard; Chelsea did have bids rejected, but they were for in excess of £35 million - which was not unfair given Torres' injury record, his form, and the fact that the ridiculous signings like that of Andy Carroll hadn't happened yet.

That's the food chain of football. The alphas, the big dogs, they will argue a little. They might bicker. Alex Ferguson might bring up your club's past links to a fascist regime. But when it comes to money on the table, a concrete bid, ultimately it seems to be at least somewhat respectful.  If you are perceived to be an inferior club, however, then good luck.

Premier League Preview

It's Christmas Eve. I probably started this blog at the wrong time - right after the season finished - but now is when things get good. 

Sadly, my own Tottenham will not be playing tomorrow (thanks, rioters), but at least that means I can have a nice, stress-free opening day. 

So let's start at the top. The top 6 would appear to be set in stone, so let's go through them. With Man City you have the generic questions of whether all their new signings would gel, whether certain players (like Aguero) will settle in, and whether the manager's tactics are a little too defensive (oh, and speaking of Aguero - I'm glad somebody finally bought him. He's been linked with every club under the sun that has money for the last 5 years).

However, the team and overall squad itself is probably one of the most complete in the league. Selling Given is a bit of a shame, if only because it's fairly important to have two quality goalkeepers and he was, without doubt, the best backup 'keeper in the league. Costel Pantilimon is unproven (though highly-rated), and Given has been one of the best goalkeepers in the league in the past decade - so not a bad bench option. That is probably the only blot on their copybook so far this summer, though, with the future of Carlos Tevez as-yet undecided.

Chelsea's only significant improvement has been the signing of Romelu Lukaku. This is a shame for Daniel Sturridge, who, having impressed on loan at Bolton last season, already faced a hard time getting first-team opportunities (being behind Drogba, Anelka and Torres in the pecking order), but the addition of Lukaku is another blow for his Chelsea future.  New manager Andre Villas-Boas is clearly happy with with the squad he has, even though most of them are the same age as him. Having seemingly failed to sign Luka Modric, he has not looked for an immediate replacement.

Man Utd will, as always, be tough to beat. Nobody can doubt the ability of some of their players, but they looked rather average at points last season. It was the goals of Javier Hernandez that really secured the title for them, and there will be pressure on him to do it again. They have had an excellent summer, however. Ashley Young is a signing that will give them several more options, given his versatility.

Man Utd are my tip for this year's title

Liverpool are possibly the biggest x-factor this season. Much like when Harry Redknapp joined Spurs, I don't buy that Kenny Dalglish is the miracle-working manager people made him out to be. There were a lot of factors in place for Liverpool to improve greatly, not least a squad that was already pretty good. The traditional "new manager" boost came into effect - and then that was augmented by signing Luis Suarez, the new owners and the general optimism surrounding the club. However, they have signed very well this summer and, most importantly, got their players in early and bought young. So while I still think the jury is out on Dalglish, the squad they now possess is very well-rounded, though perhaps a little heavy on midfielders.

As for Tottenham...well, the window isn't closed yet and Levy likes to wait until the last minute to make his deals, so we'll see. However, they have thus far failed to strengthen while everybody around them, sans Arsenal, have improved. Most notably, they still lack a striker and the likes of Robbie Keane are still on the wage bill. As a result, I would expect Spurs to finish sixth. This is a shame. Their first game will now be away to Manchester United, thanks to the Everton postponement, which is not a good omen.

Aston Villa will likely be back in the mid-table mediocrity (of course, with Darren Bent in the team, mediocrity is practically a guarantee) of the pre-O'Neill days - MacLeish is a good, but not great, manager, and certainly not on O'Neill's level. I don't think they'll be in trouble, but I don't think they'll be posing much of a challenge. As stated on my last entry, however, N'Zogbia was a very shrewd signing given his potential to act as a viable replacement for their two biggest losses this summer - Ashley Young and Stewart Downing.

Newcastle would appear to be in a little bit of trouble given the sales of Carroll, Nolan and...the existence of Joey Barton in general, but I also believe that they have a very hungry, attacking, young squad. Hatem Ben Arfa is exceptionally talented and Gabriel Obertan might end up being one of the biggest bargains of the season.

As for the relegation fight, I think it'll be fairly open. You would always look at the promoted teams as potential candidates for relegation, but I think QPR are likely to stay up. Their success might be dependent on Adel Taraabt, and whether or not he is found out in the Premiership. I was a great admirer of Taarabt when he played for Tottenham, but he was still very raw and not the greatest team player. The question will now be whether, after a season of playing regularly for QPR and being given the responsibility of the captain's armband, he has overcome those faults to be an important part of QPR's survival hopes. Certainly they did a very good job of keeping him, repelling interest from Paris Saint-Germain among others.

QPR's Adel Taarabt will be key to their survival hopes

Swansea and Wolves are two teams I feel will be relegated. Swansea might well end up being like the West Brom team of a few seasons back, when they were managed by Tony Mowbray - trying to play attractive football, and I commend them for that, but ultimately failing and being relegated. I might be selling them short, but that is how I picture them. Wolves are living on borrowed time, and have been extremely fortunate to survive the past two seasons. I don't particularly dislike them as a team - in fact, I quite like Mick McCarthy - but I feel it is time for them to go.

In the same vein, I also think Wigan will go down. They seem to have been just surviving for the last few seasons, and they have lasted far longer in the Premiership than anybody could have expected. They have been a great underdog story and they might surprise me yet again - I've been predicting them to go down for a while now - but I think this year might finally be the year they go. The loss of N'Zogbia will, I feel, leave a large gap in their team that they will struggle to fill. They have also lost Tom Cleverley, who has returned to Man Utd after his loan spell.


I haven't mentioned everybody here, but you can expect full coverage as the season progresses. In summary: Man Utd win, Wigan, Wolves and Swansea go down. Maybe. I've never been that good at predicting.

Villa do Well from Downing Deal

As a Tottenham fan, a few years back I went through maybe two or three summers of annoyance. In that period, we were a team (seemingly) on the verge of challenging for at least a Champions League place - a team with a great set of forwards, but also a team that was lacking one critical component: a left-winger. Funnily enough we now have one of the best left-wingers in the world, and our forward line is mediocre. Irritating. But I digress.

The point is, in that seemingly endless search for a left-winger a lot of good opportunities seemed to pass us by. We were on the verge of signing Martin Petrov from Atletico Madrid before Man City offered him more money, and deals for players like Morten Gamst Pedersen never seemed to materialise. This was annoying, but there was one player I was always happy to avoid: Stewart Downing.

I've been kind of smug and "I told you so" about it as well, to my shame. Any time I watch one of his typically average performances in an England shirt, or see him make a mistake for Villa (or for Middlesbrough, before his move), I am always the first to say that Downing is "£15 million of dodged bullet".

Recently, though, I've been experiencing some...doubts. I thought for so long Downing was an incredibly overhyped player, but last season he matured very well at Aston Villa and did a fine job. Anyone who knows me will tell you I hate to be proven wrong and I would not say Downing has done that yet - in my eyes he was too average for too long, and his continued appearances for England exemplified everything wrong with the Mclaren era, especially with other left-wing options like Matt Taylor in great form - but he has certainly done enough to get me to shut up about him. Or at least to criticise him slightly less.

Downing has matured a lot since a
succession of poor performances for England

I'm certainly willing to admit Downing isn't the overrated waste of time I once thought he was. It may have been a bad season for Aston Villa that saw them needing to emergency-buy Darren Bent to shoot themselves out of trouble, but the form of Downing (and Marc Albrighton) was a clear positive, and he earned Villa's "player of the year" award.

Indeed, such good form has caused Liverpool to buy him for a reported £20 million fee. That's about twice what I would have paid for him - but then Villa had no real reason to sell their player of the year, especially since they had already sold Ashley Young for an undisclosed (but, presumably, considerable) sum of money. Villa immediately began searching for a replacement, and found one in Wigan winger Charles N'Zogbia.

N'Zogbia is an excellent player, and has been performing well since his Newcastle days. Wigan picked him up in January 2009 in what was a very shrewd piece of business - they took advantage of then-Newcastle manager Joe Kinnear's "Charles Insomnia" jibe to buy a player that has probably single-handedly ensured they avoided relegation in the last three seasons.

Importantly, Villa will purchase N'Zogbia for a £9.5 million fee - less than half of what they allegedly sold Stewart Downing for. I am not necessarily knocking the purchase of Downing by Liverpool; he is most certainly a better crosser than N'Zogbia, and with Andy Carroll as their main striker, it is a smart buy for a team lacking real wide threats.

However, Villa have done some smart business here as well. I don't think they will go down, even with the loss of players like Downing and Young. This will be the first time in several seasons they have not beein in the Europa League, though they can be expected to be challenging again soon - they will be able to concentrate more on the Premier League, too, without that distraction.

On the other hand, Wigan would be one of the teams regarded as a favourite for the drop. So from N'Zogbia's perspective, it makes sense to move to a bigger club, on a higher level. They can be expected to be paying N'Zogbia more than he was earning at Wigan, too.

Downing may have commanded double
N'Zogbia's fee, but he is not double the player

Villa still have some weaknesses - they could be stronger in the central midfield and full-back positions, for instance, but in N'Zogbia they get a winger that can provide balance to their team and possibly mean they end up with a 4-3-3 formation, with N'Zogbia and Albrighton as two wingers supporting Bent as a lone striker. N'Zogbia brings the pace and dribbling of Ashley Young, but brings the balance of a left-footed winger that Stewart Downing once did - he is a very intelligent acquisition that fills two niches at once.

That's not to say N'Zogbia isn't without his problems. He was far from blameless in the spat that caused him to leave Newcastle and his impressive performances with Wigan might be indicative of a player who likes being a big fish in a small pond. Ultimately, though, N'Zogbia is more or less on the same level as Downing and Villa have done an excellent job here - provided McLeish can keep him focussed and make the system work.

Masters of Nothing: The Sad Story of the Full-Backs

After playing second fiddle to Porto this season and exiting the Europa League at the semi-final stage, Benfica left-back Fabio Coentrao is headed to Real Madrid for the sum of 30 million Euros, around £27 million. Such an extravagant fee isn't unusual for Real Madrid, but it has gotten me thinking about the importance of full-backs.

Who do you think the worst World Cup winning captain is? It's a difficult question, and almost an oxymoronic one. The winning captain is the leader of a team that has just been crowned as the best in the international game. It seems silly and almost insulting to try and find the "worst" one, but let's do it for the sake of argument.

As you might expect, it's quite the list. Fabio Cannavaro, Franz Beckenbauer, Bobby Moore, Giuseppe Meazza; these are outstanding, legendary players. But the worst? Cafu.

And that's a real wrench, as he's one of the best full-backs to ever play the game. He was the quintessential Brazilian full-back, marauding up and down the touchline with boundless energy and ability. But he is, ultimately, a full-back. It's the least important position on the pitch. Note that I'm talking strictly about full-backs in a back 4, such as Ashley Cole or Coentrao; wing-backs in a 5-3-2 are very important to that formation, but it is a subtly different position.

Cafu is one of the finest full-backs of all time.
Unfortunately, he is still a full-back.

Let's take your average 4-4-2 as an example. If you had to get rid of two players, where would you take them from? You couldn't do without the goalkeeper, obviously, or the central defenders. The wide midfielders are very important from an offensive point of view (and sometimes from a defensive one) and the central midfielders are important for controlling possession.

You can do without one of the strikers, maybe - but that would depend which striker. For instance, if I had a striker capable of playing on their own, such as Didier Drogba or Darren Bent, and they were partnered with someone like Javier Hernandez or Michael Owen, I could maybe do without one of the latter two  if I could get the necessary support to the remaining, solitary striker. However, this is hardly ideal. That just leaves the full-backs.

These are players who are not quite defensively strong enough to be centre-backs and not quite skilful enough in the final third to be wingers. Don't get me wrong here; I am not seeking to put down full-backs as unnecessary. It is still an important position, just not as important as the others. As an alternative, you could say that they are designed to be balanced, to find a middle ground between defence and attack.

However, when is the last time you can honestly say you have seen a full-back really win a game from that position? Elano was deployed there for Manchester City once or twice as an emergency option and excelled. Steven Gerrard ended up there in the 2005 Champions League final and put in an almost legendary performance - but there are few other examples.

Even the players considered the best in that position such as Daniel Alves and Maicon are rarely genuine man of the match contenders. It's a shame, given how important Alves' partnership with Messi on the right side has been to Barcelona's dominance of European football, but it is also completely understandable; he is only there to support the maestro, not to overshadow him.

Indeed, Alves being second fiddle to Messi is not an unusual occurrence. One might recognise when they play well, but they will be overlooked when deciding the man of the match; an aggressive and dominant performance from a centre-back or defensive midfielder, an elegant and efficient playmaking performance, or a display of goalscoring ability from a striker are all far more likely to attain that accolade. Even those rare games where a goalkeeper keeps a team at bay seemingly single-handedly are more common then a full-back being lauded.

Coentrao is not the first big-money full-back:
Daniel Alves cost Barcelona £23 million.

Yes, full-backs  are definitely becoming more important in the modern game. Manchester United phasing out the balanced and "solid" Gary Neville in favour of the more attacking Rafael is one example; you might also point to Barcelona's use of Alves or Chelsea recently unleashing Ashley Cole into a more attacking role, leading to an increased goal tally for the England player.

When a full-back runs from deep, they can break teams down in a different way. A winger could run out of space to run at their full-back. However, if you were to put an attack-minded playmaking midfielder on the flank, that player could cut inside and create space for an attacking full-back, giving him more space to run at the opposition. This is a strategy Harry Redknapp has occasionally deployed with Gareth Bale, with Luka Modric the player deployed on the left of a 4-man midfield. Redknapp clearly wishes to do more often with his insistence that Bale will end up in that position.

Maybe it is in light of this new role the full-back is developing that Real Madrid elected to spend so much money to "fill" a position already occupied by Marcelo, who enjoyed an excellent season in 2010/11. It still seems like an odd decision and an extreme sum of money, but with Real Madrid's near-limitless funds, they will always be held to ransom.

Ultimately, though, If I was to make an all-time best XI, I probably wouldn't include full-backs. There are so many centre-backs out there that dominated the game, it would be a shame to include only two; it'd be a three-man defence. I'd exclude full-backs (though Cafu would be the right-back of choice, if I had to), just because being a "great full-back" is an extremely relative term. They are jacks of all trades but masters of nothing; players of importance but never superstardom.

Subsequently I feel rather sorry for Fabio Coentrao - or at least,  as sorry as one can feel for a player about to join Real Madrid for what will probably be a 6-figure weekly wage. For £27 million, I would be wanting a real difference-maker. Coentrao will not do that for Real Madrid - but as a full-back, it's something of an occupational hazard.

There IS a Point to the Europa League - But it's a Sinister One

The dark, conspiracy theorist part of my brain has long been very cynical when it comes to the Europa League, so here goes.

There are plenty out there who aren't big fans of the competition. Tottenham manager Harry Redknapp once said “I think everyone that gets in it (the Europa League) wants to be out of it. They put reserve teams out every game." Many Spurs fans, as their season meandered towards 5th place in the Premier League rather than 4th and a second crack at the Champions League, shared a similar sentiment.

You'll all be glad to know, however, that I believe the competition does have a purpose. But you might not like it.

The Europa League is UEFA's way of maintaining the status quo. How? Just look at the amount of games you need to play to win the thing. By the time you get through an opening play-off round, a 6-game group stage, and then two-legged games from the round of 32 onwards (final not included), the winner of the Europa League will have played a grand total of 17 games in order to win the tournament. Even if you play a reserve side in the play-off round, they might still win and then you're faced with six games and there's nothing to be done about it. You could continue to field reserve sides, but then there's the potential for fan backlash which no manager wants to deal with.

Financially it would not appear to be worth it, either. Winning a match in the Europa League group stage is worth €120,000 - not even a week's wages for a lot of the top players. Winning a match in the Champions' League group stage is worth a staggering €800,000. A team is awarded a further €360,000 for reaching the quarter-finals of the Europa League; reaching the equivalent stage of the Champions League rewards the team with €3,200,000.

This is not to suggest that the two competitions should offer parity, because the gulf in quality is quite obvious - the gulf in funding, however, is disproportionately more significant. Is it really worth it to compete in the Europa League? A team might well enjoy a great run, yes; I don't want to detract from the great string of upsets Fulham performed in 2010 before their narrow, heartbreaking loss to Atletico Madrid in the final. Fulham, though, are generally a midtable club. They had qualified for the Europa League only by finishing in their highest ever league position of seventh. Seventh was only a Europa League position in the first place due to a relatively unlikely sequence of events involving the league positions of domestic cup winners and runners-up.

No, my gripe is the effect the Europa League has on the teams that are most likely to challenge the established order. How many extra games, trips to far-flung areas of Europe, does a team have to endure in a season for little financial reward or reputational gain? After all, winning the tournament is the only way a team can really gain reputation from the Europa League. Meanwhile, Tottenham merely reaching the quarter-finals of the Champions League has sky-rocketed their reputation across Europe (as well as sky-rocketing the valuation of their players, not that Chelsea got the memo).

It is notable that when Spurs finally broke the established "top 4", they did so in a season where two things happened. One, Tottenham had not qualified for the Europa League in the previous season, and so had a campaign free of extraneous games (barring a run to the semi-finals of the FA Cup). Two, Liverpool finished third in their Champions League group, and were relegated to the knockout stages of the Europa League, where they got to the semi-finals; that's an extra 8 games and 4 trips abroad in a losing effort.

Porto won the 2010/11 Europa League, but is the competition
worth it for clubs attempting to break the glass ceiling?

True, in 2010/11 Manchester City qualified while simultaneously playing in the Europa League but, vitally, both of their rivals were also caught up in European Competition (Tottenham in the Champions League, Liverpool in the Europa League), as well as having enough money to buy two adequate starting line-ups.

The idea that UEFA would try so hard to establish a "status quo" isn't so outlandish. Let's not forget the existence of the G-14, an organisation that ran from 2000-2008 and incorporated many of Europe's top clubs, such as Manchester United, Real Madrid and AC Milan. The existence of the G-14 alone was fundamentally elitist and, in fairness, UEFA president Michel Platini exposed them as such and called upon them to disband. However, it is the fact that such a cabal could even exist in the first place and survive for so long that speaks volumes about the state of Europe's top clubs andtheir position in the game today.

It benefits almost everyone to have the top clubs in the Champions League each year. The Champions League becomes a far more valuable product with the valuable draws consistently going deep into the competition. Teams like Manchester United, Barcelona etc have helped make it what it is today, like it or not - they are the draws that allow UEFA to secure the huge sponsorship deals, commission the epic-sounding orchestral anthem. In return, UEFA provide that prize money package.

Is it all one big conspiracy to keep the smaller clubs down? No, that seems a little farfetched. Would UEFA rather Liverpool were in the Champions League than Tottenham or Manchester City? Would they rather Juventus were there instead of, say, Fiorentina? I would say this is hard to debate. I can't be the only one who was surprised that when UEFA rebranded and re-organised the competition two years ago, they did not seek to streamline it. In fact, they added two more group games and one further away trip.

Are UEFA so out of touch with the conditioning of modern players, the very real potential for burnout? The recent allegations of corruption, and the realisation that the world's top football organisations actually have football itself lower on the priority list than it should be, would indicate that they might just be. But if they're not, then I don't see what other explanation there is - other than the fact that we might not be dealing with a fully objective governing body here.

Tottenham Show Some Spine

The most recent "Tottenham player leaving to Champions League club" saga does have an air of familiarity about it - it has happened so many times before, after all. Tottenham have been unable to resist selling players like Teddy Sheringham, Michael Carrick and Dimitar Berbatov to Manchester United in recent years.

Tottenham, to be fair, have struck a better deal each time. Sheringham was sold for just £3.5 million, a paltry fee (even back then) considering he played a vital role in United's 1999 Champions League win. Carrick's sale for roughly £18 million was a much better deal - though given what happened to Tottenham's midfield afterwards, he could have commanded an even bigger amount.

Berbatov's sale for a massive £30.75 million in 2008 might be something of a "false" fee - it is possible that the fee was inflated a little by Tottenham's complaint to the FA regarding Man Utd's alleged "tapping up" of the player. Regardless of the circumstances, though, Tottenham did very well out of that deal.

Modric wants Champions League football again, but it seems
Tottenham will repel the advances of England's biggest clubs this summer.

Recently we saw the first bid in what might become something of a bidding war between some of England's most powerful clubs. Chelsea's opening bid of £22 million was miniscule in comparison to Modric's actual worth in the current transfer market. Given the sale of the relatively unproven Andy Carroll for £35 million, one would expect Modric to command a fee that is at the very least on par with that figure, given his value to Tottenham as a club.

Fortunately for Spurs, though, it would seem any deal is not going to happen - not this summer, at least. At no point in previous sagas did Chairman Daniel Levy say as categorically as he has here that a player would not be sold.

 "I wish to make it absolutely clear, as I have said previously, that none of our key players will be sold this summer."
"In respect of Luka Modric, we are not prepared to sell, at any price, to Chelsea Football Club or any other club."

Levy, if nothing else, isn't one to go back on a definitive statement like that. What's more, one should assume that such a statement would also apply to Tottenham's other key players such as Gareth Bale and Rafael Van der Vaart.

One could not be blamed for thinking Modric would be sold soon. He was linked with some of Europe's top clubs even before he transferred to Tottenham, and there have been rumours abound about his transfer to a "bigger" club practically as soon as Harry Redknapp took over and helped make Luka Modric one of the Premiership's best central midfield players.

At the most basic level, one could look at Modric's stats and say he is an overrated player. In a league where midfielders breaking forward into the box has become commonplace, thanks to the great influence of players like Frank Lampard, Modric would appear to come up a little short. He scored only 4 goals in 42 appearances in the 2010/11 season (all competitions), which makes him look average at best when compared to his comrades in that position. His assists figure, also, might seem to be lacking. When you consider both his position and his purported passing expertise, it is surprising that Modric only notched 3 this season.

But it is in other departments that Modric excels. Modric moves smoothly across the ground, keeps the ball brilliantly and his passing is a phenomenon. A look at this graphic shows his worth to Tottenham in arguably their biggest game last season:

53/59 pass completion, or just shy of 90%. For reference, this is the kind of record that Xavi Hernandez, Barcelona's lauded passmaster, gets so much praise for. At the 2010 World Cup, Xavi completed 89% of his passes. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not implying Modric is the better player on the whole, because he can't churn out phenomenal stats like that every week in the manner that Xavi does. Modric, however, is faster along the ground and much tougher than he looks.

So it's not just a case of end product (whatever that means now) Luka Modric is the fulcrum of this Tottenham side and to lose him, with Tottenham in the position they are currently in, would be just as devastating (if not moreso) as the losses of Carrick and Berbatov were.

It is possible that Chelsea's derisory opening bid is what prompted such a swift and decisive statement from Levy; had Chelsea opened with a more appropriate offer, we might not have seen Levy move so quickly to shut down the rumours. I doubt this Modric saga is over - Manchester United and Manchester City are both likely to launch bids to try and get the £ signs to appear in Levy's eyes once again. But it looks like, after a worrying weekend for the Tottenham faithful, the board will hold firm this time.

This is a key moment in Levy's stewardship of the club. He has seemingly resisted the advances of one of the Premier League's top dogs for the first time. Quite honestly, Tottenham have no need to sell Modric; he recently signed a five-and-a-half year contract. When Robbie Keane (who was on a deal of a similar length) maneouvered himself out of the club in 2008, the fear among the Tottenham management staff was that Keane's positive influence in the dressing room would turn into a negative one had he been forced to stay. This would not be an issue for the quiet, unassuming figure of Modric - though one can see why he would want to play with strikers of Fernando Torres' calibre, as opposed to Roman Pavlyuchenko or Darren Bent.

The announcement of the fixtures this week has seen Tottenham face an assortment of tough matches to start the season. In addition to whatever far-flung corner of Europe they are sent to for the first round of the Europa League, Tottenham face matches against Everton (who they have beaten once in their last seven Premier League meetings), Man Utd, Man City, Liverpool and Arsenal in their first seven matches. It would be wise, then, for Tottenham's annual transfer drama to be concluded early for once, and Levy's attempt to shut the door on a Modric transfer is a big step towards that.

Why Does Mediocrity Seem to Follow Darren Bent Around?

I don't particularly want this blog to be regarded as too "edgy" or contrarian (or do I? Maybe criticising the Old Firm rivalry in my first post wasn't the best way to go), but watching England's tepid performance against Switzerland the other day reminded me of how I feel about Darren Bent, so here's blog entry number two.

Well, maybe overrated isn't the right word. My problem with Bent isn't related to a shortage of "talent" - he is undoubtedly an excellent goalscorer - it's more the fact that in the modern game, Bent simply cannot succeed at the highest level.

Journalist Hugo Asch once said that modern-day forwards are "a combination of tanks and Formula One cars". A prime example of this is Didier Drogba, who is as fast and powerful as they come. Players like Fillipo Inzaghi and Michael Owen have been left behind by the development of the modern game; they're simply too one-dimensional to work in the lone-striker systems so many teams operate now. Defending now is too good, players too fit, to provide the little half-chances that the likes of Owen used to pounce on. Hanging on the shoulder of the last defender isn't enough either.

Bent is not quite as archaic; he is faster and stronger than both players (now, anyway; Owen was the faster player before being plagued by injury), and can lead the line with some effectiveness even in an environment as physical as the Premier League. However, he is not quite tall or dominating enough to be a target-man like Liverpool striker Andy Carroll - but he is faster, and a better finisher. He is not refined enough to create anywhere near as well as Wayne Rooney - but he is faster, and a better finisher. He also lacks the dynamism of someone like Jermain Defoe. Bent does sport several advantages over the dimunitive Tottenham man, but it is what Defoe can do outside the box that has ensured Defoe has far more international caps.

Bent transferred to Aston Villa in January
for a fee potentially as high as £24 million

Top-notch strikers now need to be able to create chances for themselves on a regular basis. Carroll can do that with sheer force; Rooney can do that with his inventiveness; Defoe with his dynamic movement and occasionally by running at defenders and full-backs, cutting inside to shoot. Bent simply does not do this often enough. This might go some way to explaining the fact that he was snubbed for World Cup Squads in both 2006 and 2010. In the world of top-level international football, dominated by multi-functional players, Bent falls a little short.

It is possibly because of this that despite the impressive scoring record (Bent has scored the most goals in the Premier League since 2005), no top club has taken a gamble on him and he has a conspicuous lack of England caps. In fact, one can draw another comparison with Michael Owen here; when Newcastle purchased Owen from Real Madrid in 2005, no top club was prepared to pay the £18 million fee. Much like Bent, in the modern-day game Owen is a good player to have (as Manchester United do now - tellingly, on a free transfer) but he is not a player to consistently rely on at the top level of the game.

Bent's highest league finish remains 8th, with Tottenham in 2008/09 - a finish that could be put down in many ways to the remarkable revival that took place under Harry Redknapp and continued after Bent left the club the following summer. Before Bent's spell at Tottenham, the London club finished 5th twice. Since Bent has left, they have finished 4th and 5th. It would be foolish to say that Bent is the only reason for this; Tottenham had a variety of issues in those seasons, all the way up to the boardroom. However, to ignore the conundrum and problems he caused would be equally foolish.

In 2006/07, Tottenham had Robbie Keane and Dimitar Berbatov in top form. Both are creative strikers that were also able to finish, and it is because of this that they combined so effectively. Bent was added to the mix and it all fell apart.

The next season, with Keane and Berbatov gone, Tottenham changed the way they played and loaded up on attacking midfielders and wingers to provide the creativity; Giovani Dos Santos, Luka Modric and David Bentley were brought in to play behind and support Bent.

Bent continued to feed on scraps and scored a few goals, but Tottenham as a team were even worse. Luka Modric spent most of that season deployed just off the striker, in contrast to his current position of Central Midfield. In order to form a synergy with a player of Modric's class, the striker needs to be savvy and with a creative eye. Bent lacks that, and that is the difference. It is what makes him a player who, in the modern game, simply cannot work at the highest level.

Maybe, then, pundits should be less surprised when wondering why Bent fails to make the England squad, why he is not an automatic starter and why he hasn't found himself at a top club yet. Oddly enough, I didn't think the fee Aston Villa paid for him was as extortionate as some made it out to be. It is a fee that potentially rises to £24 million, but for Villa, relegation would be far more costly.

That transfer is probably Darren Bent in a nutshell; he turned not-long promoted Sunderland into a solid, midtable side and now he will probably solidify Aston Villa as well. But that's all; one could say that Bent is more of a survivor than he is a winner. Chelsea, Manchester United et al want to do more than just survive, and the same must surely ring true with England.

There's no conspiracy when it comes to leaving Bent out of the England starting XI; just savvy managers knowing his shortcomings. His recent resurgence in an England shirt has been good, but at a World Cup or European Championship, it is likely that he will be found out - or left out.

The Old Firm - Am I the Only One Who Stopped Caring a While Ago?

So for my first entry in this blog, I thought I'd look at a topic that has been irritating me for the last year or so. And I can't be the only one.

That topic is the rivalry known as the Old Firm. Celtic and Rangers. Two of Europe's most vociferously-supported clubs, two of the most successful clubs around in terms of trophies won. Two teams that share a storied rivalry - one which, in many ways, transcends sport. The rivalry is laced with a series of disputes, not least the collision of the predominantly Catholic Celtic fanbase and the Protestant Rangers.

All very interesting. Very historic. But it's getting old.

For example: In the recently concluded 2010-11 season, we saw Celtic and Rangers go at it seven times. The record is fairly even - Rangers won 3, lost 2 and drew 2 of their meetings. Rangers also won the league for the third successive year. Before that, Celtic had won it for three successive years. Before that, they exchanged the title back and forth a few times. Hearts split the two of them once a few seasons ago, but apart from that, the Old Firm have been 1 and 2 in Scotland since the 1995-96 season.

Unfortunately, the nature of the game dictates that these two will be going at it as long as they both continue to exist. And it looks like, for a while at least, these will be the top two in the league. That's the thing about football; there can be no absolute, final victory; you will never "bury" your rival by simply beating them in a match. You get a rematch in a couple of months whatever happens.

I don't care anymore.

This is especially true in the Scottish Premier League, where you play each other four times per season. Even more true with these two clubs, who are almost guaranteed to go far in both cup competitions. In essence, every significant win, each new bit of one-upmanship, is tempered by the fact that your opponents will just come back at you later.

This is boring. I'm sick of it. It wasn't always so bad, not when players like Henrik Larsson were there to make it more interesting and watchable, but now it is running desperately low on both quality and intrigue. Every season I watch Sky Sports News to see them hyping up the "nail-bitingly close" title race and it's been between the same two clubs for as long as I can remember.


Yes, Man Utd and Chelsea have been dominating the English Premier League for a while (and hoovering up everyone else's best players while they're at it...), but at least Arsenal and Liverpool have provided some semblence of a challenge on a consistent basis (as opposed to Hearts, which was a one-off). You could even say this about La Liga, which Barcelona and Real Madrid historically dominate, but quite frankly it is exponentially easier to care about teams when they're arguably the top two in the world. Not to mention the fact that Valencia have won it recently, and that Sevilla have provided a genuine challenge as well.

I can't see how it can be that exciting as a supporter, either. Of course, each and every individual Old Firm match is hotly contested and disputed. But when it comes to trophies, so what? Sure, the moment is great. Winning a trophy is a great feeling, especially when you dispatch a hated rival in the process.

But you must know that next year that team you hate will be coming right back at you and will have a good shot at winning it yet again. It's eternal. Neither team has enough in the tank to "dominate" the other, so they just battle back and forth forever. This would be boring anyway, but with both teams so low on quality right now, it's become unbearable.

You expected a mention of Neil Lennon, didn't you? Nope. That's a story for another time.

The Blog

Hello all.


Welcome to my new Blog. I, Matt Cox, will be posting my thoughts on The Beautiful Game as and when they enter my head. Looking forward tosparking some discussion. And even if I don't, it'll be good to get my thoughts down on e-paper, rather than having them float around my head.

Entries so far:


http://coxinthebox.blogspot.com/2011/05/old-firm-am-i-only-one-who-stopped.html
http://coxinthebox.blogspot.com/2011/06/why-does-mediocrity-seem-to-follow.html
http://coxinthebox.blogspot.com/2011/06/tottenham-show-some-spine.html 
http://coxinthebox.blogspot.com/2011/06/there-is-point-to-europa-league-but-its.html
http://coxinthebox.blogspot.com/2011/07/masters-of-nothing-sad-story-of-full.html 
http://coxinthebox.blogspot.com/2011/07/villa-do-well-from-downing-deal.html
http://coxinthebox.blogspot.com/2011/08/premier-league-preview.html 
 http://coxinthebox.blogspot.com/2011/08/pecking-order.html
http://coxinthebox.blogspot.com/2011/10/grim-future-of-english-football.html

http://coxinthebox.blogspot.com/2011/11/in-defence-of-newcastle-united.html 
http://coxinthebox.blogspot.com/2012/01/great-break-debate.html
http://coxinthebox.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/why-i-want-blackburn-to-go-down.html