FIFA General Secretary, Jerome Valcke, has confirmed that moving the 2022 World Cup in Qatar to the winter has not been discounted as an option. Due to the baking hot temperatures in the Middle East emirate, playing a football competition at the traditional time of year could be dangerous for both players and fans.
It’s reignited the fury against FIFA surrounding the decision made in 2010 – on the same day awarding Russia the 2018 competition.
Moving the competition to winter may be the only choice for FIFA. There’s no saying that players could refuse to compete due to the risk of dehydration.
Without wanting to guilt trip anybody, considering the shocking collapse of Fabrice Muamba last year and the tragic death of Marc Vivien-Foe in 2003 – should FIFA really by allowing a situation to occur that puts players at higher risk of system malfunctions.
Those collapses weren’t due to extreme heat, but the crippling climatic conditions may well pose a threat to footballers carrying any weaknesses of which they were unaware before the tournament – particularly considering the pressure of a World Cup being added to the mix.
What are the benefits of Qatar hosting the tournament?
Don’t get me wrong; there are plenty of benefits that will come from allowing Qatar to host the tournament. Unfortunately, they’re all to do with FIFA’s treasure chest and nothing to do with what’s best for players or fans.
We’re already seeing Sheikhs from the emirates pumping cash into top European clubs as well as their own local teams. Allowing Qatar to host the tournament is intended to stoke oil-rich billionaires into throwing more money at the sport. The truth is the region has nowhere near the passion for football as its counterparts in other continents.
The argument of ‘promoting football’ in the Middle East doesn’t really hold up in court. It’s a sport with mass appeal and investors have started to invest heavily in local football. Qatari fans can come to football first if they want it – no one else needed to host a World Cup to generate support.
For political reasons, the best footballing countries in the Middle East, Israel, Iran and Saudi Arabia can’t even make a bid without being laughed at. Japan and South Korea did a splendid job of hosting the 2002 tournament. The difference being, that the two countries already had a football infrastructure in place and passionate support from the masses.
The same is not true of the Middle East. Sheikhs churning money into football is a marketing ploy to carry on attracting Western tourists and investors to the emirates. If there was a true love of football in the region, why have we never seen players from the region prosper?
It’s a typical example of FIFA directors knowing full well that as the support has such mass appeal, they can do whatever the hell they like. The decision makers would prefer to bring in new fans and investors over giving the people who already love the sport the best experience possible.
Moving the tournament to winter is the only choice and it will greatly disrupt seasons in Europe, South America and Africa. The question is why the hell should it? These are continents with embedded football cultures that have built the sport to become what it is today. The truth of the matter is money talks.
Saturday 9 March 2013
Sunday 3 March 2013
Arsenal - Short term pain for long term gain
Firstly, I am not an Arsenal fan but find myself both saddened and annoyed by the personal character sleights by all sections of the media towards Arsene Wenger. Here is a man who has exhibited extreme loyalty to Arsenal when more lucrative and challenges opportunities have been presented to him. A man who is the most successful manager in Arsenal history, who led a team throughout a full season unbeaten, a feat that eluded Shankley, Clough, Chapman, Revie, Paisley, Ferguson and even the special one. It is worth remembering that Alex Ferguson didn’t win a trophy for 4 years and that Shankley went 7 years without silverware and Clough went 9 years. Do Arsenal fans remember the style of play under George Graham, successful yes but Wenger has been successful and attractive. As Johan Cryuff says “Football is a simple game but the hard part is to play simple”. Arsenal made a business decision to build a new stadium to compete financially in the long term with the likes of Manchester United and Real Madrid. A decision which placed Arsene Wenger in a financial straitjacket with regards to team building. Unlike certain managers who would have upped sticks and left Wenger accepted the situation and adjusted his requirements accordingly placing greater emphasis on Arsenal’s youth academy and the purchase of younger players who in time would develop into better players.
The financial straitjacket was further tightened with the purchase of Chelsea by Roman Abramovich and Man City by Sheikh Mansoor. Prior to the purchase of Chelsea by Abramovich Arsenal had never finished lower then 2nd in a full season under Arsene Wenger. He was lauded as a tactical genius, a shrewd innovator and clever in the transfer in the market, remember that he purchased Nicolas Anelka for 1/2 million pounds from PSG and sold him to Real Madrid for £23.5 million. FastForward to 2013 he is now referred to as a Dictator, a coaching non-entity, a tactical flop and yet Arsenal have never started a season under his stewardship in a position to NOT compete for the 4 biggest honours in domestic and European football. In the current climate of social media and the WE WANT IT NOW mentality Arsene Wenger is a shining beacon of calmness, intergity and loyalty and when the dust finally settles on his time at Arsenal I have no doubt that the last laugh will reside with him.
The financial straitjacket was further tightened with the purchase of Chelsea by Roman Abramovich and Man City by Sheikh Mansoor. Prior to the purchase of Chelsea by Abramovich Arsenal had never finished lower then 2nd in a full season under Arsene Wenger. He was lauded as a tactical genius, a shrewd innovator and clever in the transfer in the market, remember that he purchased Nicolas Anelka for 1/2 million pounds from PSG and sold him to Real Madrid for £23.5 million. FastForward to 2013 he is now referred to as a Dictator, a coaching non-entity, a tactical flop and yet Arsenal have never started a season under his stewardship in a position to NOT compete for the 4 biggest honours in domestic and European football. In the current climate of social media and the WE WANT IT NOW mentality Arsene Wenger is a shining beacon of calmness, intergity and loyalty and when the dust finally settles on his time at Arsenal I have no doubt that the last laugh will reside with him.
Has the North London status quo between Arsenal and Tottenham changed?
The North London rivalry between Arsenal and Tottenham has been stirred by Gareth Bale by saying that on the pitch, Tottenham have over taken Arsene’s men. This got me to thinking of the rise of Spurs in recent years to a Champions League position challenging club. They definitely are looking more consistent than Arsenal and are having a better run in Europe, be it though the lesser Europa League. However, it will give the Tottenham players a great confidence and experience, especially for the younger lads for the Champions League next year. Where as Arsenal have a confidence shattering mauling at the hands of Bayern Munich who made them look like what they are on the world stage, more-or-less average. So maybe Bale’s claims have a bit of substance. They are above Arsenal and looking like they could take the esteemed top European spots but writing off Arsenal seems a very foolish thing to do.
Bale did say specifically say that they are better on the pitch not as a club so to compare stadiums, budgets and fan bases would seem a tangent, though we would strongly reason Arsenal have the largest in all three sectors. Bale, humbly, has not highlighted the obvious upturn in Tottenham’s fortunes, his own left foot. Bale is Tottenham’s talisman, their big profile but more importantly there match winner, something Arsenal haven’t got currently. They have got a great collection of strikers at the Emirates but not one player that you can really trust in. Walcott? He wants to play through the middle but he is certainly no Henry and Podolski and Giroud have just not proven it at the top level yet where Bale has.
So what about Arsenals great youngster? Jack Wilshere. Well, he may not be a match winner like Bale but that isn’t his game, he can control a game and that can a win game over 90 minutes. People have speculated about both of their futures, with both being linked to huge value moves to any club that could potentially afford it. This is only verification of the amazing, young talents that these two teams have and are hoping to hold on to. So would comparing the two players and deciding who’s the better player help figure out the difference between the teams? I don’t think so. They are both young excellent players and will either give their respective teams a big pay day or world class performances.
Both teams have strong players but Tottenham’s midfield seems to have better depth, with a great array of midfielders across the board with good wingers and a depth through the centre. Arsenal though struggle with wide men, instead pushing them forward to play in a front three while their centre midfielders are arguably similar calibre to that of Tottenham.
Arsenal and Tottenham both have youthful players in their defence and are roughly evenly matched.
The main issue between these two for me is the mentality of the teams, Tottenham have a drive, a feeling that they have nothing to lose. This mentality has given them victories in games Arsenal may left with a point, a couple of last minute goals to snatch that victory is crucial for a winning team. However with Arsenal we see a different way, they have been criticised for not giving the effort and Wilshere screaming at players to close gaps and get close has been all too common this season. The mentality isn’t there, so when Arsenal drop points and Tottenham are picking them up Bale’s statement looks more and more true. Nothing, of course, can be taken away from AVB who has forced this winning mentality into the Tottenham camp, showing he wants to win everything that’s possible.
Tottenham seem to be always looking up, seeing where they can go we’re as Arsenal want
to keep fourth so are always looking down. It’s as if Arsenal have no ambition for top spot but just to play Champions League football. That difference in mentality is what splits the two teams at the moment, the hunger and desire is not there at Arsenal. Whether this can be improved by Arsene in the near future or whether a successor could change this failing Arsenal team but that is a debate for another day. So with four points and two positions between the rivals, their Sunday game will decide this debate and possibly their seasons.
Bale did say specifically say that they are better on the pitch not as a club so to compare stadiums, budgets and fan bases would seem a tangent, though we would strongly reason Arsenal have the largest in all three sectors. Bale, humbly, has not highlighted the obvious upturn in Tottenham’s fortunes, his own left foot. Bale is Tottenham’s talisman, their big profile but more importantly there match winner, something Arsenal haven’t got currently. They have got a great collection of strikers at the Emirates but not one player that you can really trust in. Walcott? He wants to play through the middle but he is certainly no Henry and Podolski and Giroud have just not proven it at the top level yet where Bale has.
So what about Arsenals great youngster? Jack Wilshere. Well, he may not be a match winner like Bale but that isn’t his game, he can control a game and that can a win game over 90 minutes. People have speculated about both of their futures, with both being linked to huge value moves to any club that could potentially afford it. This is only verification of the amazing, young talents that these two teams have and are hoping to hold on to. So would comparing the two players and deciding who’s the better player help figure out the difference between the teams? I don’t think so. They are both young excellent players and will either give their respective teams a big pay day or world class performances.
Both teams have strong players but Tottenham’s midfield seems to have better depth, with a great array of midfielders across the board with good wingers and a depth through the centre. Arsenal though struggle with wide men, instead pushing them forward to play in a front three while their centre midfielders are arguably similar calibre to that of Tottenham.
Arsenal and Tottenham both have youthful players in their defence and are roughly evenly matched.
The main issue between these two for me is the mentality of the teams, Tottenham have a drive, a feeling that they have nothing to lose. This mentality has given them victories in games Arsenal may left with a point, a couple of last minute goals to snatch that victory is crucial for a winning team. However with Arsenal we see a different way, they have been criticised for not giving the effort and Wilshere screaming at players to close gaps and get close has been all too common this season. The mentality isn’t there, so when Arsenal drop points and Tottenham are picking them up Bale’s statement looks more and more true. Nothing, of course, can be taken away from AVB who has forced this winning mentality into the Tottenham camp, showing he wants to win everything that’s possible.
Tottenham seem to be always looking up, seeing where they can go we’re as Arsenal want
to keep fourth so are always looking down. It’s as if Arsenal have no ambition for top spot but just to play Champions League football. That difference in mentality is what splits the two teams at the moment, the hunger and desire is not there at Arsenal. Whether this can be improved by Arsene in the near future or whether a successor could change this failing Arsenal team but that is a debate for another day. So with four points and two positions between the rivals, their Sunday game will decide this debate and possibly their seasons.
Is the Premier League not actually that Premier?
On talk shows, comments sections of articles and other mediums for discussion on all things football one of the most common complaints is that this is a poor Premier League. Some call it average, some even call it mediocre from those really disenfranchised with what they are watching. So why is there a section of fans who believe this a poor Premier League? More importantly how do you judge the quality of a league?
Most fans and pundits would say that the Premier League was strongest when teams from the Premier League were regularly getting to the latter stages of the Uefa Champions League. Between 2007 and 2009 there were 3 English teams each year and the 6 finalist spots in those three years had 4 of them taken by English teams. If it was not forBarcelona under Guardiola, arguably the best club side of all time, then there would probably be a few more English names scratched onto that famous trophy. However during that period there were also complaints about the formation of ‘The big 4’ consisting of Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool and Manchester United and how it made the league boring and predictable. So what is better? A predictable League with the same sides at the top but doing well in Europe or what it is at the moment with a predictable top 2 and then 4 or 5 sides battling after them for Champions League places but with worse performances in Europe?
What of the other top leagues in European football? Lots of talk has been of the growing strength of the Bundesliga, who have 3 sides in the last 16 of the Champions League (all on course to make the quarter-finals after the first legs) and has been impressively run financially, with most clubs making profits and the highest average attendances in Europe. It’s also a league with Bayern Munich currently 17 points clear at the top (although they had not won it the previous two years to a resurgent Borussia Dortmund). There is also, however, a lot of competition for the Champions League places.
Similarly, La Liga has been said by many as the best league in the world and the arguments for that are quite convincing. The slightly dubious Fifpro world team of the year from 2012 had all 11 players from La Liga (and just one not from Real Madrid or Barcelona), and boasts a large number of the elite talents in world football. In many ways, La Liga is similarly structured to the Premier League, with two main teams competing for the league and then 4 or 5 teams competing for the champions league (Athletico Madrid and some poor results from Real Madrid this year making against that last statement). The collective performance of La Liga clubs in Europe last season was startling, 2 teams in the champions league semi-finals (no surprise which two) and 3 in the semi- finals in the Europa League with an all-Spanish final. Yet this year, Barcelona won virtually all of their league games this year and are well ahead of Real Madrid with only a Falcao inspired Atletico Madrid anywhere near them. Furthermore there is a real possibility (although would be a huge shock if it did happen) that there will only one team from La Liga left in Europe in a little over two weeks time. That team being Levante who are not exactly setting La Liga alight these days.
Since that 2009 Champions League season when the competition was only a couple of minutes away from a second all English final in a row, English teams have generally not performed well in Europe. In fairness it was surely inevitable that the record of English teams would decline somewhat but decline it did. From 3 semi finalist for 3 years in a row the Premier League has since had two quarter finalist in 2010 to one finalist in 2011 and a winner in 2012. On paper, not exactly a disaster, although Manchester United had the possibly the worst semi-finalists in Champions League history in Schalke in 2011 and Chelsea’s remarkable run based largely on defence was a minor miracle considering their league form. Furthermore only two teams have made it out of the Group stages the last two years and could well have no English teams in the quarter-finals since the year Blackburn were unable to get out of their group in 1995/96 season. Three English teams however are in the last 16 of the Europa League and Liverpool was just one goal away from making it a fourth.
So achievement in Europe shouldn’t be the determining factor of the strength or quality of a league. I bet no one would say La Liga is a poor league if none of the Spanish teams overturn their respective ties this season. So are people saying the Premier League is poor because it compares poorly to the recent high level English teams were doing in Europe (while probably saying it was boring and predictable at the same time)? It could well be one reason, another one is that with Manchester United 12 points clear at the top of the table and generally considered average compared to other teams of the recent past then it doesn’t say much for the rest of the league that they are so far ahead. One can see the logic in that argument, but then if they knock out Real Madrid in the Champions League then exactly how many teams are much better than them? However it has to be said that Manchester United’s squad is much bigger and deeper than anyone else and that seems to be the main reason why they are so far ahead.
So is it really a poor premier league this year? Certainly the title race is a lot less exciting than last year with those incredible scenes at the Etihad stadium at the end of last season, as well as Newcastle finishing higher in the league than Chelsea, Tottenham back in the ‘Top 4’ helped to make it one of the most dramatic seasons for some time. However, to call the Premier League this year poor is very harsh, and also creates the question of how many good, even average leagues are there exactly? Thank goodness we aren’t watching the Estonian league in that case.
The premier league might not have Messi, Xavi, Iniesta and Falcao and it might have lost Cristiano Ronaldo and Fabregas and Xabi Alonso (and ahem…Alex Song) but the Premier League has some magnificent players, Van Persie, Suarez, Bale, Rooney, David Silva, Juan Mata, Vidic, Kompany, Jack Wilshere, Yaya Toure, the French National team (also known as Newcastle United), Eden Hazard, Oscar and others. Why do we put down our own league with a list of players like that? The rest of Europe has grown stronger, with the financial strength of the Bundesliga, the historical significance of Serie A, the outstanding quality of players at the top of La Liga as well as the sugar daddy clubs from Russia and Paris making Europe as competitive as it has ever been. A poor premier league you say? I would love to see a Premier League that is considered good then!
Most fans and pundits would say that the Premier League was strongest when teams from the Premier League were regularly getting to the latter stages of the Uefa Champions League. Between 2007 and 2009 there were 3 English teams each year and the 6 finalist spots in those three years had 4 of them taken by English teams. If it was not forBarcelona under Guardiola, arguably the best club side of all time, then there would probably be a few more English names scratched onto that famous trophy. However during that period there were also complaints about the formation of ‘The big 4’ consisting of Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool and Manchester United and how it made the league boring and predictable. So what is better? A predictable League with the same sides at the top but doing well in Europe or what it is at the moment with a predictable top 2 and then 4 or 5 sides battling after them for Champions League places but with worse performances in Europe?
What of the other top leagues in European football? Lots of talk has been of the growing strength of the Bundesliga, who have 3 sides in the last 16 of the Champions League (all on course to make the quarter-finals after the first legs) and has been impressively run financially, with most clubs making profits and the highest average attendances in Europe. It’s also a league with Bayern Munich currently 17 points clear at the top (although they had not won it the previous two years to a resurgent Borussia Dortmund). There is also, however, a lot of competition for the Champions League places.
Similarly, La Liga has been said by many as the best league in the world and the arguments for that are quite convincing. The slightly dubious Fifpro world team of the year from 2012 had all 11 players from La Liga (and just one not from Real Madrid or Barcelona), and boasts a large number of the elite talents in world football. In many ways, La Liga is similarly structured to the Premier League, with two main teams competing for the league and then 4 or 5 teams competing for the champions league (Athletico Madrid and some poor results from Real Madrid this year making against that last statement). The collective performance of La Liga clubs in Europe last season was startling, 2 teams in the champions league semi-finals (no surprise which two) and 3 in the semi- finals in the Europa League with an all-Spanish final. Yet this year, Barcelona won virtually all of their league games this year and are well ahead of Real Madrid with only a Falcao inspired Atletico Madrid anywhere near them. Furthermore there is a real possibility (although would be a huge shock if it did happen) that there will only one team from La Liga left in Europe in a little over two weeks time. That team being Levante who are not exactly setting La Liga alight these days.
Since that 2009 Champions League season when the competition was only a couple of minutes away from a second all English final in a row, English teams have generally not performed well in Europe. In fairness it was surely inevitable that the record of English teams would decline somewhat but decline it did. From 3 semi finalist for 3 years in a row the Premier League has since had two quarter finalist in 2010 to one finalist in 2011 and a winner in 2012. On paper, not exactly a disaster, although Manchester United had the possibly the worst semi-finalists in Champions League history in Schalke in 2011 and Chelsea’s remarkable run based largely on defence was a minor miracle considering their league form. Furthermore only two teams have made it out of the Group stages the last two years and could well have no English teams in the quarter-finals since the year Blackburn were unable to get out of their group in 1995/96 season. Three English teams however are in the last 16 of the Europa League and Liverpool was just one goal away from making it a fourth.
So achievement in Europe shouldn’t be the determining factor of the strength or quality of a league. I bet no one would say La Liga is a poor league if none of the Spanish teams overturn their respective ties this season. So are people saying the Premier League is poor because it compares poorly to the recent high level English teams were doing in Europe (while probably saying it was boring and predictable at the same time)? It could well be one reason, another one is that with Manchester United 12 points clear at the top of the table and generally considered average compared to other teams of the recent past then it doesn’t say much for the rest of the league that they are so far ahead. One can see the logic in that argument, but then if they knock out Real Madrid in the Champions League then exactly how many teams are much better than them? However it has to be said that Manchester United’s squad is much bigger and deeper than anyone else and that seems to be the main reason why they are so far ahead.
So is it really a poor premier league this year? Certainly the title race is a lot less exciting than last year with those incredible scenes at the Etihad stadium at the end of last season, as well as Newcastle finishing higher in the league than Chelsea, Tottenham back in the ‘Top 4’ helped to make it one of the most dramatic seasons for some time. However, to call the Premier League this year poor is very harsh, and also creates the question of how many good, even average leagues are there exactly? Thank goodness we aren’t watching the Estonian league in that case.
The premier league might not have Messi, Xavi, Iniesta and Falcao and it might have lost Cristiano Ronaldo and Fabregas and Xabi Alonso (and ahem…Alex Song) but the Premier League has some magnificent players, Van Persie, Suarez, Bale, Rooney, David Silva, Juan Mata, Vidic, Kompany, Jack Wilshere, Yaya Toure, the French National team (also known as Newcastle United), Eden Hazard, Oscar and others. Why do we put down our own league with a list of players like that? The rest of Europe has grown stronger, with the financial strength of the Bundesliga, the historical significance of Serie A, the outstanding quality of players at the top of La Liga as well as the sugar daddy clubs from Russia and Paris making Europe as competitive as it has ever been. A poor premier league you say? I would love to see a Premier League that is considered good then!
Roll on May for Chelsea's Rafa
Many Chelsea supporters have been less than impressed with Rafa at the helm and for most of the season they have a point, but have they forgot about why Rafa was appointed to start with? Roman Abramovich had what all other managers prior to Di Matteo had failed to do which was to win the Champions League, he did this with a team which Villas-Boas and himself built over the season. Villas-Boas had been sacked by Chelsea after a run of poor results and a player backlash against his tactical approach to games, Di Matteo was his assistant and he managed to get the players on his side and he tactically outwitted many top European sides to get a place in the final against Bayern Munich in Bayern’s House.
Di Matteo started the next season as full time manager with a big budget to make sure the Champions League returned to Stamford Bridge for a second season and to challenge for the Premier League. Di Matteo managed to recruit Hazard, Oscar, Marin, Moses and Azpilicueta to start this charge and had a very good start to the season considering Chelsea lost Drogba as his contract had finished to allow him to make a move to Shanghai. Losing a valuable player and leader in your first defence of the Champions League started to show early on as Torres could’nt match up to the Ivorian which lead to a loss of confidence and the new signings starting to get found out. When Di Matteo was sacked it caused a media frenzy and a call for Abramovich to step down as had sacked another manager for not winning enough games with his financial backing; which is understandable if he gave his managers 2-3 seasons to make a squad capable of challenging for all trophies every year.
So without a manager and consistently linked with Guardiola who was on a sabbatical at the time Chelsea had to get someone in until Guardiola made a decision on where his next move would be. Congratulations Mr Benitez you have won Bully’s Special Prize which would prove to be his BFH (bus fair home) as he had the most difficult job in football. His appointment was made mostly because he was not in a job at the time which suited the Chelsea board but not the fans. During his time at Liverpool Benitez made himself a villain to the Chelsea faith-full and when it was announced he got the job the majority of the fans did not reacted kindly. Not even started yet Rafa has to now win over the fans and he started to get them on his side with a few decent performances and playing the attractive football the fans wanted, but every time the team drew or lost the fans then reverted quickly back to Rafa the Villain. Di Matteo was a popular figure with the fans and players which made his job an even more difficult and some of the players started to question his tactics and man management within a few games it was becoming clear Rafa had taken a lot on.
Rafa had to take the Chelsea job as he needed to get himself back into management and Chelsea needed an experienced manager to warm the seat for a new manager in the summer. I would like to see Rafa get a job at another top European team as if he had more backing and time to do his job properly we will see the Rafa we know from his Liverpool and Valencia days.
Di Matteo started the next season as full time manager with a big budget to make sure the Champions League returned to Stamford Bridge for a second season and to challenge for the Premier League. Di Matteo managed to recruit Hazard, Oscar, Marin, Moses and Azpilicueta to start this charge and had a very good start to the season considering Chelsea lost Drogba as his contract had finished to allow him to make a move to Shanghai. Losing a valuable player and leader in your first defence of the Champions League started to show early on as Torres could’nt match up to the Ivorian which lead to a loss of confidence and the new signings starting to get found out. When Di Matteo was sacked it caused a media frenzy and a call for Abramovich to step down as had sacked another manager for not winning enough games with his financial backing; which is understandable if he gave his managers 2-3 seasons to make a squad capable of challenging for all trophies every year.
So without a manager and consistently linked with Guardiola who was on a sabbatical at the time Chelsea had to get someone in until Guardiola made a decision on where his next move would be. Congratulations Mr Benitez you have won Bully’s Special Prize which would prove to be his BFH (bus fair home) as he had the most difficult job in football. His appointment was made mostly because he was not in a job at the time which suited the Chelsea board but not the fans. During his time at Liverpool Benitez made himself a villain to the Chelsea faith-full and when it was announced he got the job the majority of the fans did not reacted kindly. Not even started yet Rafa has to now win over the fans and he started to get them on his side with a few decent performances and playing the attractive football the fans wanted, but every time the team drew or lost the fans then reverted quickly back to Rafa the Villain. Di Matteo was a popular figure with the fans and players which made his job an even more difficult and some of the players started to question his tactics and man management within a few games it was becoming clear Rafa had taken a lot on.
Rafa had to take the Chelsea job as he needed to get himself back into management and Chelsea needed an experienced manager to warm the seat for a new manager in the summer. I would like to see Rafa get a job at another top European team as if he had more backing and time to do his job properly we will see the Rafa we know from his Liverpool and Valencia days.
What's happened to Manchester City?
With the final third of the season upon us teams are pushing to determine their final position in the league, vying for safety and qualification to Europe. Yet there seems to be a debate that every year grips the headlines that isn’t mentioned this year and that’s the title itself. It is as good as over now if you talk to anyone interested in football or listen to any pundit when probed on the subject. So we have to ask, what went wrong for Man City. Why couldn’t they really make a challenge for the title? Or are Man United just too good?
What’s been the difference between the two Manchester clubs? Are we really going to accept that Van Persie is the only difference? He has arguably been the best player in the Premier League this season but Man City have dropped as many points this season with 10 games left as they did all of last season.
It isn’t just Van Persie’s goals that have opened up such a lead for United at the top of the league but what’s wrong gone at City. While Ferguson picked and acquired his targets, Mancini was left frustrated and with his desire to bring in players, it left a bad yield to enter the city ranks. Would Champions of the Premier League really be massively improved with the purchases of Scott Sinclair, Jack Rodwell and Maicon? They are undoubtedly good players but they are not the quality that City really need. Not to fight off Manchester United to retain the title. There failure to sign their top targets meant that as their rivals felt galvanised for the new season, the city players had to pick up the weight of expectations again. Also with players like Nasri under performing its dangerous to have a lack of depth. Mancini’s attempt to bring a fight for places almost worked but as Man City played poorly, he was forced to bring in other players into the team to just put a decent team out.
Their lack of signings have a deeper issue off the pitch, which is a fragmented structure they had in place. They have started a restructure, which should aid them in rivalling the impressive behind the stage goings-on at United. Mancini’s frustration at the deal closing and work of Brian Marwood was very public and showed that where other teams would go and get their targets, City simply couldn’t and didn’t . If at the start of the new season they have signed the players that Mancini wants then maybe they’ll have a chance at the title but when two teams finish on the same points and only one team improves the team then the outcome is inevitable.
The issue with City trying to defend their title is that the Premier League tilt belongs to Fergie and every year you must attempt rip it from him. Every year you must come back stronger because that’s what Manchester United will do. Fergie views that title as his and its down to other teams to take it off of him and City haven’t done enough to warrant that. That is what Fergie brings to Manchester United but is Mancini good enough to rival and beat Ferguson on a regular basis? There are arguably better coaches out there who know how to win and the obvious name to put forward is Mourinho. He wants a job in the Premier League and has a sensational track record. Ferguson never feels any pressure over losing his job where as for Mancini it is another distraction to attend with. Maybe if he puts another title under his belt and perhaps picks up a few more bits of silverware this talk will go but expectations will always be huge whether he succeeds or not.
With this title as good as over, Mancini should have one eye on the summer and the next season. If he does lose his job then City need to move quick to bring the stability needed to throw everything they have in chase of success. With the unsuccessful summer spending of 2012 you can be sure that big names will move in and out of the blue part of Manchester. Mancini might be best to rule a line under this season, store it away somewhere it can’t be found and label it: ‘how not to beat Fergie:the learning years.’ However he sees this season, he will have to focus on next year now and play his part in what makes English Football so enthralling.
What’s been the difference between the two Manchester clubs? Are we really going to accept that Van Persie is the only difference? He has arguably been the best player in the Premier League this season but Man City have dropped as many points this season with 10 games left as they did all of last season.
It isn’t just Van Persie’s goals that have opened up such a lead for United at the top of the league but what’s wrong gone at City. While Ferguson picked and acquired his targets, Mancini was left frustrated and with his desire to bring in players, it left a bad yield to enter the city ranks. Would Champions of the Premier League really be massively improved with the purchases of Scott Sinclair, Jack Rodwell and Maicon? They are undoubtedly good players but they are not the quality that City really need. Not to fight off Manchester United to retain the title. There failure to sign their top targets meant that as their rivals felt galvanised for the new season, the city players had to pick up the weight of expectations again. Also with players like Nasri under performing its dangerous to have a lack of depth. Mancini’s attempt to bring a fight for places almost worked but as Man City played poorly, he was forced to bring in other players into the team to just put a decent team out.
Their lack of signings have a deeper issue off the pitch, which is a fragmented structure they had in place. They have started a restructure, which should aid them in rivalling the impressive behind the stage goings-on at United. Mancini’s frustration at the deal closing and work of Brian Marwood was very public and showed that where other teams would go and get their targets, City simply couldn’t and didn’t . If at the start of the new season they have signed the players that Mancini wants then maybe they’ll have a chance at the title but when two teams finish on the same points and only one team improves the team then the outcome is inevitable.
The issue with City trying to defend their title is that the Premier League tilt belongs to Fergie and every year you must attempt rip it from him. Every year you must come back stronger because that’s what Manchester United will do. Fergie views that title as his and its down to other teams to take it off of him and City haven’t done enough to warrant that. That is what Fergie brings to Manchester United but is Mancini good enough to rival and beat Ferguson on a regular basis? There are arguably better coaches out there who know how to win and the obvious name to put forward is Mourinho. He wants a job in the Premier League and has a sensational track record. Ferguson never feels any pressure over losing his job where as for Mancini it is another distraction to attend with. Maybe if he puts another title under his belt and perhaps picks up a few more bits of silverware this talk will go but expectations will always be huge whether he succeeds or not.
With this title as good as over, Mancini should have one eye on the summer and the next season. If he does lose his job then City need to move quick to bring the stability needed to throw everything they have in chase of success. With the unsuccessful summer spending of 2012 you can be sure that big names will move in and out of the blue part of Manchester. Mancini might be best to rule a line under this season, store it away somewhere it can’t be found and label it: ‘how not to beat Fergie:the learning years.’ However he sees this season, he will have to focus on next year now and play his part in what makes English Football so enthralling.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)