Apologies

I haven't written anything for quite a while now because my dissertation and assorted other 3rd year work has been taking up all my time.

Here are a list of things I could have written about/might write about in the future:

- The reaction to snoods in the UK media, specifically Mr Shearer on MOTD, as a perfect example of why there isn't an openly gay footballer in the UK (have a look at the Secret Footballer here for a very good argument along the same lines)
- The relative lack of quality in the England squad and the glaring omission of Scott Parker.
- The overreaction by some Arsenal fans to their recent form.
- Why Arsenal should play Robin Van Persie in the Cesc Fabregas role (the same position Bergkamp used to play) and play Bendtner/Chamkh in front of him.

Hopefully I'll have time to write something relatively soon but I am more or less completely swamped with work until early May. I am not looking forward to the next month.

Football authorities need to get their priorities right

Before kick-off in yesterday's games FIFA announced their decision to ban snoods from the 1st of July (when it'll be warm enough that no one will wear them anyway):


"The IFAB agreed that in relation to Law 4 - Players' Equipment, the wearing of snoods should not be permitted"


At the same time they said that discussions of video technology would continue for another year. This is, quite frankly, ridiculous. The level of technology available is clearly at the level required to be useful to the football. It is used in tennis, rugby and cricket. It is used in the media to lambast referees when they've made the wrong decisions. And it is fast enough to stop the main objection to its use, that it would slow the game down too much. The game stops anyway after contentious decisions are (or are not) made when players crowd the referee.


There is supposed to be a 'respect' campaign being run by the FA but time and again players from top teams are seen attempting to intimidate the referees and assistants but yellow cards are not normally given out. 


The lack of respect for referees would be addressed if big decisions, ones that could potentially change the course of a team's season, didn't rely on split second judgement calls. The burden on the referee would be lessened if they had the safety net of a video replay. The fourth official watches a monitor during the game anyway, for goodness' sake. If the players knew that they could shout and scream at the official all they liked but the decision would ultimately be made on the basis hard evidence then the intimidation would become pointless.


Another key bone of contention is the fact that the FA (under threat from FIFA) are loathe to review incidents that have been 'dealt with' by the referee on the day for fear of undermining him. This doesn't seem logical to me. If you are wrongfully arrested by a police officer you don't go to court and hear that unfortunately you'll have to be sent to prison because the CPS don't want to undermine the policeman's authority. Surely we want to protect the players on the pitch and the game itself, rather than the referee's ego. 

It would also seem logical to have referees explain decisions that they made during the game. The laws of the game regarding certain actions are complex and require very specific interpretation. The average football fan doesn't have the relevant level of understanding of the laws and even top journalists and pundits get the rules wrong. If the referee gave a post-match interview and explained why they had made certains decision then they would promote understanding of the rules, and referees as a group would not be seen as the unaccountable closed circle that they appear to be currently.


The infamous Rooney elbow from Manchester United's game with Wigan springs immediately to mind when discussing this but there are countless other similar examples. During today's game between Manchester United and Liverpool, Jamie Carragher wanted to let Nani 'know he was there' (to use the oft-quoted line) and caused a potentially serious injury.

Because of the fact that both incidents were 'dealt with' at the time (bizarrely Mark Clattenburg told the FA that he felt he had dealt with the Rooney incident properly; either he didn't see the elbow, in which case he's a liar, or he did see it and still felt that he dealt with it properly, in which case he is incompetent) no further action can be taken. Rooney gets away with not punishment for elbowing a fellow player in the head, and Carragher gets away with a yellow card having made a challenge that could have caused a very serious injury.

And the net result of these events is even closer scrutiny of, and consequently even more pressure on, the officials. Human error is inevitable, especially when there is such intense pressure involved, and therefore it is baffling that the powers-that-be haven't brought in video replays already. It seems especially peculiar given that replays of the incident are often shown to all inside the ground on the big screens anyway. Alleviating some of the pressure on referees, and helping them out with their near-impossible job will lead to less perceived errors and bias. It will also make the game itself the main focus once again.

NB Wanting to make the rules of football applicable at all levels is not an acceptable reason not to use technology any more. Sunday pub team games do not involve the vast sums that are involved in top level football. The standard of the officials, pitches and equipment involved are not the same. It is the same game, but played under vastly different circumstances and with vastly different repercussions.

Carling Cup Final

I haven't blogged about anything for a while now, the curse of being a final year student, but I found time to write a preview of the Carling Cup final on Sunday

Then the BBC published this; http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thefootballtacticsblog/2011/02/how_birmingham_can_unsettle_ar.html

And made most of the same points as me.
Anyway, here's my preview:

The big news from an Arsenal perspective is the injuries to Theo Walcott and Cesc Fabregas. The fact that they're not playing is obviously a big loss but won't affect the way Arsenal play. Arshavin will probably play instead of Walcott (although Bendnter could come in because of his height) and the man who comes in for Fabregas will probably be one from Diaby, Denilson or Rosicky. If he's fit I think Diaby will be Wenger's choice with Wilshere pushed further forward into the playmaking role. Denilson coming in would probably see a similar shift in the midfield three, whereas Rosicky would obviously be the playmaker if chosen.

The real interest in the game will be to see how Birmingham play. Their normal approach, and the widely-held idea of how to play against Arsenal is to defend deep and narrow, deny space between your midfield and defence, and look to exploit Arsenal's weakness in defending set pieces (they have conceded 51.9% of goals from them, the highest proportion in the Premier League. Stat from @optajoe). The best man for this tactic would be Nikola Zigic. Although his lack of pace would make it easy for Arsenal's defenders to hold their high line, being 6'8" tall makes him a clear aerial threat (he did score a header in the league game at the Emirates).

The better way, I think, to play against Arsenal is to use quick, mobile forwards (as West Brom did with Jerome Thomas and Peter Odemwingie) and Birmingham do have potential to do this with Cameron Jerome, Matt Derbyshire and the seemingly evergreen Obafemi Martins. The support from midfield that Craig Gardner provides (he's the joint top scorer with 7 goals this season) could also provide crucial and, as always, Arsenal's midfield will have to be alert defensively to track his runs.

The size of the pitch at Wembley will favour Arsenal (by affording them more space to work in) and the state of the turf could favour Birmingham but predictions go out of the window in a cup final don't they.

Here's to a good game and an end to the much-publicised trophy drought.

I hate to say I told you so

Well, well, well. What were the odds of that result with 13 mins left? Longer than the 16/1 it was at half time.

Arsenal's first ever win against Barcelona. And they did it without compromising Wenger's inimitable style.

The winning goal came from Andrey Arshavin (who still hasn't been in a losing Arsenal team in the Champions League), from a splendid counter attack. Wilshere played an excellent quick ball to Fabregas who, in turn, released Nasri down the right. He held the ball for just long enough to get support and Arshavin stroked the ball into the far side of the net. The Russian will surely have his old confidence back after that.

Barcelona were the better side in the first half, especially after the game had settled down from the frantic early exchanges, but Arsenal grew in the second half and ended up dominating the last 20 minutes. I believe there were three crucial factors that helped that turnaround.

The first was Barcelona's mentality change after 68 mins. Guardiola brought Seydou Keita (a more defensive midfielder) on for David Villa and pushed Andres Iniesta into the left-sided forward role. This may not have made a great deal of difference tactically, and was probably Guardiola trying to get more energy into a combative and congested central midfield area (see point 2), but what it did do was to hand the initiative to Arsenal. Barcelona gave the impression that they were content to go home with a 1-0 lead and Arsenal seized on this opportunity.

The second factor was physical fatigue. The intensity of Barcelona's pressing puts immense pressure on the opposition but also means that their own players are constantly moving around the pitch. The effort required to keep that intensity up for 90 minutes would be almost superhuman and, although many would argue that technically Barcelona's football is exactly that, their players tired and the tempo noticeably dropped around the time Arsenal scored.

The third and final factor was the effect of the crowd. The main criticism wheeled out about modern stadia is that they can never recreate the atmosphere found at more 'old-fashioned' grounds but last night is a prime example of just how wrong the critics are. Van Persie credited the '12th man' in his post-match interview and there can be no doubt that while Barcelona players' legs became heavy, the Arsenal players fed off of the energy of the crowd and finished the game the stronger side as a result.

This isn't intended as a full post-mortem of a game. Koscielny gave a performance that belied his inexperience at this level. Wilshere gave a performance that was astonishing given his age and inexperience. The same goes for Szczesny in goal but the most impressive thing about the game was the quality of the football throughout. Arsenal may have ridden their luck and Barca may have fluffed a few good chances but surely this is the best result for the tie overall. Barcelona will probably get through to the next round but what a game we should be seeing in three weeks time.

A plea for AFC

All the mainstream build-up to tonight's big Champions League encounter between Arsenal and Barcelona seems to be focused on a certain player (*cough* Fabregas *cough*) and whether Arsenal have learnt the lessons of last year's encounter (a 6-3 loss in the quarter-final) but here I'm going to make the case for the home side here.

First the stats:
Barcelona have never won an away game in the knockout stages of the Champions League under Pep Guardiola (drawn 5 and lost 1).
Barcelona have won just one of their last six Champions League away games.
Arsenal have conceded less than two goals in each of their last 11 home matches.
Arsenal are unbeaten in the 12 Champions League games they have played with Andrey Arshavin
Arsenal have not lost a home Champions League tie to a European team since Internazionale beat them 3-0 in 2003.
(stats from @optajoe, @orbinho, and soccerbase.com)

The key match-ups:
Messi (a shocking choice I know) vs. Song/Wilshere
- Messi's movement when he doesn't have the ball can cause as many problems and his mazy dribbles when he does have it so Arsenal's double pivot will have to concentrate hard on tracking his runs (the main cause of the first two goals at Camp Nou last year was Denilson and then Diaby letting Messi run off of them in the build up) and remain vigilant throughout the game.
Walcott vs. Maxwell/Abidal
- Barca's players themselves admit fearing Walcott's raw pace. His introduction turned last year's first leg and Maxwell no end of problems. If the Brazilian does play Arsenal have to exploit this area of the pitch again, and, with Carles Puyol injured, we may just see that.  Eric Abidal may have to move into the centre or  Guardiola may take a risk and use Abidal's pace at LB to counter Walcott (which would see Busquets or Mascherano at CB). Whoever plays at full back for the Catalans will be positioned high up the pitch so Walcott needs to make good use of any space that is afforded to him.

The other key factor in Arsenal's favour is the state of the squad as they come into the tie Arsene Wenger has called his team this year the 'real' Arsenal and it is easy to see why. Replacing Almunia, Silvestre, Denilson, Diaby, Rosicky, and Bendtner with Sczcesny, Djourou, Song, Wilshere, Fabregas and Van Persie is undoubtedly a vast improvement.

Defensively Arsenal's front four of Walcott-Fabregas-Van Persie-Nasri (or Arshavin) will have to work hard to press Barcelona coherently and effectively but they also have the necessary attributes to make swift transitions from defence to attack. Much has been made of Arsenal's attacking approach playing into Barcelona's hands but (as was shown with the second goal against Wolves on saturday) Arsenal also have the tools to exploit Barcelona's own attacking mindset. A return to the Arsenal mindset from earlier in the Wenger era would seem to be the blueprint for success tonight. Counter-attacking was a key weapon in the Gunners' arsenal when Henry, Ljungberg, Bergkamp, Pires et al were in the side. A resurrection of that style could work the 'miracle' that others seem to think they need tonight.

Disclaimer: I am fully willing to come back on here and take back everything I've just said if Arsenal lose badly tonight.

Bright Young Things

Denmark 1-2 England

A lively match provided a stage for two top prospects to show their ability.

Nineteen year-old Jack Wilshere didn't look at all out of his depth whilst making his first start for the senior side before picking up a knock and departing at half time. His good first touch and excellent technique added something to the centre of England's midfield that's been lacking since Paul Gascoigne departed more than 10 years ago (there's a case to be made for saying Paul Scholes here but, in my opinion he's a less technical player than either Wilshere or Gazza).

His main strength, apart from his technique of course, is his ability to find space and continually offer a passing option to the player in possession. This enables the team to retain possession far more comfortably than they would be able to otherwise, a problem that England had at the World Cup in the summer and have suffered from for a long time. Wilshere is clearly not the man to fill England's defensive midfield hole permanently (they did look more solid defensively after Barry came on in his place) but his flexibility should prove invaluable for the next decade (and beyond).

Wilshere's counterpart in the midfield battle was Ajax starlet Christian Eriksen. The 18 year-old started 'in the hole' behind Nicklas Bendtner with licence to roam around to find space, and showed equally good skill and technique, especially early in the first half when the game was very open. His cross for Denmark's goal was excellent and his dead ball delivery looked consistently dangerous. He's very much and 'Arsenal-type' player, a physically small and technically accomplished attacking midfielder and must surely be being watched by leading scouts regularly. He will have done his chances of a lucrative move to one of Europe's top leagues no harm with his display in this friendly.

But he got the ball

In football the deciding factor of whether someone has committed a foul when attempting to tackle a player is whether or not they got the ball first. This is, of course, with reference to yesterday's match between Newcastle and Arsenal. The turning point was when Abou Diaby was sent off for his reaction to a tackle from Joey Barton.

Now I'm not going to dispute Diaby's red, his reaction was simultaneously petulant and understandable (given the injuries he's suffered as a result of bad tackles) and deserved a red. As a professional footballer he shouldn't have reacted but was he right to feel a sense of injustice?

The relevant law from FIFA's Laws of the Game is Law 12 - Fouls and misconduct:

Law 12

Diaby violated the second last part of the law by pushing both Barton and Nolan and therefore deserved his red card. The challenge which caused the reaction could also be seen as violating the law.

Clarification of Law 12

Barton's challenge was a lunge from the front and it is hard to argue that it was not dangerous when you see how Diaby's leg bent on impact. Putting someone at serious risk of a broken leg definitely constitutes endangering their safety.

Whether or not a player got the ball first is irrelevant if he uses excessive force and endangers an opponent.


As it was, the referee didn't even give a free kick and Diaby reacted badly. It wasn't the first bad challenge Barton made in the game (see here) and the referee didn't punish what some would call "committed" challenges all afternoon.

The fact that Nolan committed the same offence as Diaby when trying to get the ball from Szczesny after the first penalty (which the linesman assistant referee had a clear view of) and only got a yellow card fired up the Arsenal conspiracy theories. Jack Wilshere shouldn't complain publicly about inconsistent refereeing but you can see his point.

Leaving the rest of the game aside, Barton's challenge was a foul. He should have been punished for it but wasn't. The justification of dangerous challenges on the basis of whether the player got to the ball before the opponent or not is part of the same "it's a man's game", macho nonsense which was shown so ludicrously recently.

Football is a contact sport and accidents will happen but surely it serves everyone's interests to make the game as safe as possible for those who earn their living from it.

Was Saha offside?

The first goal of the Arsenal - Everton game last night (video here, thanks to @arsenalist) was contentious to say the least. Seamus Coleman played the ball through towards Louis Saha who seemed to everyone in the stadium and all those watching at home to be at least 2-3 yards offside. The pass was partly blocked by Laurent Koscielny but the ball continued through to Saha who moved onto the ball and finished well. Koscielny played the ball deliberately but was not making a deliberate backpass, and so a new phase of play did not begin when his boot made contact with the ball.

Koscielny attempted to make the interception because he knew Saha was in behind and would be clean through on goal unless he blocked the pass. Saha's movement in the offside position violates Law 11 of the Laws of the Game (pp 31 and 100) as set down by FIFA as follows:
Saha was "gaining an advantage by being in that position" by "playing a ball that rebounds to him off an opponent having been in an offside position".

The incident was similar, if not identical, to example 12 on page 107 whereby a shot is deflected into the path of an attacker in an offside position.

In the end, Arsenal rallied and won the game and so the goal was not the main issue post-match (both Wenger and Moyes agreed that it was offside) but the decision was wrong and I can't see why match officials don't state publicly why they make the decisions they do. Surely people would be more ready to accept that officials will inevitably make mistakes, and to forgive them when that occurs, if they publicly explained or even apologised for what had happened on the pitch.

The 8th most expensive player ever

Andy Carroll completed a move to Liverpool from Newcastle for £35m yesterday. It was the knock-on effect of the deal which saw Fernando Torres move from Liverpool to Chelsea for a fee of £50m. The fact that Andy Carroll was effectively forced to move by the obscene amount of money offered (as is explained below) says a lot about the business of modern football.

On the face of it, that amount of money for a 21 year old with (relatively) limited experience of top flight football is unbelievable. And what makes the story even more unbelievable is the fact that Carroll himself has come out and said that he himself didn't want to leave the club. This could easily be dismissed as him trying to save face having left the club but a conversation has emerged (which can be found in the comments section of the article here, thanks to @bpfootball and @neilsherwin) between Carroll and the editor of the ToonTalk fanzine Steve Wraith which seems to suggest otherwise. On Sunday afternoon Carroll says he's going nowhere but not much more than 24 hours later he's been persuaded to put in a transfer request and is on his way to Liverpool's Melwood training complex to put pen to paper on what is no doubt a very lucrative contract. Andy Carroll's boyhood dream of being the next legendary Newcastle no.9 has had to make way for the cold hard cash being offered.

As I said earlier, Liverpool were in a position to flash the cash at Newcastle because they had received a ridiculous offer of £50m for Torres. Chelsea are in a position to make bids of this scale because of their billionaire owner covering the huge losses that they accrue yearly, recorded at £70.9m for the 2009-10 season. The distortion of the market by billionaire-owned clubs is remarkable (as Arseblog wrote today) but the more depressing aspect of this deal is that Torres doesn't seem to fit into the tactical setup at Stamford Bridge. Pundits tipping Chelsea to return to the 4-4-2 diamond (which failed under Scolari because it stifled Lampard and made marking their fullbacks a very straightforward way of negating them offensively) seem to have very short memories indeed. Torres is a hugely talented player and will almost definitely become integral in the Chelsea team if/when Drogba leaves (he has stated his desire to return to Marseille in the past) but making the move now reeks of panic from the owner rather than a considered, logical addition to the squad (the signing of David Luiz).

It stands out that the two big clubs not to have made meaningful moves in the January transfer window have the league's longest-serving managers. It seems to me that the best approach toward achieving sustained success is having long-term plans and not getting involved in last-minute panic-buying (I'm looking at you Mr. Redknapp). The billionaire owners would do well to take note of this and perhaps the  next local-lad-come-good can have a successful career with their boyhood club without money being the decisive influence.

Still, at least the tax income from all these deals will help pay off our national debt, won't it?

Twitter transfer tittle tattle

For anyone who didn't see it, the Guardian's Ian Prior told his followers on twitter that there was going to be an announcement of an exclusive bit of transfer gossip at 5.30 this evening. Immediately twitter was full to bursting point with speculation about what was to be announced. Top rumours included Howard Webb making a move away from Old Trafford and speculation about Nick Clegg's little known achievements.

By the time 5.30 came around thousands were waiting with bated breath for the announcement.
And then it arrived.

This

The big announcement was a small piece of transfer speculation from a supposed 'insider' amounting to nothing more than the usual tittle tattle that is found every day in far less reputable publications than the Guardian.

This really is a sad reflection of the way the media treats excitable fans during the transfer window. The article contains no quotes, no official statements and a denial of the story came from both clubs just 20 minutes later. The backlash on twitter was predictably harsh and the credibility of the Guardian is understandably dented.

Surely the low to which media outlets now stoop in order to get attention during the transfer window is reason enough to get rid of it all together? Maybe then football fans would feel less cheated and the stories that did get published would be respected far more.

Gunners break gritty resistance

A comfortable-looking win in the end for Arsenal but the game was in the balance for an hour. From the kick-off Leadbitter had an audacious effort but in truth that was the height of Ipswich's ambition. The away side did as predicted and 'parked the tractor', defending deep with their back four very deep and narrow. The midfield 5 operated not very far in front of the defence and closed Arsenal down quickly and aggressively. This condensed the space between the lines and Arsenal were unable to get their normal fluid passing play. Fabregas was being well marshalled by Kennedy.

Ipswich's approach was working but they were unable to keep possession and they were not creating anything offensively. Obviously they were trying to protect their first-leg lead but I can't help but think that had Ipswich committed a few more men to counter-attacking earlier in the game they could have taken advantage of the tense atmosphere in the stadium. Ipswich's main threat was from set pieces with Leadbitter's delivery causing some problems (and causing the Sagna injury).

The first clear opportunity came when Van Persie headed Bendtner's cross onto the bar (how/why does he hit the woodwork so regularly?). Arsenal were unable to put any concerted pressure on Ipswich's goal (as they had done to Wigan) and Ipswich went into the break with their clean sheet intact. Arsenal were missing a better link between the midfield and attack with Arshavin out of form and Bendtner lacking the mobility to drag the defence out of shape.

The second half began much the same way the first half had ended with Arsenal pushing for a breakthrough and Ipswich unable to take advantage of Arsenal's high defensive line with long, direct balls. When Arsenal did get the breakthrough it was a top quality goal. Ipswich's defence got sucked across the pitch and Wilshere picked out Bendtner in acres of space with a great 40 yard pass. Bendtner took a great touch, cut inside and struck the ball sweetly into the far corner. 

The relief amongst the fans and players was palpable and the Ipswich players looked deflated and tired. The second goal followed quickly as Koscielny seized on Fulop's error to head just inside the near post. After that goal Paul Jewell changed to a 4-4-2 as Ipswich looked to get back in the game but this left the midfield open and Arsenal duly took advantage. It was a good counter-attacking move with Arshavin collecting the ball just outside the area, moving inside cleverly and playing a good pass to Fabregas who slotted the ball through the keeper's legs. Arshavin had been poor in the majority of the game but this was a top assist and he finished the game with 2 assists despite his average display.

Sometimes statistics don't tell the whole story and the Russian looks bereft of confidence but worked hard and must surely find some form soon. The quality of Arsenal shone through in the end but Fabregas and Bendtner rightly praised Ipswich for their valiant effort.

Arsenal vs. Ipswich

I will be writing a match report after the game this evening. Hopefully Ipswich will be unsuccessful in their attempts to 'park the tractor'. Expect Arsenal to dominate the ball and Ipswich to defend deep in their half and very narrowly but I would not be surprised (especially given their success in the last game) to see Ipswich use long, direct balls to try and exploit Arsenal's high defensive line.

The key for Arsenal is to remain patient and not become too fixated on getting an early goal as conceding an away goal could potentially see a very frustrating evening for the Emirates' faithful. Another key issue, should they get in front, is to remain focused and not become complacent. A repeat of the equivalent fixture this time four years ago (when Wigan scored a crucial away goal in the last minute of extra time) would be unacceptable to fans who have waited too long for a trophy.

Sky sexism row

Richard Keys and Andy Gray were suspended by Sky and so did not present last night's Monday Night Football between Bolton and Chelsea. The general consensus was that they were not missed and David Jones and Sam Allardyce did a sterling job in their absence. If, and this is a big if, the two dinosaurs (as Rio Ferdinand agreed http://bit.ly/hTZmHF) were to be sacked it could well be the shake-up that Sky's football coverage needs. Gray's ineptitude with his Minority Report-style technology doesn't improve the basic level of analysis that they provide alongside the familiar set of hackneyed clichés.


And for anyone who thinks they were joking when they were caught making their remarks please note the following:
http://bit.ly/hiRb9b

http://bit.ly/ghzIUU (via @barneyronay)

http://bit.ly/gGlq5c
http://bit.ly/hE1h7Z (via 101greatgoals.com)


They have history, there is precedent for this (http://bit.ly/9BSkTn) and they should be sacked. There's not a lot more to be said on the matter.

Welcome to Lacking Match Fitness

This is a blog dedicated to the world of football. Hopefully someone will eventually find this interesting or informative in some way but in the mean time I'll keep updating about the fascinating world of football.