Three and in – not just another football blog

Much was made this week about how no British players were nominated for the Ballon d’Or. It was hardly a surprise, in fairness, the only obvious candidate was Wayne Rooney and I suspect it was a combination of his plummeting form and FIFA deciding his off-field antics were too distasteful which saw him miss out.

England’s dismal World Cup didn’t help, the star names like Lampard, Terry, Gerrard and co did nothing much to enhance their reputations, yet you have to wonder if the culture of the English game is still a factor.

This week, Man City manager Roberto Mancini, gave his players a day off after the defeat to Arsenal. The next day pictures and video emerged of Adam Johnson, Shay Given, Gareth Barry and Joe Hart enjoying a late night drinking session with students in Scotland. Roberto Mancini said afterwards:

I don’t understand this. The video was on Monday, and Monday was a day off. Some players can do what they want, but I don’t understand why. I told the players my opinion about getting into these situations 10 days ago.

I think this problem is not only for us, it is for many players. For British players, it is part of the culture.

Leaving aside Given’s Irishness he is a player who has grown up in ‘British’ football, who has been part of it for years. And so we have a situation where despite being expressly told by their manager not to get involved in such things, these players ignored that, ignored good sense, ignored the requirements of top level sportsmen, and went on the piss.

This isn’t a criticism of these Man City players – that’s for Mancini and for City fans to take care of – but merely an illustration of how pervasive the drinking culture still is in the English game. And no matter what anyone might say about players being human and needing to let their hair down, it can only ever negatively affect their performances and abilities as footballers.

These guys retire in their early-mid 30s, made up for life, millions in the bank, and they can drink to their hearts content then. Necking from the bottle while being egged on and filmed by students … it’s pretty shameful really.

To be among the best requires dedication, hard work, commitment to a healthy lifestyle and plain old common sense. The City players this week showed everyone why it should be no surprise the Ballon d’Or was free of British players. When nobody bats at eyelid at Rooney, the best English player of his generation, pissing in the streets after late night smoking and drinking sessions then that tells its own story.

They consider the lifestyle more important than the sport itself and they are indulged because it’s considered part and parcel of the game. And that means the award will always go to someone else.

Still, they can always drown their sorrows with a few pints.

This Sunday lunchtime, Newcastle and Sunderland face off as the Premier League welcomes back the Tyne-Wear derby. Amidst the melee, however, a private battle will be taking place between two North-East hotshots: Andy Carroll and Darren Bent.

The signs are that, after abortive experiments with a 4-3-3 formation, Fabio Capello is determined to field Wayne Rooney as a number 10. With Emile Heskey now retired from international football and Jermaine Defoe recovering on the sidelines, it opens up a battle for the number nine. Both Carroll and Bent have emerged as leading contenders to partner Rooney.

Carroll has already inherited one famous number nine shirt, facing up to the spectre of Shearer which hangs ominously over St. James’ Park and the Match of the Day sofa. The Winterist wing of the media are in awe of Carroll’s sheer Englishness. His strong-arm, bustling style evokes memory of simpler days; days before the proliferation of mobile phones and the advent of Reggae Reggae Sauce.

Capello seemingly shares this nostalgia for the hurly-burly days of yore: witness first his persistence with Heskey, and latterly his call-up for 33-year old Kevin Davies, the man more effective with his elbows than with his feet. Carroll, despite his limitations, is surely a better long-term bet.

Darren Bent probably ought to have made a breakthrough an international level before now. Left at home when Sven opted to take the 17-year old Theo Walcott in 2006, a mixed few years have finally seen him find his feet (and indeed goalscoring boots) under Steve Bruce at Sunderland.

Bent has recovered from unflattering comparisons with Harry Redknapp’s Mrs to emerge as one of the Premier League’s most reliable finishers – and he already has an England goal to his name this season, firing home with his left foot against Switzerland.

Reading this, some will scoff that neither player is of International calibre. Certainly, I’d concede that I wasn’t clamouring for either player’s involvement at international level a year ago. But England have struggled to produce strikers since the heady days of the mid-90s, when Andy Cole, Les Ferdinand, Teddy Sheringham, Ian Wright, Robbie Fowler, Stan Collymore, Alan Shearer and others all battled for a place in the same squad. In the current climate, neither players’ claim can be easily rejected.

On Sunday, they get a chance to state their case all the clearer, and earn some local pride in the process.

Bongani Khumalo

Yesterday, Tottenham completed the signing of South African centre-back Bongani Khumalo.  Spurs fans will hoping he proves to be more successful than their last South African defensive import, Mbulelo Mabizela, who failed to make an impact in North London, and ended up returning to South Africa via a stint in Norwegian football.

They should be in luck.  I was in South Africa this summer, where the locals regarded Khumalo as the most important player of an honourable World Cup campaign.  His performance against France, where he scored a headed goal, was particularly impressive.  Mind you, there are single-celled organisms who would have looked like Franco Baresi against France at the World Cup.  That caveat aside, Khumalo seems to be a decent enough player.

But the signing is an odd one when you look at the shape of Spurs’ squad.  They already have seven players capable of playing at centre-back, six of which are full internationals.  The list is as follows: Dawson, King, Woodgate, Gallas, Bassong, Corluka and Kaboul.  Admittedly the last pair are predominantly deployed at full-back, but that still leaves five centre-halves – as many as any club could need, surely?

Until, that is, you remember that list of five contains two players who simply cannot be relied upon to be fit: Jonathan Woodgate and Ledley King.  It is the unreliability of these players, combined with Harry Redknapp’s love of a signing, that will mean Spurs start January with eight potential centre-halves.

Woodgate missed out on the cut for the 25-man Premier League squad back in September, and Khumalo’s signing makes it even unlikelier that he’d come back in to contention, fit or (more likely) not.  One does wonder, if Spurs were still going strong in the Champions League and FA Cup, if Redknapp might even be forced to consider excluding King from his 25 and reserving him for knockout competitions.

That, surely, would signify a significant acceleration in the painfully slow and sad deterioration of King’s career.

Maybe it’s just me, and most times when I say that it is just me, but don’t footballers celebrate goals rather too much? I don’t mean the extravagant routines some of them foist upon us, nor the ludicrous dancing, but very often they goals they’re celebrating aren’t important or it’s too early in a game to gauge whether they’re important or not.

If you score an absolute beauty then fair enough, I can understand you going a bit mental, but a simple tap-in in the opening stages of a game should not result in the kind of celebration that makes people think you’ve just scored the winner in the World Cup final. There’s still so much time left for the opposition to stick five past you.

I believe a new law should be passed which would require anyone scoring in the first half of a game to simply give a clenched fist of subdued happiness before making his way purposefully back to his own half. He would be allowed to shake hands, firmly but not extravagantly, with his teammates who may, in turn, slap him on the back to express their satisfaction with the situation.

Any kind of jumping, dancing, hugging, kissing, rocking an invisible baby, piling on, shirt lifting (you heard me), whooping, high pitched yelping or gestures such as asking people to ‘shhhh’ or suggesting to people that you can no longer hear them as you cup your hand to your ear would be punishable by a yellow card.

Only when the game has gone past the hour mark should there be any tolerance of the more flamboyant celebrations. At that stage the goals become more important and so the players should be able to do some on-pitch carousing. Last minute winners should grant the player the right to celebrate however they see fit, up to, and including, french kissing the referee with joy.

It’s time football got its house in order and until someone takes a stand against these premature celebrators we’re going nowhere fast.

As Glasgow – ok, Scotland – does what it does best by feasting over the rotten carcass of the first Glasgow derby of the season one thing seems to be missed.

Rangers are unbeaten in all competitions this season. Only Man Utd and Valencia haven’t lost to them and they are on their best run since 1929. A team on the crest of a wave and their superiority over a transitional Celtic side – who have over-achieved domestically this season – their 3-1 victory shouldn’t come as a surprise. The feeling that if you won a Rangers player in a raffle you would hand them back may have to revisited. They are a perfect example of a well drilled team who are more impressive than their individual parts.

Kenny Miller makes the international "I've scored two goals" gesture

So to the controversy. In typical Glesga fashion it’s paranoia on one-side and selective amnesia on the other. Both managers were asked to comment on the referee Wullie Collum (yes, it does sound like a sex toy). Lennon was rightly critical of the referee after he gave a penalty to Rangers after being caught out by an outrageous dive from Kirk Broadfoot.

What made matters worse, for the green half anyway, was that the referee had his back to the incident. TV pictures quite clearly showed this to be the case. At the time of writing the SFA have not backed the referee as they have other things on their mind (more of that later). Rangers boss Smith advised that Celtic should stopped heaping pressure on referees before these games and by constantly questioning decisions and writing to the SFA for answers . This from a manager who in the past has been known to openly question impartiality without censure. As a linesman called Murphy will testify too.

Lennon said of Collum before the game that the referee needed to be strong as he was making his debut in this game. Nothing wrong with that. It wasn’t heaping pressure on the referee but just stating a fact. You could say more pressure was put on the referee by a paper who stated in an article that they found it ironic that a religious education teacher in a Roman Catholic School was being put in charge of this fixture. Only in Scotland would this have been commented on.

We will never know if the decision not to award the penalty, Rangers were 2-1 up at the time, would have had a bearing on the game. The SFA can’t back the referee on this occasion as it’s clear the decision is wrong. It will be interesting what happens to a referee that was one of the rising stars of the Scottish game.

The SFA are under pressure. They would have wanted a quiet Sunday afternoon after the previous weeks events in Dundee when Celtic were awarded a penalty by Dougie McDonald whom then changed his mind – on advise from his linesman, Steven Craven – and awarded a drop ball that he didn’t allow Celtic to contest.

Tv pictures show that it was a dubious penalty and that the Dundee United goalkeeper did touch the ball before taking out Celtic striker Gary Hooper. There could have also been another penalty award just before that challenge when United defender Gary Kenneth pulled back Hooper.  So what’s the fuss over a referee changing his mind and awarding the perceived correct decision? Well, there seems to be some inconsistencies with the explanation of the reversal of the decision.

Afterwards the players said that the referee said that the linesman told him he made a mistake. When the penalty was awarded the linesman took his place behind the goal. No flag and no attempt to call the referee over. The referee went over after the United players sent him there. Lennon stated afterwards he had asked for an explanation, got one and accepted it. He wasn’t happy and Celtic wrote to the SFA for further clarification.

The twist in the tale is this. The linesman has resigned as a professional referee and dependent on what paper you read it’s either because of the personal abuse he has received since the incident – it’s reported today that Wullie Collum has also received death threats since Sunday – or that he is not happy with the reporting of events and feels that he is being hung out to dry by Dougie McDonald and Hugh Dallas (head of the referees), who is trying to protect his top whistler.

This will either see Celtic vilified or bring down a house of cards for the SFA.

Heh, I haven’t even mentioned the singing about killing the Pope and burning down chapels, the Irish famine, about some Boys Of An Old Brigade or throwing seats at rival fans while celebrating goals.

Glasgow. Smiles better.

Yesterday, Wayne Rooney released his first official comment on his desire to leave Old Trafford. Note: his first ‘official’ comment. It is briefings from Rooney’s camps that have fuelled these stories for the past five days.

When the statement finally arrived, it didn’t make for pretty reading. The choicest extract is probably:

“I was interested to hear what Sir Alex had to say yesterday and surprised by some of it.  It is absolutely true, as he said, that my agent [Paul Stretford] and I have had a number of meetings with the club about a new contract. During those meetings in August I asked for assurances about the continued ability of the club to attract the top players in the world.

I met with [United's chief executive] David Gill last week and he did not give me any of the assurances I was seeking about the future squad.  I then told him that I would not be signing a new contract.”

It seems Rooney has paid close attention to the Roy Keane Guide on How to Implode Your Status as a United Hero.  Implicit in what he says is a criticism of both the current playing staff and the ambition of the club.  It makes it almost impossible to imagine any kind of reconciliation, and with Ferguson and David Gill due to convene tomorrow, I wouldn’t be surprised if Rooney has played his last game for the club.

Now let’s get one thing clear: much of what Rooney says is true.  Judging by their recent transfer activity, United can no longer compete wih the Citys and Real Madrids of this world.  Alex Ferguson’s continued refusal to criticise the Glazers mask an economic uncertainty which threatens the team’s continued success on the football pitch.

That, however, does not excuse Rooney’s words.  Rooney may be on the side of the truth, but the is not on the side of loyalty, integrity and honour. I don’t doubt that Sir Alex Ferguson has twisted the facts slightly in order to protect the image of his club, but he is just doing his job. He is under contract to serve Manchester United. So is Wayne Rooney, although he appears to have forgotten that slightly awkward reality.

It’s the question on the mind of every United fan, and Sir Alex Ferguson himself.  Having reportedly informed the club of his unwillingness to sign a new contract, Rooney has made his position at United as good as untenable.  The idea of losing him for nothing is simply not palatable, and his value is depreciating with every month.  United have a business to run, and debts to serve.  If Rooney is as determined to leave Old Trafford as the press suppose, then it’s a question of if not when his club decide to cash in.

There is an argument that now is the optimum time for United to get a return on their £25.6m investment.  Rooney is definitely out of sorts, and has scored just once from open play since picking up an ankle injury against Bayern Munich in March.  Since then, personal problems off the field have precipitated problems on it.  His most telling contribution at the World Cup was this remark to the cameras in the wake of a draw with Algeria:

The start of the domestic season saw tabloid revelations coincide with his poorest run of form in years. Of late, he’s been left out of the side, with his manager declaring him “injured” in spite of the player’s claims to the contrary.

There is a consensus growing that Rooney’s star might be burning out.  On The Guardian’s Football Weekly podcast, recorded live in Rooney’s hometown of Liverpool, a salient comparison was made with scouse strikers Robbie Fowler and Michael Owen.  Like Rooney, both players burst on to the scene in their teens amid wild fanfare and expectation.  And both players’ careers petered out in their mid-twenties.  Wayne Rooney is 25 next week.  He has played top flight football for almost a decade.  Perhaps his precocity has a price, and he is destined to fade well before many had expected.

That’s just one argument, mind.  It’s easy to forget that last season was hailed as Rooney’s best.  He thrived off service from the likes of Nani and Valencia to become one of Europe’s most prolific centre-forwards.  Several patchy months later, and he’s being written off.  Despite his apparent unhappiness, and the financial windfall a sale would bring, United and Ferguson will most likely be desperate to keep hold of their most prized asset.

It seems unlikely he’ll head anywhere in January.  He’s cup-tied in the Champions League, and whilst that wouldn’t impact upon all suitors, it is extremely rare for a marquee player to move outside of the summer window.  Summer, after all, is marquee season.

One man who knows a thing or two about when to let a player go is convinced Rooney will remain at United beyond even then: Arsene Wenger.  Having sold the likes of Thierry Henry and Patrick Vieira in the past, Wenger has the authority to speak about when it is time for stars to move on.  He, however, seems certain about where Rooney’s future lies:

“I am convinced he will stay at Manchester United because it is his club. They have the power to keep him and I don’t believe in the story.

When you give a great player a rest you have a story. Rooney is Rooney. He will stay where he is.”

Wenger’s conviction is no doubt built on his faith in a club-controlled transfer market, where player power is secondary to stable, well-run institutions.  It is this philosophy that saw Arsenal resist Barcelona’s bid for Cesc Fabregas just a few months ago.  Whether a club in as perilous an economic situation as United could do the same remains to be seen.

-

United fans, what do you reckon?  Is Wayne on the wane, or is this just a blip?  And if he really is determined not to sign a new deal, how quickly should United get shot of him?  And would you ever, ever accept a bid from City?

via @EricisSuperTed

So Liverpool have their shiny new owners. They got rid of those dastardly Americans, and replaced them with… well, some other Americans. But these ones are different. They’re not systematic family rapists, for one thing.

Yesterday saw the first game of the NESV era. And there was N.ot E.ven the S.lightest V.ariation.

Fans, players, and managers of Liverpool Football Club have, for too long, blamed their poor form on the pitch on matters in the boardroom. The inescapable truth is that whilst the club have been able to drop Hicks and Gillett, they can’t drop the likes of Konchesky, Lucas or Maxi until January at the earliest.

The change of ownership is, in seriousness, an essential and positive thing for Liverpool Football Club. But there are eleven more immediate problems, and they took to the field today disguised as a football team.

A recent spate of injuries has seen a sparse squad looking barer than ever. The likes of Kyrgiakos and Konchesky simply aren’t good enough for a team with Champions League pretensions. When needing to turn the game around, calling in the cavalry of Jovanovic, Babel and Ngog doesn’t inspire too much confidence.

Even more worrying is the form of established stars like Joe Cole, Steven Gerrard and Fernando Torres. Torres looks a shadow of himself, Gerrard has been shunted between different midfield roles without success, and Cole’s contribution has Arsenal and Spurs breathing heavy sighs of relief at a £80,000 p/week bullet successfully dodged.

A large portion of blame, however, must fall at the feet of Roy Hodgson, whose purchases have thus far failed to impress. If the new ownership really are going to invest in the playing staff in January, one would understand if they were loathe to entrust him with the cash.

Today Tony Pulis entered his press conference, unfurled a prepared statement in Benitez-esque fashion, and responded to Danny Murphy’s recent comments about his side’s overt physicality.

Pulis has a history of releasing statements when his club come under fire.  His club are remarkably touchy about criticism.  It’s almost as if the comments are all too often, like the impact of some of Stoke’s tackling, unnervingly close to the bone.

Pulis began his statement by accusing Murphy of discriminating against smaller clubs:

“One challenge on Newcastle’s Hatem Ben Arfa by Nigel de Jong of Manchester City recently led to a broken bone.

Another by Joe Cole, one of our most technically gifted players, resulted in a sending off for one of our most celebrated clubs in the country, Liverpool, who are currently managed by Roy Hodgson, someone I have great respect for.

How ironic it is that Danny Murphy chose not to discuss either challenge or manager in respect of those tackles. How selective can someone be?”

Leaving aside Pulis’ understanding (or lack thereof) of irony, he’s plain wrong on this count.  Like the victim of a Ryan Shawcross tackle, he’s barely got a leg to stand on.  Whilst Cole and De Jong have both made awful challenges, Murphy’s point was that some sides are repeatedly and systematically violent.  Neither Liverpool nor City fall in to that bracket.

Pulis moved on to question Murphy’s motives:

“Maybe Murphy’s pursuit of a new career in the media does not allow him to criticise, or fall out with the Premier League big boys. Instead, in my opinion, he has selected easy targets that are based on his own perception and not facts.”

Ah, perception.  The enemy of football.

The hilarity of accusing Murphy of seeking media-attention, whilst at the same time protecting a kabal of managers led by Sam “I could manage Real Madrid” Allardyce, needs little comment.  You could even call it ‘ironic’.  But that would only confuse Pulis.