England to get an English Manager?

This whole idea of having an Englishman is common in England, as is common to blame the foreigners for everything, it was like that after the World Cup, too many foreign players in the league no good young talent etc. Now I know I'm biased being foreign myself, and I think this idea of blaming the foreigners it's an easy one and more of a cop out. To be fair I would probably agree that national team players and managers should be local nationals but modern football is not like that, and I have no problem with getting the best man for the job.

Which leads me to who I think SHOULD be the next England manager but won't. Unfortunately I think the FA is what's standing in the way of England's success. One has only to remember the issue with Ferdinand's drug test years ago. The FA does not want an opinionated manager that wants control over the whole of the development of English football. If they did, Mourinho would have got the job before he went to Inter after Sven left, allegedly he produced a dossier over what he wanted and needed to take England forward, it was simply too ambitious for the FA. Similarly, a man that has great knowledge of English football and players, is a good tactician and a great motivator, Martin O' Neill was also disregarded before the appointment of Capello, Martin simply takes no prisoners, that does not sit well with the powers installed at the FA. Both Wenger and Sir Alex Ferguson would bed the next two outstanding choices but once again they would want to oversee and have much more control than the FA are prepared to concede.

So England will not get the best manager they should get for the role. They will get someone from outside, like Capello, attracted to the money and a chance to prove themselves internationally but that are not going to be too much of a hindrance. But obviously, because the powers that be at the FA are spineless, England will get their English manager because that's what the press and fans are calling for, regardless of their suitability for the role. Redknapp would do well to motivate and lift the spirits of the players and deal with national press, but I fear he would be found wanting against the good teams tactically. Pearce, who is being groomed right now for job is I think the most likely candidate, he's an unknown quantity but he does have a lot of passion and has worked with good managers.

The other English managers, or British even, I fear are not qualified, simply because in fairness to most of them, they have not the chance to prove themselves, Allardyce, Pulis, Coyle, Pardew, even Moyes, all of whom have done great jobs but never at a top team. The most qualified is of course Steve McLaren who did well with Twente, but has once again self-destructed his career with catastrophic appointments at Wolfsburg and Forest.

England do really need a Mourinho or a Wenger, someone to think long-term, who can take risks, can handle big egos, and reform the system. But before that can happen the FA must change first.

The First Clássico FC Porto - SL Benfica

Eve though I didn't watch the first half I thought Benfica played pretty well. Prior to the game I had predicted a 1-1 draw, and I think the 2-2 draw reflects the parity of the two teams.

What most impressed me about Benfica was their composure, coming out of the interval 1-0 down, then equalising but going behind almost immediately, but never lost their cool just kept plugging away and plugging away and found a second to equalise, a pretty decent goal by Gaitan after a great pass by Saviola.

I was surprised Jorge Jesus replaced Nolito and Aimar when he decided to make changes and bring on Saviola and Bruno César, I thought he might replaced Witsel instead and perhaps Gaitan, as Nolito was looking quite dangerous and had just provided the pass to Cardozo´s first goal in the Estádio do Dragão. I guess the manager wanted to keep tactic discipline with Javi Garcia and Witsel in the middle and Saviola certainly plays closer to Cardozo than Aimar. Gaitan looks better on the left (after all he played there all last season) and his movement and finish for the goal was good, Jesus read the game well and his decisions worked.

But as I said what most impressed me was Benfica's calm approach to the game, away at Porto, simply kept attacking and playing their game, despite finding themselves behind twice. A mature performance from a good team that looked assured on the ball and with solutions on the bench. A good season could be in the offing for the Eagles.

The foolishness of the Press

We all know fans can be fickle and the Press can exaggerate but it's difficult not to be swayed by the myriad inundation of news and reports and opinions, and as a fan to be content with being patient and not be disgruntled when the team underperforms.

I don't want to over emphasise this point or labour on it too much, I'll just leave a concrete example of how wrong people can get it sometimes.

The idea to write this post comes as I depart for holiday to Portugal tomorrow, having had to postpone my trip that stopped me from being at Estádio da Luz for Benfica- Manchester United tonight, so I was reading on the result of 2005 when Benfica against all odds manage to stage an unlikely turnaround and win the game.  I have since found out that it was the only time Benfica had done so and I was lucky to have been present in the stadium that night, with friends, and the feeling of exultation was palpable, regardless of how transient and deserved it was.

A particular report, I was reading  just now, had launched a scathing attack on Sir Alex Ferguson. The year was 2005, Manchester United were in middle of a barren spell without wining the league, and the writing for this reporter was on the wall: "There will be a reckoning that takes place in private and it is likely to see Sir Alex Ferguson's tenure at Manchester United terminated at the close of the season."

These are strong opening words from someone at The Guardian, a newspaper I generally hold in high regard, but not reporter is free from doom scenarios and indeed being wrong. It's hard not to draw parallels with Arsenal's current situation. Manchester United were experiencing difficult years, stories of Ferguson's retirement abounded and the club had just recently been bought by the Glazers. Chelsea's dominance since the arrival of Abramovich and particularly José Mourinho meant that it was difficult to look beyond Chelsea for a credible alternative to the title, and it looked as though Manchester United were a club on the downside, a manager on the brink of either retiring or being sacked, a club in financial peril due to the amount of debt the owners that transferred to the club.

Well, two years later, Ferguson found the winning formula once again and the turned the club around, going on to win the Premiership three years in a row and last year also, managing to reach the final of the Champions League three times and winning it once.

It's true that Arsenal's barren spell has lasted longer, six years not four, the club has also been bought and it looks incapable of competing with the best teams in the league, moreover, Arsenal has to contend not only with Chelsea and Abramovich, but also Manchester City and their owners from Abu Dhabi who seemingly have even deeper pockets than the Russian in London. 

But, with UEFA's new financial regulations coming to play next year it could yet prove that Arsenal's sustainable model may prevail, and the team, though less apparently competitive than in previous years has shown last night that it is good enough for the likes of the German champions, which for a team that has had their confidence shattered by a freak 8-2 three weeks ago is no mean feat. 

In conclusion, do not believe all the press says at face value, and do not despair after one bad result, even a poor season. Sir Alex Ferguson is the proof that faith in a successful manager means that quite likely he'll know what to do to make the team return to glory and trophies.

Link to The Guardian report:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2005/dec/08/match.manchesterunited

Chaos at Arsenal - Part 2

So, who or what is the cause for the team doing so badly?

I think the senior players for one have found if difficult to keep motivated and have looked at the way the club being run and they are not stupid, they know it's going downhill and see no investment coming in. Kind of reminds me of Rooney not so long ago, he clearly was trying to force a move last year because he saw what Man City were doing, and he knew he needed to move to win trophies unless United started to seriously invest. Luckily for United, Rooney was high profile and good enough to force something like that. And the club have invested heavily, although they still had success last year. I do wonder though, was it all Rooney's doing, did he think all that all for himself, did he really want to leave or was it a bluff? Or, rather, was it a concerted bluff and scare tactic by ol' willy fox Ferguson and Rooney to scare the board and force their hand? One things is for sure, they, Man U, board and manager, convinced him to stay and have invested by buying the best English talent available in the land. Could Arsenal do the same financially?

I wrote a post a few days ago about the financial implications of a new stadium and I stand by that. But I have researched the financial situation at Arsenal a bit more and it's all all that clear. The stadium seems to be by and large now pretty much generating enough revenue and the club self-sufficient. It seems that since 2006/2007 the club and the new stadium's revenues are enough to cope with the clubs debts and mortgage repayments, with a net profit that year of about £37 million. So clearly, this is not the whole story.

That year the senior team's net transfer was -£836K and the following season £24.8M. Making money in the transfer market. Great, if you want to increase the club's revenues. But what about performances on the pitch? Well, Arsenal were doing well enough, there had been a couple of years with no trophies but too early to worry about it. Please see below Net transfer Spending over the next few years in comparison to the closest competitors Manchester United and Chelsea:

Arsenal

07/08 -£24.8M (profit)

08/09  £14.4M

09/10 -£31.4M (profit)

10/11  £12.4M

11/12 -£37M (profit)

Man U

07/08  £52.0M

08/09  £33.2M

09/10 -£67.8M (Ronaldo's freak transfer of £80M)

10/11  £9.8M

11/12  £40.3M

Chelsea

07/08  £14.0M

08/09  - £11.9M (profit)

09/10  £21.7M

10/11  £96.8M

11/12  £41.9M

A lot of profit there for sure, but is the team good enough? Well, no, and everyone knows this, but in Arséne we trust. And you know what, so we should, because let's be honest and clear about this, for a team to have done that well and stay competitive is a massive feat. One may go as far as say that they have over-performed, well and above their capabilities. Similarly to Everton, a lot of credit has to be given to the manager to ahve done as well as they did with the resources they have. But, and this is the clincher, like a an elastic band, you can stretch and stretch and if you are careful and really good stretch some more, but eventually it will invariably break.

Arsenal's tether has broken. In the most spectacular fashion yesterday.

So, when Fabregas said he wanted to leave last year, Wenger managed to persuade him to stay, and to be fair Arsenal did ok, but the squad was just not good enough to cope with  four competitions. When this Summer come around everyone knew that Fabregas would go, it was a case of waiting for Barcelona to come in with an offer, clearly with their new chairman they were less inclined to pay £40M plus. So why wasn't Favregas swayed this time around? And why did Nasri suddenly decided to move? And Clichy? Why didn't Arsene persuade his players to stay? Couldn't Arsenal do the same as United and Ferguson did with Rooney financially? Or wouldn't? I think the net transfer spending tells you that Arsenal have not spent big on any players, but why wouldn't they spend to keep their best players?

Well, an interesting development this week, a blog suggested that it had information from a source inside the club that the club's board and the manager were at loggerheads over the wage structure. Which was promptly denied by an email from the club.

The fact remains, why doesn't Arsenal spend money on players? Is the official line of developing, and not going crazy and get over-priced players the reality? Or just part of the story? Even if that were true why are players wanting to leave? Worse still, why can't they be persuaded to stay? Suddenly wages seem to start making a whole lot of sense. Arsenal can and could afford the fee for Mata, yet he goes to Chelsea, where he's wasted not time showing how good he is and will be. So why? Chelsea are more likely to win the title yes, but Arsenal were after him for weeks and much before Chelsea showed any interest, and yet as soon as you heard that they were interested he had signed for them already. Was he simply offered a better contract from the off?

Now you can say all you want about player power and the obscene amounts they get paid, but at the end of the day, this is the game, it comes down to whether you want to play it or not. You want the best players you have to pay for them, either in fees or wages or both. Sometimes you don't have to spend insane amounts but sometimes you have to invest to get a return. It seems that for years Arsene Wenger has refused to play the game, and I always thought that the man has a philosophy and a degree in Economy he knows what he is doing. But I now start to wonder if everything has gone exactly as he wanted over the last few years. I start to wonder how much of this "philosophy" is his or the boards. He knows football he knows he needs players, better than anyone, I think he has hidden the fact that he as been constrained all these years.

In my recent research another fact emerges, and the timing of it is clear. I said and I thought that the stadium was a massive investment, which it is, and that was seven years ago, but clearly the club is making money, so what has happened since 2007? Any Arsenal supporter will tell you, David Dein has left the club. He seems to be somewhat of a controversial figure in football but it is undeniable that he has been a key man in shaping both Arsenal and English football, from the creation of the Premier League, to bringing Wenger to Arsenal, creating a self-sustained modern club with a new and expensive stadium. More fundamentally though seems to be his instrumental role is securing big name players for the club, something that has been sorely lacking for years now.

I have also found out that one of the main reasons for Henry's departure was David Dein's leaving the club. This was something I had not realised at the time, and I remember thinking at the time that he would never leave, not Thierry Henry and being completely dumbfounded and in disbelief when he did leave. apparently other players expressed their concern and going to the extremes of saying that the when he take away the foundations of a building it will eventually topple.

Has Dein's departure been the start of the erosion of the club's fundamental blocks? Did Arsene lose his main ally that day? The reason for his leaving are also both interesting and mysterious. Irreconcilable differences with the board, a strange reason for someone that had been so influential. Apparently he wanted Usmanov to invest in the club thereby allowing the club the necessary revenue to be able to invest the team and compete with the other big-spenders, after all the club was self-sufficient it was now time for some serious spending in the football players. He cannot fault his logic, but his was not what the board wanted, no, Arsenal could not become Chelsea, in essence, owned by a foreign investor. And so four years later, instead of Usmanov who had Dein and wanted to invest heavily in the club, the club's main shareholders sold the bulk of the club to another foreign owner, the American Kroenke who somehow managed to have the board on his side and convinced them he was the man for the job not Usmanov. The reason for this is unclear. Kroenke has business nous and is very rich, but Usmanov is one of the richest man on the planet, so why? In a further twist, by buying so many of Arsenal's shares, 66.1% he had to make an hostile bid for the remaining shares of 30% but Usmanov refused to sell, as he was caught completely in the dark by Kroenke's move and felt betrayed and that the board had conspired against him. I think that particular saga is not over and Usmanov is not a man to be taken lightly, he has been outmaneuvered and he last some influence, but he still owns 30% of the club.

Among the boardroom wars, poor Arsene Wenger has had to make do, and reportedly, wanted a bigger wage structure to both attract and keep the best players. He has not been allowed to do so but he has stoically kept positive and has tried to minimise the situation and has not blamed the board, but it became clear yesterday how bad things have got.

Wenger though, I think has to take some responsibility as well, for producing teams incapable of defending, being poor without the ball and dealing with set pieces. Mentally as well, he keeps talking how good the team is, because he knows how important it is, but surely he knows that they are in fact quiet weak and that's why he keeps talking about it, and I am surprised no one in the press has picked up on this.

There were key moment's in Arsenal's mental self-destruction: Eduardo's injury affected the team so badly that for at least two years they were shell-shocked and Gallas agony on the pitch who was supposed to be the captain was a symptom of the team's mental weakness. Even before that, with the great team of Invincibles, the following season, after they lost convincingly 4-2 to Manchester United they could not pick themselves up. Then last season, a make or break for Arsenal, and key for the continuance of Fabregas, the team mounted a spirited fightback since January and were in contention in four fronts, but the hapless Koscielny makes a mistake in the League Cup final that both he and the team failed to recover from, it was as if the bottom had fell out, and systematically they lost their chance in all competitions, a malaise that has transferred over to this year.

In summary, a host of reasons and protagonists, silent and otherwise, and maybe, a result yesterday that needed to happen. Maybe, just maybe, the club, the board, the manager and the players wake up in time to turn things around. We wait and see. Maybe Usmanov will decide that enough is enough and will buy out Kroenke and bring David Dein back. Or maybe the board will sack Arsene Wenger. Or Wenger will sign a handful of players but without addressing the deep-lying problems Arsenal will never recover in time to compete with the likes of United, City and Chelsea, and perhaps even Liverpool.

Chaos at Arsenal - Part 1

Well, let's start with the game, and then move to the causes, and the people responsible.

Arsenal lost 8-2 at Old Trafford yesterday. It was much worse than I thought it would be, I knew it would be hard, even though I harboured a secret hope Wenger and the Gunners might pull something out of the bag, and that more than the result it would be the performance that would be key. If the team performed like they did against Udinese then fine regardless of the result.

They didn't. Let's talk about young players. United's team and players were younger than Arsenal's. They were better, on the day. Are they better overall? Only time will tell. One by one, Jenkinson is a decent player that will become good, he had no protection and no experience. Traoré exactly the same. Cocquelin in midfield I thought did really well, as had Frimpong in the previous games. Koscielny? No, even last year I thought he was poor, he's not to be trusted on his own, and since he caused that incident in the League Cup final the lad just has no belief. Djourou, not good enough, many years he's been at the club and he has never impressed, he's quick but deary me he cannot head the ball to save his life. So mixed, really, some young players, and as United's expensively assembled players showed, like Rooney once did, if you're good enough you're old enough. There's some great young players at Arsenal, some not so good, some that just need games.

No, Arsenal did not lose yesterday because of the younger players. Or rather not just because of them, their inexperience was certainly a factor, but that alone doesn't justify it. No, what was sad, as Phil McNulty said in his blog today was the lack of performance from the older players, you know the ones supposed to be helping and supporting the younger ones. It's all very well and good Rosicky talking to Cocquelin before the game, but you lead by example. Like Rooney. That's how you inspire belief and trust and teamwork. Rosicky was poor. Arshavin initially had a couple of good runs helping out Traoré, but as soon as the goal went in and van Persie missed the penalty he disappeared, he hid from the game, shocking from a man that is a shadow of the £16M signed player he was. Robin van Persie, for me the best player left at the club, supposedly, tried for a bit, not very hard, missed an incredible penalty in desultory fashion, hung his head, and he also disappeared from the game. Like Arshavin. Walcott, tried to stem the tide and had the arrogance of all good players that thinks he can solve things by himself and kept running into blind alleys, his argument with Jenkinson was painful and slightly unfair I thought but at least showed he cared. No defensive awareness though.

The trend, here, really, is this: Arsenal with the ball, fantastic team, without the ball, worse than a Sunday league team, no defensive awareness at all. This two facts have only got steadily worse and worse with each passing year. A lack of a credible goalkeeper since Lehmann was plain for everyone to see and Wenger got a cop out with the excellent Szczesny stepping up last year, but many points were lost in that area alone. There's been an outcry, from everyone, for a quality central defender for years. Ok, Vermaelen came in, but they let Gallas go, so after last year, everyone knew Vermaelen needed someone of equal quality next to him, because if he got injured there was no one good enough. As it has been proven. Still no replacement came in. Full backs are good enough Sagan and Gibbs, and the young guys will be good enough in a couple of years just not now. In central midfield the things aren't as bad as everyone picture them with the exception of the players already supposedly senior. Despite everyone asking for a defensive midfielder I think Song is good enough to do the role and by the look of things so is Frimpong. The problem is that Arsenal do not know how to press, how to defend high balls and to work as a team anymore. Some of this is due to quality at the heart of the defence (just get Samba for crying out loud!) or lack of work ethic in midfield. And Ramsay will be a great player, but the pressure to replace Fabregas is so great he's finding it difficult to cope with it and he's clearly affected, it would help if he wasn't the only one trying to play football.

Wenger does not want to buy players unless they are better than the ones he has at the club already or better than the potential he sees in his young players. Fair enough, but could those young players look better than they are because some of the senior players aren't all that good? Or don't want to play all that much?

What happened in the team? Why did Nasri want to leave? Clichy? Fabregas is a longer story and like Ronaldo inevitable, in fact more than Ronaldo, since Barcelona is his home city and his home club, I have no problem with that. What happened to Arshavin? Why is Rosicky given such importance when he is so clear past his best?

Not at all is lost this season, and I believe Arsenal still have enough good players to salvage the season and finish high up enough and do ok in the Champions League, possibly even one of the national cups. But fundamental problems must be addressed. The question is, what are they, where have they come from, and who's fault is it?

Can Belgium be a force in football again?

A slightly different post today, but after finding out that one of Arsenal's targets Eden Hazard is actually Belgian (I thought he was French, as most possibly would) I cast my mind to Porto and Benfica's recent signings and I start to wonder where have all these quality midfielders come from?

Looking closer at the Belgium National Team a lot of very interesting names jump at you, in all positions!

Goalkeepers: Belgium have had a good tradition with goalkeepers with Michel Preud’Homme and Jean-Marie Pfaff for Benfica and Bayern Munich respectively. Now they have Mignolet playing for Sunderland, a pretty decent player and Courtois signed by Chelsea but on loan to Atlético Madrid, not a bad club to go on loan but will he play? Regardless, pretty decent players both.

Defenders: With Van Buyten, and Kompany, and Vermaelen they have some great defenders. Vand Damme and Verthongen are decent players as well.

Midfielders: Besides Eden Hazard (fresh from a fantastic season with Lille) they count amongst their numbers Steven Defour and Alex Witsel, both recent arrivals in Portugal but very good technical players, Vanden Borre and Fellaini. A lot of strength in this area of the pitch.

Attackers: Not since Marc Degryse and Bart Goor have Belgium been known for their strikers but the recent "discovery" of has been hailed as the next Drogba, Romalu Lukaku supported by Dembele of Fulham and Camargo from Borussia Mönchengladbach they could prove to be a surprise to many defences.

In short, a collection of really good players, some with good potential, some with the potential to be great. A solid defence and the experience Georges Leekens in his second spell in charge of the Rode Duivels (Red Devils) could bring about the success of Belgium and the new generation of Belgian players.

Falcão finally leaves Porto

Regardless of opinion of how much of a loss Falcão will be to Porto the fact of the matter is that it's a great deal, you can't turn down an offer like that, bigger than the transfer of Coentrão, and much more than two of our best Portuguese players in the not too distant past, Rui Costa and Figo, gone are the days when when our clubs were paid peanuts for our players. Indeed, this transfer is the biggest ever transfer in Portugal, a huge amount of money, €40m plus €7 depending on other objectives.

What is strange about Falcão's as compared to Coentrão is that instead of Real Madrid he's gone to Atlético Madrid. Anyone, in the world, can understand the pull of Real, whether you are at Benfica (a great club in the past) or at Manchester United (one of the biggest clubs in the world, right now). But Atlético seems harder to comprehend. And of course Porto are in the Champions League and have a pretty good team capable of getting to the late stages of the competition this year.

Why then, did Falcão decide to leave? Indeed he said in the papers he wanted to leave so there's no great conspiracy theory about Porto wanting to sell, although I'm sure they did. It comes down to two things: money, Falcão will be on a millionaire contract, and the quality of the league. Everyone accepts that the Spanish league is currently one of the most competitive and attractive leagues to play in (although many in England would disagree with that assessment). Whilst the Portuguese league has improved in latter years you cannot compare it to the thrill of playing against the world's best players.

Porto will be weaker, but they still have Hulk, and he for me was absolute key last year, the extra edge if you wish, were he to go as well, then I would be worried if I was a Porto supporter.