Liverpool's triumph was an important step - but still exposed the huge flaws in Kenny Dalglish's side.
Despite the recent barren years for Liverpool Football Club, watching the side win a cup last night felt as natural as seeing the District Line closed on a weekend. There's still that great beauty residing in those famous red shirts being just below the alofted trophy. Whether you support Liverpool or not, you can never deny the romanticism of that club, and what it represents.
Sycophantic rambling aside, yesterday's victory was much more of an upheaval than I'm sure Kenny Dalglish would have wanted. Though they dominated the majority of the game and created a huge amount of chances, momentary lapses in concentration and a lack of teeth up front put Liverpool in a situation where the League Cup could have so easily slipped out of their fingers.
The success does represent a certain amount of progress under Dalglish's reign, but the struggles are a sign that Liverpool have a very long road ahead of them before they can re-establish their position as title contenders. After all, you would not have expected the same toil and tribulations had Liverpool's place in last night's final been taken by Manchester United or Chelsea. The Reds still lack the conviction that makes a great side into one of the nation's elite, and we've seen this throughout the season with their incessant tendency to draw at home.
Though Liverpool have certainly made steps forward since the disastrous appointment of Roy Hodgson in 2010, the vast amounts of money they have spent since then may be giving them a future platform that isn't working to the greatest effects it could. Some of the younger talent, such as Jordan Henderson and Andy Carroll, have not fulfilled the potential they have as quickly as one might have hoped. Last night neither of them performed particularly well (against a Championship side, no less), and consequently it was up to the older figureheads in the likes of Dirk Kuyt to inspire the resurgence.
In recent years, the likes of Dirk Kuyt have been weeded out of the squad one-by-one, and Liverpool will soon need to look to the younger talent to find match-winners and the cutting edge up front. Luis Suarez, though admittedly a great talent, doesn't have the finishing necessary to spearhead the attack. Meanwhile, Andy Carroll has become a bit of an enigma following his fairly poor season, with regularly ineffective performances peppering the Liverpool supporters' minds with questions about his future at the club. Neither of these figures would seem to be the next 'Michael Owen', 'Robbie Fowler' or even 'Fernando Torres' figure.
To further add to Liverpool's woes, the strength they have down the flanks is left severely wanting. Often Dalglish is left reverting to Bellamy and Kuyt in order to create chances from the wings, with Stewart Downing suffering a difficult first season in the Liverpool red. Much of this problem can be attributed to a simple lack of depth in this position, but Downing's lack of end product will again be a worrying sign that Liverpool may have put a lot of money into a future that isn't going to produce results.
Given Liverpool's seemingly good finances these are problems that can easily be sorted. However, with the opportunity to make such large steps in the summer having spent so heavily, it is somewhat disappointing that even a relatively simple Carling Cup run was made so difficult by a lack of conviction in the team. Kenny Dalglish will have to learn from his mistakes in the last transfer window and take the opportunity of European football next year to entice the talent necessary to lift Liverpool Football Club back into the title race. We all want to see it - It's only natural.
Monday 27 February 2012
Friday 24 February 2012
Fanbase Wars
AKA: Everyone involved in this is an idiot
I've been actively Twittering for a good year now, and I think I'm finally starting to understand it. In terms of networking, it's pretty much perfect for building casual ties to people of a similar interest and keeping in touch with a community. Given it has a less personal nature, you don't feel at all awkward 'following' a total stranger, whereas on Facebook becoming somebody's 'friend' whom you've never met feels equatable to lunging on a passer-by in the street.
This has allowed fanbases to seamlessly come together in a massive online arena. Personally, I seem to have got myself into Portsmouth FC and Formula One circles, which gives me plenty of chance to keep in touch with the general opinions and latest news regarding the areas of interest. It took me a while to really get to grips with this point, but now I've really learned to appreciate how Twitter has aided me in that respect.
However, I am lucky enough to engage in subjects that (on a whole) are devoid of cretinous dullards. On the surface of Twitter lies the major fanbases that threaten to tear your faith in humanity to a catastrophic oblivion, and then shit on in just to be sure. The discussion that occurs in other fanbases becomes a reactionary, rage-filled shouting match for others. It is filled with mantras, emotive bewitchery, spite and delusion.
There's no prizes for guessing what sort of thing I'm on about here. Yes, Justin Bieber. Yes, One Direction. Lady Gaga. JLS. Jonas Brothers. You know the drill. I guess it's not a surprise that the most obnoxious fanbases come from the pop-acts that specifically target teenagers, but the effectiveness they drive up a complete frenzy within their support is astonishing and frightening.
Let's take Justin Bieber as the main example. I want to be clear that I have absolutely nothing against the poor woman, but the self-appointed "Beliebers" are a spectacular culture that rings scarily close to a modern day Third Reich. No, honestly, look at some of their similarities: They both worship an almighty leader, they both have total and utter blind faith in their almighty, they both attack those who dare question the leadership, they both have a set of catchphrases that pledge allegiance to the almighty, they both celebrate those who show the most loyalty towards the almighty, and they both hate Jews. (That last one may be a fabrication of sorts).
Don't believe me still? (God, you are a persistent blighter) Alright, let's take a few tweets from these Beliebers. One Belieber tweets "We will support Justin, no matter what". Ooh, what even if he started killing Jews? See, Nazis. Then another one writes: "When Believe tickets go on sale, World War III will start." OH MY GOD I WAS RIGHT ALL ALONG. NAZIS! NAZIS!
OK, I'm exaggerating but there's a great deal of over-protection and sensitivity regarding this sort of thing (and I'm not just referring to Bieber, this can apply to any of the ones I mentioned earlier - Bieber is just the example I'm going to go with). So much so that fans will often pre-emptively defend their hero. One girl, simply calling herself Girl of Bieber, sassily writes "Boy: I hate Justin Bieber. Girl: No, you hate the fact that you're NOT Justin Bieber." This biting wit towards something that she made up, though admittedly breathtaking in it's intellect, seems like a tremendously unnecessary defence against no-one. Another writes "you hate justin bieber? Cool, I love him.". Again, I must emphasize the fact that this was written towards nobody.
We can see this in trending topics as well. Often there will be one referring to Justin Bieber festering away on the screen, with the Beliebers all assuring themselves that they have proven their great leader's credentials in the music world with a display of his fanbase's enormity. This can often lead to comical scenes when, due to the saturation of Bieber posts, a large influx of Justin Bieber tweets are no longer possible and it becomes more difficult to trend. The fanbase then assumes that Twitter is conspiring to work against them and trend Bustin Jieber in a bizarre protest.
Then things get more interesting when the fanbases begin fighting with each other. I'm not really sure what happened, but I gather there was a row between Lady Gaga and Madonna fans, which ended in both of them pushing to trend a RIP for their opposite star. Sometimes they even end up fighting with themselves. After a few more hoax RIP trends, people started to declare that it meant 'Really Inspiring Person'. With this in mind, 'RIP Nicki Miniaj' started trending, which prompted Nicki Miniaj fans to become furious about another supposed hoax. It was like watching ants fight in a jar.
It all seems like the hardening of skin against potential wounds. To be fair, this is only what you might expect. Many of these fanbases primarily consist of teenage girls, and the popstars they idolise today are subjected to the internet in which all the criticism towards them is mightily exposed. It's perhaps not surprising that they end up feeling very protective over their heroes. While they do come across as obnoxious, frenzied and downright irritating, we all had our phases in teenage years where we idolized one thing or another. The teen icons of today, despite a more sporadic market, focus in on only a few huge stars, giving us their massive fanbases that unfortunately have the numbers to dominate Twitter, but it's only fair that we let them have their time of fandom before Justin Bieber takes the Macauly Culkin route or JLS split up, or however their careers all end in a few years time.
One thing I would add though, is that the trending topics such as 'Pray for Belieber Lizzie' are sickening. While I can appreciate that young people are highly falliable, this seems to suggest a moral misfiring that is more difficult to justify. True or not, the story of a five-year-old girl dying is not something that should be used to push forward a fanbase, and by labelling it with a title like 'Belieber Lizzie' you are making it crystal clear that the only reason you feel she is worthy of a hint of concern is her love for Justin Bieber. After all, you'd never see anything like "Pray for coca-cola Mark" or "RIP Labour Jim", because it would be downright heinous.
Other than that... as you were, Twitter.
I've been actively Twittering for a good year now, and I think I'm finally starting to understand it. In terms of networking, it's pretty much perfect for building casual ties to people of a similar interest and keeping in touch with a community. Given it has a less personal nature, you don't feel at all awkward 'following' a total stranger, whereas on Facebook becoming somebody's 'friend' whom you've never met feels equatable to lunging on a passer-by in the street.
This has allowed fanbases to seamlessly come together in a massive online arena. Personally, I seem to have got myself into Portsmouth FC and Formula One circles, which gives me plenty of chance to keep in touch with the general opinions and latest news regarding the areas of interest. It took me a while to really get to grips with this point, but now I've really learned to appreciate how Twitter has aided me in that respect.
However, I am lucky enough to engage in subjects that (on a whole) are devoid of cretinous dullards. On the surface of Twitter lies the major fanbases that threaten to tear your faith in humanity to a catastrophic oblivion, and then shit on in just to be sure. The discussion that occurs in other fanbases becomes a reactionary, rage-filled shouting match for others. It is filled with mantras, emotive bewitchery, spite and delusion.
There's no prizes for guessing what sort of thing I'm on about here. Yes, Justin Bieber. Yes, One Direction. Lady Gaga. JLS. Jonas Brothers. You know the drill. I guess it's not a surprise that the most obnoxious fanbases come from the pop-acts that specifically target teenagers, but the effectiveness they drive up a complete frenzy within their support is astonishing and frightening.
Let's take Justin Bieber as the main example. I want to be clear that I have absolutely nothing against the poor woman, but the self-appointed "Beliebers" are a spectacular culture that rings scarily close to a modern day Third Reich. No, honestly, look at some of their similarities: They both worship an almighty leader, they both have total and utter blind faith in their almighty, they both attack those who dare question the leadership, they both have a set of catchphrases that pledge allegiance to the almighty, they both celebrate those who show the most loyalty towards the almighty, and they both hate Jews. (That last one may be a fabrication of sorts).
Don't believe me still? (God, you are a persistent blighter) Alright, let's take a few tweets from these Beliebers. One Belieber tweets "We will support Justin, no matter what". Ooh, what even if he started killing Jews? See, Nazis. Then another one writes: "When Believe tickets go on sale, World War III will start." OH MY GOD I WAS RIGHT ALL ALONG. NAZIS! NAZIS!
OK, I'm exaggerating but there's a great deal of over-protection and sensitivity regarding this sort of thing (and I'm not just referring to Bieber, this can apply to any of the ones I mentioned earlier - Bieber is just the example I'm going to go with). So much so that fans will often pre-emptively defend their hero. One girl, simply calling herself Girl of Bieber, sassily writes "Boy: I hate Justin Bieber. Girl: No, you hate the fact that you're NOT Justin Bieber." This biting wit towards something that she made up, though admittedly breathtaking in it's intellect, seems like a tremendously unnecessary defence against no-one. Another writes "you hate justin bieber? Cool, I love him.". Again, I must emphasize the fact that this was written towards nobody.
We can see this in trending topics as well. Often there will be one referring to Justin Bieber festering away on the screen, with the Beliebers all assuring themselves that they have proven their great leader's credentials in the music world with a display of his fanbase's enormity. This can often lead to comical scenes when, due to the saturation of Bieber posts, a large influx of Justin Bieber tweets are no longer possible and it becomes more difficult to trend. The fanbase then assumes that Twitter is conspiring to work against them and trend Bustin Jieber in a bizarre protest.
Then things get more interesting when the fanbases begin fighting with each other. I'm not really sure what happened, but I gather there was a row between Lady Gaga and Madonna fans, which ended in both of them pushing to trend a RIP for their opposite star. Sometimes they even end up fighting with themselves. After a few more hoax RIP trends, people started to declare that it meant 'Really Inspiring Person'. With this in mind, 'RIP Nicki Miniaj' started trending, which prompted Nicki Miniaj fans to become furious about another supposed hoax. It was like watching ants fight in a jar.
It all seems like the hardening of skin against potential wounds. To be fair, this is only what you might expect. Many of these fanbases primarily consist of teenage girls, and the popstars they idolise today are subjected to the internet in which all the criticism towards them is mightily exposed. It's perhaps not surprising that they end up feeling very protective over their heroes. While they do come across as obnoxious, frenzied and downright irritating, we all had our phases in teenage years where we idolized one thing or another. The teen icons of today, despite a more sporadic market, focus in on only a few huge stars, giving us their massive fanbases that unfortunately have the numbers to dominate Twitter, but it's only fair that we let them have their time of fandom before Justin Bieber takes the Macauly Culkin route or JLS split up, or however their careers all end in a few years time.
One thing I would add though, is that the trending topics such as 'Pray for Belieber Lizzie' are sickening. While I can appreciate that young people are highly falliable, this seems to suggest a moral misfiring that is more difficult to justify. True or not, the story of a five-year-old girl dying is not something that should be used to push forward a fanbase, and by labelling it with a title like 'Belieber Lizzie' you are making it crystal clear that the only reason you feel she is worthy of a hint of concern is her love for Justin Bieber. After all, you'd never see anything like "Pray for coca-cola Mark" or "RIP Labour Jim", because it would be downright heinous.
Other than that... as you were, Twitter.
Thursday 16 February 2012
Losing is My Religion
It's difficult to keep track of whether Arsenal are having a time of glory or a massive crisis. They seem to flit from one to the other almost seamlessly and breathlessly, several times throughout the course of a season. Sometimes it manifests itself as a title challenge that goes completely awry in the midst of Spring. On other occasions, a shoddy start to the year is met with a strengthy revival. Always, an injury is attributed to the bad times and a hero to the good. Always, they seem to end up about fourth.
It's been a running theme for maybe five or six years now, with Arsene Wenger having his job scrutinised with a steady increase of pressure. This year was maybe the worst start he's had to a season since his Arsenal tenure began, with embarrassing defeats to Man United, Blackburn and Tottenham peppering the smiles at the Emirates. However, the resurgence was swift and brutal, with Arsenal going on a run of 8 league wins in 10 games. Robin van Persie found his feet in spectacular fashion, scoring a hatful of goals effortlessly and looking like the world-topping genius he'd always threatened to become.
Now Arsenal are having a period of indifference. Well, I say 'now' - I mean prior to last night (but we'll get to that). A few turgid defeats mixed with a couple of decent wins (including a 7-1)... it's not exactly the form of champions, but over a year their current spell of form probably represents today's 'average Arsenal'. They are inconsistent, unreliable and don't have the solidity required to win trophies.
Then we had last night's horrific defeat in Milan. With the Premier League title out of sight, Arsenal only had this and the F.A. Cup to go for. They can now write the Champions League out of their wishlist, as they folded with a disturbingly frank submission to the Italians. At no point was the necessary fight and determination on show, with AC Milan (not a team on top of their game in recent years) destroyed the Gunners.
One begins to wonder whether, after years of vain attempts to win trophies, the Arsenal squad of today has acquired a losing mentality. It seems that Wenger's team, like no other in their position, allows the collective head to drop significantly when things go wrong. It's a trend that seems to have begun back in the 2007-08, but let's go back further than that. Their last trophy was the F.A. Cup victory of 2004-05. In the following year, Arsenal were disappointing and finished fourth. However, that seemed somewhat insignificant given that they had reached the Champions League final.
As Arsenal tends to be a younger squad, it's easier to expend effort more harmfully on certain competitions, and I'm of the belief that the core of Arsenal's team had been channeling their energy into resilient European performances. Let's not forget, they had to battle past Real Madrid and Juventus in their run to the final, so the league performance might have suffered as a result. Therefore, a lot of hope was on the shoulders of the Champions League final for that squad, and when they failed they may have set themselves a harmful mentality from then on.
Now, you may argue that most of the players from that season are no longer at the club, but these things have a way of passing on through a team. Just look at United's continued drive for success as an instance. Arsenal's 2006-07 season was more disappointing, as the key members of the invincibles started to leave or turn themselves down a bit. Henry had a much weaker season than usual, and players like Pires, Bergkamp and Campbell had found new pastures. It was a time of transition for Arsenal, and a year without a trophy is never too harmful in these cases, especially considering Wenger managed to maintain the levels of performance well enough to keep the side in the Champions League.
As I said before though, 2007-08 was the breaking point. The squad's youngsters were now beginning to play major roles in the side, and things began working well. Arsenal found themselves in pole position to win the Premier League, but everything came to a shuddering halt late in February. Just a few minutes into Arsenal's game away to Birmingham, the Gunners' rising star Eduardo suffered the most horrendous of leg-breaks, and the Arsenal team couldn't cope. After seeing the traumatic injury, the Arsenal team nearly managed to pull together a victory, going 2-1 up against Birmingham. However, the Blues won a last minute penalty and scored it. One of the most striking things that day was captain William Gallas' reaction. He desolately sprinted to the other side of the field as the penalty was being taken, and reacted with outlandish agony when it was scored. As the senior-most member of the team, that set a terrible example for the rest of the squad - that when things go wrong, you can lose your head.
Although I can't know for sure, I think this is where Arsenal's mentality broke down. If you look at their squad today, there's few players who were brought into the team at their senior years, so there's few outside agents to set a real impression of confidence on the squad. Instead, we have a lot of players who have been through plenty of near-misses in their time, and don't really understand the thrill of winning a major trophy. It was so important for Arsenal to have won that Carling Cup final last year, but another setback only serves to re-emphasise the notion that will be plaguing the youngsters' psychologies - that they can never win.
So is this Arsene's fault, and should he be sacked? In a way, it is his fault. Although you can't blame him for a few of the misfortunes (such as losing the Champions League final to strong opposition, or the trauma of Eduardo's broken leg), he really needed to step in and make a change to the way things were going. He could have done this by buying players with a track record of success as opposed to untrialled youngsters or foreign talents who lacked experience. Either that, or he could have been a better man-manager. I suppose that's easy to just say, but it is important for a manager to be able to pick a squad up from defeat, and Arsenal's main problem seems to be that when something goes wrong, they hit a massive downward spiral that takes months to recover from.
It's true that the squad isn't good enough. Arsenal cries out for more competent defenders and a stronger midfield, but I still believe that the team has more talent than it shows. Certainly with the weapons they have they should not be collapsing to 4-0 and 8-2 defeats, and they certainly shouldn't be reneging on 4-0 leads themselves. Of course Wenger needs to improve the squad if he wants to win trophies, but he also has to change the way that team thinks. Whether he's the man that will ultimately do this, I couldn't possibly say. This is all just how I see things though, and I could be completely wrong.
It's been a running theme for maybe five or six years now, with Arsene Wenger having his job scrutinised with a steady increase of pressure. This year was maybe the worst start he's had to a season since his Arsenal tenure began, with embarrassing defeats to Man United, Blackburn and Tottenham peppering the smiles at the Emirates. However, the resurgence was swift and brutal, with Arsenal going on a run of 8 league wins in 10 games. Robin van Persie found his feet in spectacular fashion, scoring a hatful of goals effortlessly and looking like the world-topping genius he'd always threatened to become.
Now Arsenal are having a period of indifference. Well, I say 'now' - I mean prior to last night (but we'll get to that). A few turgid defeats mixed with a couple of decent wins (including a 7-1)... it's not exactly the form of champions, but over a year their current spell of form probably represents today's 'average Arsenal'. They are inconsistent, unreliable and don't have the solidity required to win trophies.
Then we had last night's horrific defeat in Milan. With the Premier League title out of sight, Arsenal only had this and the F.A. Cup to go for. They can now write the Champions League out of their wishlist, as they folded with a disturbingly frank submission to the Italians. At no point was the necessary fight and determination on show, with AC Milan (not a team on top of their game in recent years) destroyed the Gunners.
One begins to wonder whether, after years of vain attempts to win trophies, the Arsenal squad of today has acquired a losing mentality. It seems that Wenger's team, like no other in their position, allows the collective head to drop significantly when things go wrong. It's a trend that seems to have begun back in the 2007-08, but let's go back further than that. Their last trophy was the F.A. Cup victory of 2004-05. In the following year, Arsenal were disappointing and finished fourth. However, that seemed somewhat insignificant given that they had reached the Champions League final.
As Arsenal tends to be a younger squad, it's easier to expend effort more harmfully on certain competitions, and I'm of the belief that the core of Arsenal's team had been channeling their energy into resilient European performances. Let's not forget, they had to battle past Real Madrid and Juventus in their run to the final, so the league performance might have suffered as a result. Therefore, a lot of hope was on the shoulders of the Champions League final for that squad, and when they failed they may have set themselves a harmful mentality from then on.
Now, you may argue that most of the players from that season are no longer at the club, but these things have a way of passing on through a team. Just look at United's continued drive for success as an instance. Arsenal's 2006-07 season was more disappointing, as the key members of the invincibles started to leave or turn themselves down a bit. Henry had a much weaker season than usual, and players like Pires, Bergkamp and Campbell had found new pastures. It was a time of transition for Arsenal, and a year without a trophy is never too harmful in these cases, especially considering Wenger managed to maintain the levels of performance well enough to keep the side in the Champions League.
As I said before though, 2007-08 was the breaking point. The squad's youngsters were now beginning to play major roles in the side, and things began working well. Arsenal found themselves in pole position to win the Premier League, but everything came to a shuddering halt late in February. Just a few minutes into Arsenal's game away to Birmingham, the Gunners' rising star Eduardo suffered the most horrendous of leg-breaks, and the Arsenal team couldn't cope. After seeing the traumatic injury, the Arsenal team nearly managed to pull together a victory, going 2-1 up against Birmingham. However, the Blues won a last minute penalty and scored it. One of the most striking things that day was captain William Gallas' reaction. He desolately sprinted to the other side of the field as the penalty was being taken, and reacted with outlandish agony when it was scored. As the senior-most member of the team, that set a terrible example for the rest of the squad - that when things go wrong, you can lose your head.
Although I can't know for sure, I think this is where Arsenal's mentality broke down. If you look at their squad today, there's few players who were brought into the team at their senior years, so there's few outside agents to set a real impression of confidence on the squad. Instead, we have a lot of players who have been through plenty of near-misses in their time, and don't really understand the thrill of winning a major trophy. It was so important for Arsenal to have won that Carling Cup final last year, but another setback only serves to re-emphasise the notion that will be plaguing the youngsters' psychologies - that they can never win.
So is this Arsene's fault, and should he be sacked? In a way, it is his fault. Although you can't blame him for a few of the misfortunes (such as losing the Champions League final to strong opposition, or the trauma of Eduardo's broken leg), he really needed to step in and make a change to the way things were going. He could have done this by buying players with a track record of success as opposed to untrialled youngsters or foreign talents who lacked experience. Either that, or he could have been a better man-manager. I suppose that's easy to just say, but it is important for a manager to be able to pick a squad up from defeat, and Arsenal's main problem seems to be that when something goes wrong, they hit a massive downward spiral that takes months to recover from.
It's true that the squad isn't good enough. Arsenal cries out for more competent defenders and a stronger midfield, but I still believe that the team has more talent than it shows. Certainly with the weapons they have they should not be collapsing to 4-0 and 8-2 defeats, and they certainly shouldn't be reneging on 4-0 leads themselves. Of course Wenger needs to improve the squad if he wants to win trophies, but he also has to change the way that team thinks. Whether he's the man that will ultimately do this, I couldn't possibly say. This is all just how I see things though, and I could be completely wrong.
Sunday 12 February 2012
Luising His Head
It's not just a controversy. It's a storm. A whirlwind of terror and rage building up with the two instigators in the middle, infrequently bashing against each other in a spinning cataclysm that sends shockwaves throughout an entranced world. Yesterday a volcano erupted dead in the centre, with a botched handshake, a tunnel spat and an over-zealous celebration just a handful of the outrageous incidents.
It's a real mess of blame and shifted responsibility. It needs somebody reasonable to stretch out the situation like a wet towel, and point out exactly where each of the stains are and who's fault they were. What? Oh, did you just mutter "You should do it then". Well, that's extremely kind of you. I didn't expect that. Well alright then, I'll give it a shot if you really think I can.
Actually, I don't need to. Alan Green did a perfect job of diffusing the situation of 606 earlier, by consistently pressing forward the notion that Suarez had no obligation to shake Evra's hand whilst feigning condemnation of the very same act. He also started claiming that Suarez couldn't be a racist, because he shook the hands of a few other black people, which is akin to saying that Nick Griffin isn't racist because he ate curry once. People rightly came in to criticise Green, and as he began to backtrack on his comments, everyone became so confused about what his point was that I think they actually broke him. At the end he started saying "Oh, it's been a long day at work". It was utterly bizarre radio.
But either way, I don't think the incident is that hard to judge when you look at it. Let's put aside, for one moment, the original incident of racial abuse and whether or not Suarez's alleged comments did actually happen. Ignore that point for one second. Suarez really should have looked at how this whole incident has affected his reputation and the way he is perceived. Regardless of the incessant details of the incident a few months ago, Suarez must have been aware that a failure to shake Evra's hand was going to look tremendously petulant. It was really idiotic. Of course, Suarez has the right not to shake Evra's hand, but if he doesn't then not only is he an idiot, but he opens himself to any racially-charged perceptions people may see in his refusal. Just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean you want be correctly condemned if you do it.
Now this whole incident has led to people questioning the validity of the handshake at the beginning of the football match. I still think it's an important facet of a football game. It's good to have a showing of respect towards your opponent before the game, and it encourages gentlemanly conduct. People may renege on the handshake in severe cases but this is not something that incites a feud, it merely confirms it. Some have suggested that a handshake should take place at the end of the game, but I can't see that becoming a formal part of routine, and I believe this would be even more of a problem on occasions where things got heated on the pitch.
So Suarez not shaking Evra's hand was stupid. Really stupid. And all those people posting images and videos trying to prove Evra was actually the one who rejected the handshake are truly laughable. It's like a mini-faction of conspiracy theorists have infiltrated football, showing highly deceptive images and pointing out minute details whilst ignoring the bigger picture. I'm surprised they're not calling it an inside job, to be honest. Let's be fair though, Evra does seem to be a little hesitant about the handshake, but can you blame him? Suarez supposedly racially abused Evra, it's not as if Patrice is going to give him the firmest of handshakes. Either way, he was not the one who didn't offer his hand.
After a slow half of football came a little bit more anger from Suarez. Clearly riled up about something (I'm not exactly sure what considering it was him who decided not to participate in the handshake - seriously, what was he expecting?) he reacted very badly to a perfectly fair Rio Ferdinand tackle, and violently kicked the ball away in fury as the half-time whistle was blown. Little is known of what followed, but police and stewards were forced to break up a brewing rage in the tunnel. I'm going to go on a whim and say that Suarez and Evra were maybe involved in that, but the post-match comments don't seem to allude to what really happened there, so it's difficult to say. For all we know, it could have been Carroll and Berbatov having a lazy fight where they just exasperatedly pushed each other a bit before going off for a nap...
Thankfully, a football match pushed it's way out of the mud and took a deep breath of the cold wintry air, allowing itself to manifest as a 2-1 victory to Manchester United. It was a worthy result that meant a lot to the United team, but Evra's post-match antics were undoubtedly uncalled for. Though I wouldn't say the incident was of the severity of Suarez's (and almost certainly was instigated by the Uruguayan anyway), clearly Evra's only achievement was to antagonise the situation even further, which was rather reckless of him.
So that was the on-field action and it's tempting to say that had the managers both condemned their players' acts of foolishness and said little more on the incident, a significant amount less would have been made out of the nasty debacle. I use the word 'tempting' because that's almost certainly not true, but it's a nice thought anyway. Instead, Kenny Dalglish and Alex Ferguson both made controversial statements, although it's no doubt who's interview came across worse. King Kenny's interview seemed to be going smoothly enough, but when questioned about the handshake incident, Dalglish denied that he was aware that it happened (which I struggle to believe) and consequently got furious at Geoff Shreeves for blaming Suarez for anything, mumbling something about the fans and then ending the interview.
Alex Ferguson's comments were a little inflammatory as well. He suggested that Liverpool should sell Suarez in what was otherwise a fairly reasonable interview. It was a rash comment maybe, but nothing more than that. I know it seems like I'm condemning Liverpool a lot harder at the moment, but the truth is when you compare these things objectively, there's really little argument to be had. Whilst Ferguson was calm and addressed all the incidents, Dalglish became incandescent as soon as Suarez was in any way condemned. There's little way to justify it in any other light.
However, today's apologies have been more than welcomed. Suarez has issued a statement admitting he 'got things wrong', and Dalglish accepted that he had not 'conducted himself in a way befitting of a Liverpool manager. These apologies, whether they are sincere or not, should be embraced by all fans, especially Liverpool supporters. Yesterday's incidents were an unfortunate mix of anger and bitterness that just happened to rear their ugly heads. They were mistakes, and it's good to see that both Suarez and Dalglish are willing to put their hands up to them. United also released a statement that looked to put a chunky bucket of water over the fire, meaning both clubs are happy to move away from the trouble.
So should Ferguson and Evra apologise? I don't think Ferguson should. Perhaps it would be good form If Evra admitted his celebrations were over-zealous, but I'm not sure it's necessary now. Either way, we have to move on from this tremendous farce. Not only does it not paint a good image of English football, but when other black players see the ridiculous furore that has happened thanks to racial abuse being reported, it will only serve to discourage them from alerting people to when they are racially abused themselves. If this sort of thing is allowed to drag so far in the future, complaining about racial abuse will just be seen as a hassle, followed by a long, unhappy grudge.
Furthermore, the faction of Liverpool supporters that are still showing ardent defence for Suarez need to start considering that their heroes may not just be honorable victims. Whilst the merits of an independent report can be disputed (if you're into that sort of thing), what happened yesterday was plain to see. I'm amazed that some people seem capable of upholding this victimisation view though - really, it's akin to spinning a helicopter in a beach hut, but the best step would be to understand that this was an unpleasant incident that doesn't need to be stretched on any further, and move on.
I haven't helped by talking about it again though.
It's a real mess of blame and shifted responsibility. It needs somebody reasonable to stretch out the situation like a wet towel, and point out exactly where each of the stains are and who's fault they were. What? Oh, did you just mutter "You should do it then". Well, that's extremely kind of you. I didn't expect that. Well alright then, I'll give it a shot if you really think I can.
Actually, I don't need to. Alan Green did a perfect job of diffusing the situation of 606 earlier, by consistently pressing forward the notion that Suarez had no obligation to shake Evra's hand whilst feigning condemnation of the very same act. He also started claiming that Suarez couldn't be a racist, because he shook the hands of a few other black people, which is akin to saying that Nick Griffin isn't racist because he ate curry once. People rightly came in to criticise Green, and as he began to backtrack on his comments, everyone became so confused about what his point was that I think they actually broke him. At the end he started saying "Oh, it's been a long day at work". It was utterly bizarre radio.
But either way, I don't think the incident is that hard to judge when you look at it. Let's put aside, for one moment, the original incident of racial abuse and whether or not Suarez's alleged comments did actually happen. Ignore that point for one second. Suarez really should have looked at how this whole incident has affected his reputation and the way he is perceived. Regardless of the incessant details of the incident a few months ago, Suarez must have been aware that a failure to shake Evra's hand was going to look tremendously petulant. It was really idiotic. Of course, Suarez has the right not to shake Evra's hand, but if he doesn't then not only is he an idiot, but he opens himself to any racially-charged perceptions people may see in his refusal. Just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean you want be correctly condemned if you do it.
Now this whole incident has led to people questioning the validity of the handshake at the beginning of the football match. I still think it's an important facet of a football game. It's good to have a showing of respect towards your opponent before the game, and it encourages gentlemanly conduct. People may renege on the handshake in severe cases but this is not something that incites a feud, it merely confirms it. Some have suggested that a handshake should take place at the end of the game, but I can't see that becoming a formal part of routine, and I believe this would be even more of a problem on occasions where things got heated on the pitch.
So Suarez not shaking Evra's hand was stupid. Really stupid. And all those people posting images and videos trying to prove Evra was actually the one who rejected the handshake are truly laughable. It's like a mini-faction of conspiracy theorists have infiltrated football, showing highly deceptive images and pointing out minute details whilst ignoring the bigger picture. I'm surprised they're not calling it an inside job, to be honest. Let's be fair though, Evra does seem to be a little hesitant about the handshake, but can you blame him? Suarez supposedly racially abused Evra, it's not as if Patrice is going to give him the firmest of handshakes. Either way, he was not the one who didn't offer his hand.
After a slow half of football came a little bit more anger from Suarez. Clearly riled up about something (I'm not exactly sure what considering it was him who decided not to participate in the handshake - seriously, what was he expecting?) he reacted very badly to a perfectly fair Rio Ferdinand tackle, and violently kicked the ball away in fury as the half-time whistle was blown. Little is known of what followed, but police and stewards were forced to break up a brewing rage in the tunnel. I'm going to go on a whim and say that Suarez and Evra were maybe involved in that, but the post-match comments don't seem to allude to what really happened there, so it's difficult to say. For all we know, it could have been Carroll and Berbatov having a lazy fight where they just exasperatedly pushed each other a bit before going off for a nap...
Thankfully, a football match pushed it's way out of the mud and took a deep breath of the cold wintry air, allowing itself to manifest as a 2-1 victory to Manchester United. It was a worthy result that meant a lot to the United team, but Evra's post-match antics were undoubtedly uncalled for. Though I wouldn't say the incident was of the severity of Suarez's (and almost certainly was instigated by the Uruguayan anyway), clearly Evra's only achievement was to antagonise the situation even further, which was rather reckless of him.
So that was the on-field action and it's tempting to say that had the managers both condemned their players' acts of foolishness and said little more on the incident, a significant amount less would have been made out of the nasty debacle. I use the word 'tempting' because that's almost certainly not true, but it's a nice thought anyway. Instead, Kenny Dalglish and Alex Ferguson both made controversial statements, although it's no doubt who's interview came across worse. King Kenny's interview seemed to be going smoothly enough, but when questioned about the handshake incident, Dalglish denied that he was aware that it happened (which I struggle to believe) and consequently got furious at Geoff Shreeves for blaming Suarez for anything, mumbling something about the fans and then ending the interview.
Alex Ferguson's comments were a little inflammatory as well. He suggested that Liverpool should sell Suarez in what was otherwise a fairly reasonable interview. It was a rash comment maybe, but nothing more than that. I know it seems like I'm condemning Liverpool a lot harder at the moment, but the truth is when you compare these things objectively, there's really little argument to be had. Whilst Ferguson was calm and addressed all the incidents, Dalglish became incandescent as soon as Suarez was in any way condemned. There's little way to justify it in any other light.
However, today's apologies have been more than welcomed. Suarez has issued a statement admitting he 'got things wrong', and Dalglish accepted that he had not 'conducted himself in a way befitting of a Liverpool manager. These apologies, whether they are sincere or not, should be embraced by all fans, especially Liverpool supporters. Yesterday's incidents were an unfortunate mix of anger and bitterness that just happened to rear their ugly heads. They were mistakes, and it's good to see that both Suarez and Dalglish are willing to put their hands up to them. United also released a statement that looked to put a chunky bucket of water over the fire, meaning both clubs are happy to move away from the trouble.
So should Ferguson and Evra apologise? I don't think Ferguson should. Perhaps it would be good form If Evra admitted his celebrations were over-zealous, but I'm not sure it's necessary now. Either way, we have to move on from this tremendous farce. Not only does it not paint a good image of English football, but when other black players see the ridiculous furore that has happened thanks to racial abuse being reported, it will only serve to discourage them from alerting people to when they are racially abused themselves. If this sort of thing is allowed to drag so far in the future, complaining about racial abuse will just be seen as a hassle, followed by a long, unhappy grudge.
Furthermore, the faction of Liverpool supporters that are still showing ardent defence for Suarez need to start considering that their heroes may not just be honorable victims. Whilst the merits of an independent report can be disputed (if you're into that sort of thing), what happened yesterday was plain to see. I'm amazed that some people seem capable of upholding this victimisation view though - really, it's akin to spinning a helicopter in a beach hut, but the best step would be to understand that this was an unpleasant incident that doesn't need to be stretched on any further, and move on.
I haven't helped by talking about it again though.
Saturday 11 February 2012
A Clumsy Debate
I'm getting annoyed about the atheism-theism debates. No, not because I have a particularly strong view on one side or the other, but rather because after offering me a few years of intrigue, the arguments on either side have not progressed an inch. When I started to watch and read about the arguments, it seemed pretty fascinating. Both sides had an arsenal of weaponry to fire at each other - some of it very effective, some not so. But a few years on, I've gradually come to the realisation that neither side wants to move on. Neither side can come up with new or interesting thought processes with which to renew the interest in the debate, and as a result the whole thing has stagnated.
When Richard Dawkins released 'The God Delusion' in 2006, the fight arguably reached its very peak. Open discussions on talk shows and news broadcasts outlined the premise of the conflicting views and further writings added fuel to the fire. It became a real hot topic thanks to a bit of a mainstream breakthrough with Dawkins. Since then, books have been published promoting either side, but few people have truly moved discussion beyond where it was left by Dawkins. Often the focus tends now to be on the effect of religion, or where its place in society lies.
This is acceptable if we are happy to conclude that the arguments of God's existence are irreconcilable. Both sides understand each other's position but a fundamental difference, whether that be in the way people consider the arguments or indeed the very nature of the person themselves, keeps them from coming to an agreement. That's fine. However, people won't let the debate lie, and I'm not talking about the budding new philosophers only just entering the debate and therefore understandably wanting to flex their cerebral muscles on the issue.
Thinkers continue to peddle out the old arguments that have persisted for centuries, and became more prominent in recent years, as if they are something new. Both sides are very guilty of this. For theism, there have been recent speakers such as Ray Comfort and William Lane Craig re-inventing the design argument, with analogies that trace the outlines of Paley's watch. Often the cosmological argument pops in there as well, with almost no alterations made whatsoever. This wouldn't be such an issue, but the theories are tremendously antiquated, with the Cosmological argument put forward by Plato and Aquinas, and the design argument peddled by Aquinas (again) and Paley. That's not to say they're wrong, but they do not need to be re-emphasised as if they are new.
Atheists are guilty of this as well. Take perhaps Ricky Gervais (whom I love), or a few of the trendy thinkers in America at the moment. Though you might argue that they don't have to come up with arguments, but rather defend against them, atheists can often push forward the same mantras that are no longer an interesting idea. Things like "There's no evidence" is completely useless in the modern debate, because clearly a believer isn't arguing with the given premise that God leaves notes of his own existence for everyone to see. There are other reasons by which theists argue. The other big favourites include 'The Problem of Evil', which was part of David Hume's work.
There's nothing wrong with discussing old arguments such as the examples mentioned, but often in debates they don't go beyond the initial mention or summation. We could talk all day about the merits of the cosmological arguments or the problem of evil and possibly reach a few interesting ideas, but that rarely seems to happen unless you push this sort of thing to the real thinkers. Often it's pretenders who have a vague knowledge of the debate and reach little more than the conclusion they started with.
So we must decide where we go with the question of God's existence. I'd love there to be fresh new arguments and theories regarding the debate, but as we've had the same ideas reinvented for centuries now, I think a truly breathtaking new argument on the matter will be once in a handful of generations. Instead perhaps we have to consider moving forward from the debate. As inconsiderate and callous as it seems, it is maybe time to agree to disagree. We should analyse religion. We should analyse atheism. We should talk about both viewpoints' place in a society. We should talk about the moral implications, the social implications of both systems. We should talk about what we can learn from religion, and what we can learn from atheism. But with God's existence, it is perhaps time to let the debate rest and, unless anyone can think of something new, accept the merits of either belief.
I want the encouragement now to be for people to pursue more philosophical questions. Whilst this debate is the shop window, there is so much more inside. I don't know how, but it'd be great if people were coerced, through this age-old conflict, to move onto the other issues of morality, metaphysics and epistemology.
When Richard Dawkins released 'The God Delusion' in 2006, the fight arguably reached its very peak. Open discussions on talk shows and news broadcasts outlined the premise of the conflicting views and further writings added fuel to the fire. It became a real hot topic thanks to a bit of a mainstream breakthrough with Dawkins. Since then, books have been published promoting either side, but few people have truly moved discussion beyond where it was left by Dawkins. Often the focus tends now to be on the effect of religion, or where its place in society lies.
This is acceptable if we are happy to conclude that the arguments of God's existence are irreconcilable. Both sides understand each other's position but a fundamental difference, whether that be in the way people consider the arguments or indeed the very nature of the person themselves, keeps them from coming to an agreement. That's fine. However, people won't let the debate lie, and I'm not talking about the budding new philosophers only just entering the debate and therefore understandably wanting to flex their cerebral muscles on the issue.
Thinkers continue to peddle out the old arguments that have persisted for centuries, and became more prominent in recent years, as if they are something new. Both sides are very guilty of this. For theism, there have been recent speakers such as Ray Comfort and William Lane Craig re-inventing the design argument, with analogies that trace the outlines of Paley's watch. Often the cosmological argument pops in there as well, with almost no alterations made whatsoever. This wouldn't be such an issue, but the theories are tremendously antiquated, with the Cosmological argument put forward by Plato and Aquinas, and the design argument peddled by Aquinas (again) and Paley. That's not to say they're wrong, but they do not need to be re-emphasised as if they are new.
Atheists are guilty of this as well. Take perhaps Ricky Gervais (whom I love), or a few of the trendy thinkers in America at the moment. Though you might argue that they don't have to come up with arguments, but rather defend against them, atheists can often push forward the same mantras that are no longer an interesting idea. Things like "There's no evidence" is completely useless in the modern debate, because clearly a believer isn't arguing with the given premise that God leaves notes of his own existence for everyone to see. There are other reasons by which theists argue. The other big favourites include 'The Problem of Evil', which was part of David Hume's work.
There's nothing wrong with discussing old arguments such as the examples mentioned, but often in debates they don't go beyond the initial mention or summation. We could talk all day about the merits of the cosmological arguments or the problem of evil and possibly reach a few interesting ideas, but that rarely seems to happen unless you push this sort of thing to the real thinkers. Often it's pretenders who have a vague knowledge of the debate and reach little more than the conclusion they started with.
So we must decide where we go with the question of God's existence. I'd love there to be fresh new arguments and theories regarding the debate, but as we've had the same ideas reinvented for centuries now, I think a truly breathtaking new argument on the matter will be once in a handful of generations. Instead perhaps we have to consider moving forward from the debate. As inconsiderate and callous as it seems, it is maybe time to agree to disagree. We should analyse religion. We should analyse atheism. We should talk about both viewpoints' place in a society. We should talk about the moral implications, the social implications of both systems. We should talk about what we can learn from religion, and what we can learn from atheism. But with God's existence, it is perhaps time to let the debate rest and, unless anyone can think of something new, accept the merits of either belief.
I want the encouragement now to be for people to pursue more philosophical questions. Whilst this debate is the shop window, there is so much more inside. I don't know how, but it'd be great if people were coerced, through this age-old conflict, to move onto the other issues of morality, metaphysics and epistemology.
Wednesday 8 February 2012
Fab Timing
A clash of two calamitous titans has ended in a break-up. Capello and England. Gaffer and Governer. A love that didn't last.
In truth, this is one of those occasions on which you can see the case from both points of view, as well as accepting the parting of company as inevitable. On the one hand, John Terry's position had become untenable thanks to the ongoing race row between him and Anton Ferdinand. The FA could not allow their national team's primary representative to be somebody who is (allegedly) embroiled in a racism spat.
However, Fabio Capello is the manager, and the man with the reputation. He was the man entrusted to lead the England team to glory, and as a result he should have full control of team duties. When the FA intervened it was an undermining of his position, and Capello clearly felt that he couldn't work under such circumstances. Capello could not allow his position to be belittled in a way that affected a team policy he truly believed him.
It's a sticky one, with no easy answer.
However, as I mentioned in the ominous previous article 'A Growing F.A.rce', this whole mess could have been handled far better by the FA. A major team decision was seemingly executed without Capello being consulted at all. Regardless of how both parties felt about John Terry's captaincy, surely it would have been more desirable and productive for the FA to have held a meeting with Capello prior to any formal announcement regarding Terry. This way, both parties would have maybe been able to find a compromise, and neither would have felt undermined by the other.
I'm not saying Capello would have necessarily stayed if he'd at least been notified of the impending decision, but I can't imagine that a decision being taken without his knowledge particularly aided the situation. It just goes to typify how the FA are hopelessly clumsy when it comes to team and managerial affairs.
But let's look at the flipside of this great implosion. As opposed to what would have been a dreary tournament under an unwanted Capello regime, England now have the chance to do something different and interesting with Euro 2012. If the next permanent national manager is appointed in time for the Championships, they will get an immediate and very useful illustration of the state of the England team in major tournaments. The side needs fixing and, without wanting to sound agonisingly pessimistic, what better way to get started than by a demonstration of where the team is broken, with every crack and fracture under the microscopically stringent examination of a major tournament?
It's an opportunity alright, but the constant stone in my stomach regards the people who will be making the managerial choice, given their track record. The pressure is on for them to pick Harry Redknapp, and I think this pick would have both strengths and weaknesses. Harry is undoubtedly the most suitable man for the job when considering the team's immediate future, but beyond that it becomes a fuzzier picture. After all, Redknapp is 64, and that's an age most managers will struggle to reach whilst still in the prime of their careers. That said, if Redknapp can have a positive influence on building the team, and maybe hang around for three or four tournaments, then he could make a massive difference in England's future.
There's no guarantee that it will be Redknapp though, despite the enormous support he is receiving. The FA like to keep a clean image, and tend to steer clear of any troubled figures when it comes to the managerial position (though clearly not when it comes to the actual team). They famously turned their heads away from Brian Clough, despite him undeniably being highly competent and the most capable hands with which the job could fall into. Redknapp was only today cleared of tax evasion, but the lingering air of dodginess hangs around him like a crazy love-fuelled dog. The FA might want to go for a 'safer' option.
The only issue with that is, there are no candidates who tick both the 'clean track record' and 'capable' boxes. If the FA really does go for a 'safer' option, then they will have once again shown their own ability in running the national team (that was meant in a bad way... just so you sort of got the tone of that sentence). However, I'm not going to castrate them for something they haven't done yet.
What I will say is if that stupid excuse goes through their gawking skulls, perhaps it may be worth giving Stuart Pearce a run-out for Euro 2012 (and by that I mean as a manager, not a player). After all, Pearce is almost guaranteed the England hot-seat at some point in the future. Why not allow him a little lick of the big tournaments now, whilst we've got this chance to do so? The worst that can happen is that he does badly, which in the greater scheme of things isn't that tragic. If he does well on the other hand, we then have a young and talented manager that can see England into the distant future.
Well, these are all ideas anyway. What really does happen will depend on the very minds that brought you Steve McClaren, so let's not get carried away just yet. Although this whole debacle has come out of race rows, mismanagement and just general shoddiness, the little rays of light are beginning to shine through again. Here's to a hopeful future for England.
In truth, this is one of those occasions on which you can see the case from both points of view, as well as accepting the parting of company as inevitable. On the one hand, John Terry's position had become untenable thanks to the ongoing race row between him and Anton Ferdinand. The FA could not allow their national team's primary representative to be somebody who is (allegedly) embroiled in a racism spat.
However, Fabio Capello is the manager, and the man with the reputation. He was the man entrusted to lead the England team to glory, and as a result he should have full control of team duties. When the FA intervened it was an undermining of his position, and Capello clearly felt that he couldn't work under such circumstances. Capello could not allow his position to be belittled in a way that affected a team policy he truly believed him.
It's a sticky one, with no easy answer.
However, as I mentioned in the ominous previous article 'A Growing F.A.rce', this whole mess could have been handled far better by the FA. A major team decision was seemingly executed without Capello being consulted at all. Regardless of how both parties felt about John Terry's captaincy, surely it would have been more desirable and productive for the FA to have held a meeting with Capello prior to any formal announcement regarding Terry. This way, both parties would have maybe been able to find a compromise, and neither would have felt undermined by the other.
I'm not saying Capello would have necessarily stayed if he'd at least been notified of the impending decision, but I can't imagine that a decision being taken without his knowledge particularly aided the situation. It just goes to typify how the FA are hopelessly clumsy when it comes to team and managerial affairs.
But let's look at the flipside of this great implosion. As opposed to what would have been a dreary tournament under an unwanted Capello regime, England now have the chance to do something different and interesting with Euro 2012. If the next permanent national manager is appointed in time for the Championships, they will get an immediate and very useful illustration of the state of the England team in major tournaments. The side needs fixing and, without wanting to sound agonisingly pessimistic, what better way to get started than by a demonstration of where the team is broken, with every crack and fracture under the microscopically stringent examination of a major tournament?
It's an opportunity alright, but the constant stone in my stomach regards the people who will be making the managerial choice, given their track record. The pressure is on for them to pick Harry Redknapp, and I think this pick would have both strengths and weaknesses. Harry is undoubtedly the most suitable man for the job when considering the team's immediate future, but beyond that it becomes a fuzzier picture. After all, Redknapp is 64, and that's an age most managers will struggle to reach whilst still in the prime of their careers. That said, if Redknapp can have a positive influence on building the team, and maybe hang around for three or four tournaments, then he could make a massive difference in England's future.
There's no guarantee that it will be Redknapp though, despite the enormous support he is receiving. The FA like to keep a clean image, and tend to steer clear of any troubled figures when it comes to the managerial position (though clearly not when it comes to the actual team). They famously turned their heads away from Brian Clough, despite him undeniably being highly competent and the most capable hands with which the job could fall into. Redknapp was only today cleared of tax evasion, but the lingering air of dodginess hangs around him like a crazy love-fuelled dog. The FA might want to go for a 'safer' option.
The only issue with that is, there are no candidates who tick both the 'clean track record' and 'capable' boxes. If the FA really does go for a 'safer' option, then they will have once again shown their own ability in running the national team (that was meant in a bad way... just so you sort of got the tone of that sentence). However, I'm not going to castrate them for something they haven't done yet.
What I will say is if that stupid excuse goes through their gawking skulls, perhaps it may be worth giving Stuart Pearce a run-out for Euro 2012 (and by that I mean as a manager, not a player). After all, Pearce is almost guaranteed the England hot-seat at some point in the future. Why not allow him a little lick of the big tournaments now, whilst we've got this chance to do so? The worst that can happen is that he does badly, which in the greater scheme of things isn't that tragic. If he does well on the other hand, we then have a young and talented manager that can see England into the distant future.
Well, these are all ideas anyway. What really does happen will depend on the very minds that brought you Steve McClaren, so let's not get carried away just yet. Although this whole debacle has come out of race rows, mismanagement and just general shoddiness, the little rays of light are beginning to shine through again. Here's to a hopeful future for England.
Monday 6 February 2012
A Growing F.A.rce
How does a stuttering shambles turn into a complete circus act? Just consult the England National football team, which has gone from being a rusted piece of heavy machinery to a complete trainwreck. The past week has not only re-emphasised a consistently failing organisation, but cast a new light upon the utter ridiculousness embodied in this turgid mess.
It was following much pressure that John Terry was alleviated from his captain duties last week. Whether or not you agree with this decision is beside the point though; what followed is a striking example of the miscommunication and chaotic management the England team suffers from. Fuzzy puppet Fabio Capello admitted he wasn’t consulted on Terry’s dismissal, nor did he agree with the decision. The FA today bit back by saying that with his words, Capello had committed an act that was in conflict with a contractual agreement. Even the coalition government radiates solidarity more effectively than this.
It’s difficult to understand why, given how drawn out the John Terry incident has become, the FA were not able to consult Capello on this matter before making a decision. Even if Capello had disagreed with the actions, this would have given both sides a chance to explain their position before showing a united front in the public. Instead, we now have the England manager saying that there are team decisions being made with which he is not entirely happy. How a governing body can allow this to happen truly boggles the mind.
The FA have illustrated for a long time that their ability to control the national football team is poor. Of course, the most visceral judgement we’ll make regarding this is our performance in the major tournaments, and over a long period of time this is a fair way of analysing their performance, but of course some managers just don’t fit and sometimes tournaments just don’t go your way. It has to be said though, their managerial choices are rushed and appear to be a constant bow to public pressure, but this isn’t the main issue as to why the FA is failing.
The largest problem is the stunning lack of foresight the FA has when making any sort of decision regarding the manager or the direction of the football team in general. For example, they fell for Capello’s trick to swindle a contract extension out of them before the World Cup. All Capello had to do was drum up some rumours about the possibility he would move, and the FA would gleefully bend over backwards to keep him at the helm. I’m not saying he did do that. Of course, I wouldn’t be allowed to say that. But either way, that extension probably made it financially impossible for Capello to be sacked straight after the World Cup, putting him in a position where there was no pressure to perform (clearly).
But even that doesn’t quite illustrate how poor the FA’s planning is. To try and explain my point, I have to really talk about the last 10 years of England’s history. During that time, we’ve had three different managers. When cuddly Swedish man Sven Goran-Eriksson was in charge, he kept the first eleven pretty much the same throughout his reign, with minor changes when players either retired or new young starlets burst onto the scene. As a man manager and tactician Sven was probably about average, but his focus and consistency with team selections allowed the team to perform moderately well.
It was during this time when England looked the most likely to win a tournament. After looking quite strong, we lost to Brazil at the World Cup 2002, who went on to win it. We then lost on the dreaded penalties to Portugal in Euro 2004, again after playing some decent football. In 2006 however, Sven’s preferred eleven was starting to look older and Sven himself had become embroiled in scandal. It was at this point the England team started to fall apart, and after a muted performance at the 2006 World Cup the team desperately needed a new direction. Sven was removed, and this was going to be a crucial appointment for the FA to make.
The FA went for bewildered ombrophobe Steve McClaren, who is unfortunately one of the most notorious disaster stories in English management history. It was a massive mistake to appoint somebody who had been a part of Sven’s management team, as this meant McClaren had taken a lot of influence from the Swede and maybe felt pressured to keep using the players that had been so integral in the previous years. As it was, McClaren employed the same ideas that had started to fail for Sven, and the deterioration of the England team this time was so dramatic, McClaren failed to even qualify for the European Championships.
This whole episode was more damaging than you might think. Not only had England embarrassingly failed to qualify for a major tournament, but the development of a team for the World Cup 2010 had been set back two years whilst McClaren fumblingly shuffled the old players around trying to find the best formula. What would have been more useful is if somebody younger, untouched by the old reign and with undeniable potential had taken the job, and had been told by the FA that they should use the Euro 2008 qualifiers as an opportunity to get a team playing well together. That way, England would have optimised their potential for the World Cup 2010, which to almost everyone, is the more important competition and should therefore be prioritised.
It may seem a bit rash, but there’s a lot to be said for team chemistry. You may think it’s a little ineffectual, but when you look at the major successes in international football, you usually find that those players have played in a similar eleven for a long time and have built up an understanding with each other. Just take Spain. That team has a core of players that know each other inside-out, and as a result Spain are one of the most flowing and competent teams on the planet.
England just never get the opportunity to make that fresh start though. We are far too preoccupied with the tournament at hand, that we never anticipate anything beyond it. Let’s be frank – we won’t win Euro 2012. We knew that from the moment our qualifying campaign started. So with this in mind, why didn’t we use this experience as an opportunity to plant the seeds of a new young side that would have to potential to challenge for future World Cups? Sure, we might not have qualified for Euro 2012, but so what? If it’s a team of youngsters learning the ropes the hard way, then we’d be all the better for it in the end.
So anyway, back to bashing the FA. Following the catastrophe that was Steve McClaren’s tenure, the FA decided they would give the national team a different approach and appointed Fabio Capello. This was a good idea, but they made the mistake of employing someone who was already 61, and therefore unlikely to see the team past a couple of tournaments. This also meant that Capello wanted to achieve results straight away, so once again we had a team of players who were hanging over from the last generation so we could achieve more comfortable victories in the qualifiers. The benefits weren’t felt though, as England once again whimpered out of the World Cup and the FA sheepishly tied up Capello’s contract for what would be two more wasted years.
Now we reach today, and what we see is an unmitigated disaster. Not only is the team struggling, but we now have the manager at odds with the FA. A precedent has now been set that the FA can make petty decisions regarding things such as captaincy. And finally, the most likely candidate for the England job once Capello has finished is facing a possible prison sentence. It’s a remarkable mess, and one I fear will only grow unless the FA mark out England’s intentions as a football team and make a decision that will pay dividends, perhaps not immediately, but over time.
Thursday 2 February 2012
Turn of the Bent-ury
The 100 club, and who will be next?
Yesterday, Aston Villa striker Darren Bent slammed home a goal that sealed his place in the Premier League's 100 club. This is to say that Bent has scored 100 goals in England's top flight, stretching from his time at the club of his youth Ipswich Town to where his current trials and tribulations take place at Villa Park. It's an honour which puts him up there with the very cream of the crop; the likes of Alan Shearer, Thierry Henry and Emile Heskey.
I know there will be a few people who are angrily slamming their fists onto the screen with rage as I neglect to mention that I only speak of the Premier League (post '92). But to be honest, I care very little. The divide works to seperate one generation from the next quite neatly, and Darren Bent happens to have been one of the league's most prolific goalscorers in the last couple of decades. Though in the truly deep and vast history of football he paints himself as a minor figure, he has earned his place in our recognition through a consistent and natural ability to find the back of the net for every club he's played for, and in many situations.
Bent is perhaps one of the less extravagant names in the '100 Club', which now has 21 members. However, no-one can deny his importance to the teams he's been a part of (with Tottenham perhaps as an exception). He was the leading goalscorer for Charlton Athletic in both the season he spent there, he managed a terrific 24 goals for Sunderland in the 2008-09 season, and continues to score regularly now for Aston Villa. In his first calender year at the club, Bent has managed 18 goals in 35 appearances in the league, keeping his tally of strikes almost perfectly within the '1 goal every 2 games' rule for a great forward.
So Bent has found his place in this elusive club. But who will be next? Let's have a look at who might be joining him in the future...
Didier Drogba - Goals: 99
The Ivorian striker is just one goal away from reaching the 100 club (or possibly two, depending on which sources you trust). It's somewhat surprising the powerful striker hasn't already surpassed the landmark, given he is completely unplayable when he's at his best. By far his most potent season was the 2009-10 campaign, in which his 29 goals helped Chelsea become the first Premier League team to score more than 100 goals in one season. Though he can be a quite unlikable chap at times, Drogba is strong, athletic and knows how to find the back of the net. Though it seemed possible he would leave Chelsea in January, he stayed and with Torres firing blanks, I expect Drogba to get his chance in the team again and finally cross that beautiful century-line.
Chances: Very likely
Yakubu Aiyegbeni - Goals: 91
"Feed the Yak and he will score". 91 times, this has been true, and if the Yak gets fed the right sort of food (passes) another 9 times he will be a very happy Yak... actually, I'm going to abandon this metaphor. If Drogba misses out on the opportunity to become the first African to score 100 Premier League goals, then there's every chance Yakubu will take his place. Having astonishingly never broken into a run during his time on any football pitch, Yakubu's casual manner still yields him goals. He always seems to be in the right place at the right time, and as a finisher he's a cool as the weather right now. After being given his English breakthrough at Portsmouth, Yakubu went on to have fruitful spells at both Middlesbrough and Everton. Everton started to give up on him though, and it looked like his career in English football was grinding to a halt. However, Steve Kean gave him a chance to shine at Blackburn, and shine he certainly did. Yakubu is still only 29, and if Rovers can keep themselves in the Premier League, the Yak should find himself in the 100 club soon enough.
Chances: Likely.
Steven Gerrard - Goals: 86
A true midfield master if ever there was one, Gerrard has surprisingly not broken the tally of 100 Premier League goals just yet. He has managed to score in every season since the 1999-2000 in which he established himself as a fundamental cog in the Liverpool machinery. Notably, Gerrard has hit a great number of absolute screamers, with one of the best being his crashing volley against Middlesbrough and annoyingly all the other ones I wanted to mention being in different competitions. However, injuries have certainly hampered Gerrard in his goalscoring plights; especially this recent ailment that set Gerrard back almost an entire year. He's still on a battle to regain full fitness, but with the signs that he's on his way back, you'd expect the 31-year old to find an extra handful of goals before his years are up.
Chances: Likely
Robin van Persie - Goals: 85
Currently considered one of the best players in the world, Robin van Persie is only 15 strikes away from earning his much-deserved place in the Premier League 100 club. Few people have ever had their doubts about van Persie's ability. He is technically brilliant and is capable of inch-perfect finishing. However, van Persie has suffered through glass-ankle syndrome time and time again, with every season looking to be his big one before a stifling and irritating injury sets everything back once again. However, this has not happened in the current campaign, and van Persie is revelling in the opportunity with 19 goals already to his name, making this the most prolific season he's had at Arsenal. It's not impossible that van Persie could reach that mark this season, but the likelihood is that we'll see van Persie join the 100 club in the next title race. The only thing that might stop him is if he moves abroad.
Chances: Very likely.
Louis Saha - Goals: 82
Louis Saha has been like a constant drone. He's always there, making stuff happen, but because your so used to his consistency and subtlety you forget he's there. Saha has always had a few goals in him, no matter where he played and what state he was in. He had a brief spell at Newcastle, but his major Premier League introduction was with newly-promoted Fulham, where he made a huge impression and was quickly snapped up by Manchester United. There, he played the role of a reliable alternative to the likes of Ruud van Nistelrooy and Wayne Rooney, plugging away with a fistful of goals every season. Eventually, he was offered a more regular role at Everton which he settled into with immediacy. Despite still being somewhat useful to the club over the past couple of seasons, Saha was dropped for the most part during this campaign until Tottenham gave him a new lease of life with a 6-month contract. Saha is 33, so it seems unlikely he will get many more opportunities in the Premier League. However, if he can impress with this final chance, then maybe he will just grind out the final 18 goals to put him in the 100 club.
Chances: Fairly slim
Craig Bellamy - Goals: 78
He may be a mouthy Welshman, but there's little doubt Bellamy is an extremely talented footballer. One of the most striking performances I can remember from Bellamy was when he tore the Portsmouth defence apart twice in a 2-2 draw during his Blackburn days. Throughout that game his pace, dribbling and technique were a persistent menace, and Bellamy has always possessed this. He's had spells at plenty of different clubs and spent some time out of the league, which may have hindered his chances to join the 100 club. He's now 32, but playing for Liverpool does a lot to convince us that he could still make it to the landmark with a bit of luck. Given he is employed more as a winger these days, though, it seems unlikely.
Chances: Slim
Dimitar Berbatov - Goals: 76
Noted for what some might call a 'lazy' style of play, Berbatov can be absolutely ruthless in the right circumstances. He is so unreliable that you wouldn't trust him to look after a goldfish, but if Berbatov is in the mood then he will score goals like his life depends on it. Having spent a long time in the Bundesliga, Berbatov made his move to Tottenham at the start of the 2006-07 season. He was an instant hit, scoring plenty of goals and oozing class. When he made his big-money move to Manchester United, expectations were high and Berbatov was under a lot of pressure to deliver. In truth, he has never really looked like the £32.5m man United hoped for, but there have been moments of pure genius from Berbatov. He scored a spectacular overhead kick against Liverpool and found the back of the net five times against Blackburn in one match, but still Dimitar is considered back-up for the likes of Rooney, Welbeck and Hernandez. It may be that Berbatov requires a move away from United to break the 100 mark, but it's certainly possible that he will achieve this.
Chances: Possible.
Emmanuel Adebayor - Goals: 69
Nobody had batted an eyelid at Adebayor in his first two seasons of English football. A relatively modest start to his life at Arsenal was then suddenly shattered by a remarkable year in which the Togolese striker found the back of the net 24 times in the league. This really introduced the Adebayor we know today as a confident, strong and enigmatic figure that can guarantee goals and perhaps controversy. After his time at Arsenal, Adebayor spearheaded the rise of Manchester City with consistent performances and goals. One of the most iconic moments of this time was when Adebayor, in a rush of blood to the head that must have lasted nearly a full minute, decided to run the length of the pitch to the Arsenal fans having scored against his former club, angering the Gunner-faithful. It typifies him though, and perhaps the biggest threat to Adebayor's chances of joining the 100 club is him falling out with a manager and moving abroad. However, he's still only 27 and has plenty of chance to make up the numbers.
Chances: Likely
Fernando Torres - Goals: 68
What can you say about Torres at the moment? His dramatic decline in form is bizarre, and the source of it is practically unidentifiable. Torres went from being an imposing figure that defences feared, to a downtrodden man who was a magnet for ridicule. After three seasons at Liverpool in which he lit up Anfield, Torres was then emasculated by his Spanish strike-partner David Villa at the World Cup, who determinedly outshone Torres. Following this, Torres had changed. It's hard to say why, but clearly after that World Cup Torres was not the same man. His big move to Chelsea six months later did nothing to re-invigorate the Spaniard and he continues to find goalscoring a frustratingly elusive task. If Torres can regain his old form, there's little doubt he will reach 100 goals in the Premier League. However, this strange patch of form has gone on long enough to suggest that the old Torres may be dead.
Chances: Possible.
Gabriel Agbonlahor - Goals: 53
Agbonlahor gets in this list purely on his relative youth, his consistent goalscoring record and the fact that this brings the list up to ten, which is, y'know, a nice round number. Despite a disappointing blot on his otherwise impressive tally last season, Agbonlahor is a very complete striker and has a range of abilities that help him to find the back of the net as well as contribute effectively to the team. Examples of this include the perfect hat-trick (left foot, right foot, header) which Agbonlahor scored against Manchester City a few seasons ago, his equally good record of assists and his versatility which allows him to play as a winger. Up until last year, Agbonlahor was regularly putting his seasons' goals up into double figures, and as he's still only 25, it's difficult to see how Agbonlahor will miss the opportunity of becoming a member of the 100 club.
Chances: Likely.
Yesterday, Aston Villa striker Darren Bent slammed home a goal that sealed his place in the Premier League's 100 club. This is to say that Bent has scored 100 goals in England's top flight, stretching from his time at the club of his youth Ipswich Town to where his current trials and tribulations take place at Villa Park. It's an honour which puts him up there with the very cream of the crop; the likes of Alan Shearer, Thierry Henry and Emile Heskey.
I know there will be a few people who are angrily slamming their fists onto the screen with rage as I neglect to mention that I only speak of the Premier League (post '92). But to be honest, I care very little. The divide works to seperate one generation from the next quite neatly, and Darren Bent happens to have been one of the league's most prolific goalscorers in the last couple of decades. Though in the truly deep and vast history of football he paints himself as a minor figure, he has earned his place in our recognition through a consistent and natural ability to find the back of the net for every club he's played for, and in many situations.
Bent is perhaps one of the less extravagant names in the '100 Club', which now has 21 members. However, no-one can deny his importance to the teams he's been a part of (with Tottenham perhaps as an exception). He was the leading goalscorer for Charlton Athletic in both the season he spent there, he managed a terrific 24 goals for Sunderland in the 2008-09 season, and continues to score regularly now for Aston Villa. In his first calender year at the club, Bent has managed 18 goals in 35 appearances in the league, keeping his tally of strikes almost perfectly within the '1 goal every 2 games' rule for a great forward.
So Bent has found his place in this elusive club. But who will be next? Let's have a look at who might be joining him in the future...
Didier Drogba - Goals: 99
The Ivorian striker is just one goal away from reaching the 100 club (or possibly two, depending on which sources you trust). It's somewhat surprising the powerful striker hasn't already surpassed the landmark, given he is completely unplayable when he's at his best. By far his most potent season was the 2009-10 campaign, in which his 29 goals helped Chelsea become the first Premier League team to score more than 100 goals in one season. Though he can be a quite unlikable chap at times, Drogba is strong, athletic and knows how to find the back of the net. Though it seemed possible he would leave Chelsea in January, he stayed and with Torres firing blanks, I expect Drogba to get his chance in the team again and finally cross that beautiful century-line.
Chances: Very likely
Yakubu Aiyegbeni - Goals: 91
"Feed the Yak and he will score". 91 times, this has been true, and if the Yak gets fed the right sort of food (passes) another 9 times he will be a very happy Yak... actually, I'm going to abandon this metaphor. If Drogba misses out on the opportunity to become the first African to score 100 Premier League goals, then there's every chance Yakubu will take his place. Having astonishingly never broken into a run during his time on any football pitch, Yakubu's casual manner still yields him goals. He always seems to be in the right place at the right time, and as a finisher he's a cool as the weather right now. After being given his English breakthrough at Portsmouth, Yakubu went on to have fruitful spells at both Middlesbrough and Everton. Everton started to give up on him though, and it looked like his career in English football was grinding to a halt. However, Steve Kean gave him a chance to shine at Blackburn, and shine he certainly did. Yakubu is still only 29, and if Rovers can keep themselves in the Premier League, the Yak should find himself in the 100 club soon enough.
Chances: Likely.
Steven Gerrard - Goals: 86
A true midfield master if ever there was one, Gerrard has surprisingly not broken the tally of 100 Premier League goals just yet. He has managed to score in every season since the 1999-2000 in which he established himself as a fundamental cog in the Liverpool machinery. Notably, Gerrard has hit a great number of absolute screamers, with one of the best being his crashing volley against Middlesbrough and annoyingly all the other ones I wanted to mention being in different competitions. However, injuries have certainly hampered Gerrard in his goalscoring plights; especially this recent ailment that set Gerrard back almost an entire year. He's still on a battle to regain full fitness, but with the signs that he's on his way back, you'd expect the 31-year old to find an extra handful of goals before his years are up.
Chances: Likely
Robin van Persie - Goals: 85
Currently considered one of the best players in the world, Robin van Persie is only 15 strikes away from earning his much-deserved place in the Premier League 100 club. Few people have ever had their doubts about van Persie's ability. He is technically brilliant and is capable of inch-perfect finishing. However, van Persie has suffered through glass-ankle syndrome time and time again, with every season looking to be his big one before a stifling and irritating injury sets everything back once again. However, this has not happened in the current campaign, and van Persie is revelling in the opportunity with 19 goals already to his name, making this the most prolific season he's had at Arsenal. It's not impossible that van Persie could reach that mark this season, but the likelihood is that we'll see van Persie join the 100 club in the next title race. The only thing that might stop him is if he moves abroad.
Chances: Very likely.
Louis Saha - Goals: 82
Louis Saha has been like a constant drone. He's always there, making stuff happen, but because your so used to his consistency and subtlety you forget he's there. Saha has always had a few goals in him, no matter where he played and what state he was in. He had a brief spell at Newcastle, but his major Premier League introduction was with newly-promoted Fulham, where he made a huge impression and was quickly snapped up by Manchester United. There, he played the role of a reliable alternative to the likes of Ruud van Nistelrooy and Wayne Rooney, plugging away with a fistful of goals every season. Eventually, he was offered a more regular role at Everton which he settled into with immediacy. Despite still being somewhat useful to the club over the past couple of seasons, Saha was dropped for the most part during this campaign until Tottenham gave him a new lease of life with a 6-month contract. Saha is 33, so it seems unlikely he will get many more opportunities in the Premier League. However, if he can impress with this final chance, then maybe he will just grind out the final 18 goals to put him in the 100 club.
Chances: Fairly slim
Craig Bellamy - Goals: 78
He may be a mouthy Welshman, but there's little doubt Bellamy is an extremely talented footballer. One of the most striking performances I can remember from Bellamy was when he tore the Portsmouth defence apart twice in a 2-2 draw during his Blackburn days. Throughout that game his pace, dribbling and technique were a persistent menace, and Bellamy has always possessed this. He's had spells at plenty of different clubs and spent some time out of the league, which may have hindered his chances to join the 100 club. He's now 32, but playing for Liverpool does a lot to convince us that he could still make it to the landmark with a bit of luck. Given he is employed more as a winger these days, though, it seems unlikely.
Chances: Slim
Dimitar Berbatov - Goals: 76
Noted for what some might call a 'lazy' style of play, Berbatov can be absolutely ruthless in the right circumstances. He is so unreliable that you wouldn't trust him to look after a goldfish, but if Berbatov is in the mood then he will score goals like his life depends on it. Having spent a long time in the Bundesliga, Berbatov made his move to Tottenham at the start of the 2006-07 season. He was an instant hit, scoring plenty of goals and oozing class. When he made his big-money move to Manchester United, expectations were high and Berbatov was under a lot of pressure to deliver. In truth, he has never really looked like the £32.5m man United hoped for, but there have been moments of pure genius from Berbatov. He scored a spectacular overhead kick against Liverpool and found the back of the net five times against Blackburn in one match, but still Dimitar is considered back-up for the likes of Rooney, Welbeck and Hernandez. It may be that Berbatov requires a move away from United to break the 100 mark, but it's certainly possible that he will achieve this.
Chances: Possible.
Emmanuel Adebayor - Goals: 69
Nobody had batted an eyelid at Adebayor in his first two seasons of English football. A relatively modest start to his life at Arsenal was then suddenly shattered by a remarkable year in which the Togolese striker found the back of the net 24 times in the league. This really introduced the Adebayor we know today as a confident, strong and enigmatic figure that can guarantee goals and perhaps controversy. After his time at Arsenal, Adebayor spearheaded the rise of Manchester City with consistent performances and goals. One of the most iconic moments of this time was when Adebayor, in a rush of blood to the head that must have lasted nearly a full minute, decided to run the length of the pitch to the Arsenal fans having scored against his former club, angering the Gunner-faithful. It typifies him though, and perhaps the biggest threat to Adebayor's chances of joining the 100 club is him falling out with a manager and moving abroad. However, he's still only 27 and has plenty of chance to make up the numbers.
Chances: Likely
Fernando Torres - Goals: 68
What can you say about Torres at the moment? His dramatic decline in form is bizarre, and the source of it is practically unidentifiable. Torres went from being an imposing figure that defences feared, to a downtrodden man who was a magnet for ridicule. After three seasons at Liverpool in which he lit up Anfield, Torres was then emasculated by his Spanish strike-partner David Villa at the World Cup, who determinedly outshone Torres. Following this, Torres had changed. It's hard to say why, but clearly after that World Cup Torres was not the same man. His big move to Chelsea six months later did nothing to re-invigorate the Spaniard and he continues to find goalscoring a frustratingly elusive task. If Torres can regain his old form, there's little doubt he will reach 100 goals in the Premier League. However, this strange patch of form has gone on long enough to suggest that the old Torres may be dead.
Chances: Possible.
Gabriel Agbonlahor - Goals: 53
Agbonlahor gets in this list purely on his relative youth, his consistent goalscoring record and the fact that this brings the list up to ten, which is, y'know, a nice round number. Despite a disappointing blot on his otherwise impressive tally last season, Agbonlahor is a very complete striker and has a range of abilities that help him to find the back of the net as well as contribute effectively to the team. Examples of this include the perfect hat-trick (left foot, right foot, header) which Agbonlahor scored against Manchester City a few seasons ago, his equally good record of assists and his versatility which allows him to play as a winger. Up until last year, Agbonlahor was regularly putting his seasons' goals up into double figures, and as he's still only 25, it's difficult to see how Agbonlahor will miss the opportunity of becoming a member of the 100 club.
Chances: Likely.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)