It's way, way too early to get too excited - especially with the wins coming over a newly-promoted Derby, a nearly-relegated West Ham, and a United team that was merely missing its two best players. But nine points from three games - and no goals allowed yet - is a pretty exciting start to the season, especially leaving City as it does alone in first, two points clear of Chelsea. The new players seem to be fitting together pretty well, and Schmeichel is performing capably, though of course the real star is Micah Richards, as anyone could have predicted.
The next three games will tell the story: at Arsenal, at Bristol City in the Carling Cup, at Blackburn. City rarely beat Arsenal, never beat Blackburn, and have struggled in the Carling recently, bowing out to much lesser opposition than Bristol, a Championship team, in each of the last two seasons. If City can get through September with no more than one loss - and the post-Blackburn games are Aston Villa, at Fulham, and Newcastle, so the possibility exists - then I may start getting very excited. For now it's just nice to see a fast start - of course, 2005/06 started similarly - D-W-W-W-D, the last draw an inspiring hold at Old Trafford - and then collapsed following the debacle at Doncaster. Fingers crossed that Sven doesn't repeat the same freefall to 15th in the table that that team had. (I'm guessing not, if only because of the available funds that didn't exist in 2005.)
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Monday, August 13, 2007
A whole new ball game
West Ham 0-2 Man City
I didn't see the game and I haven't gotten to see the highlights either, on account of the MCFCTV.com site being down for a month while it updates something or other. I did read the recap, though, the prevailing theme of which appears to be this:
"Man City looked pretty good for a team that has only just come together, but it might just have been that West Ham were terrible."
Looking at the box score was strange; it's almost like I pull for a totally different club now. Just five starters on Saturday saw any time for City last year - Dunne, Johnson, Hamann, Ireland, and Richards - and only two more on the bench (including reserve keeper Joe Hart, who got fully one start last year). Both goals were scored by new boys.
I'm still not sure what to make of it. It's one thing to have your club sign a couple new players, but we're talking a very significant overhaul, and the removal or displacement of a lot of names I knew - Vassell and Samaras, for instance, or recent departures like Sylvain Distin - has made it almost difficult to recognize the club as City. (The irony of a fairly recent fan saying this is palpable, I'm sure, but I feel it nonetheless.) It's kind of stupid, of course, because last year's side was almost unendingly pathetic, scoring just ten goals at home and relying on its defense to stay out of the Championship. The year before that, while it started promising, finished no better. So surely it's not that I'm nostalgic. Maybe I'm just baffled at seeing a team I like actually go for it - it's almost like the Cubs this year, though they're easier to recognize because I already knew who Alfonso Soriano and Ted Lilly were, and also because the turnover was not nearly as thorough. I'll watch as many games this year as I reasonably can, and the highlights when available, and get to know this new side, and hopefully things will progress towards Europe over the next couple seasons as Shinawatra's goal is stated. But for now... it's still going to take some getting used to.
I didn't see the game and I haven't gotten to see the highlights either, on account of the MCFCTV.com site being down for a month while it updates something or other. I did read the recap, though, the prevailing theme of which appears to be this:
"Man City looked pretty good for a team that has only just come together, but it might just have been that West Ham were terrible."
Looking at the box score was strange; it's almost like I pull for a totally different club now. Just five starters on Saturday saw any time for City last year - Dunne, Johnson, Hamann, Ireland, and Richards - and only two more on the bench (including reserve keeper Joe Hart, who got fully one start last year). Both goals were scored by new boys.
I'm still not sure what to make of it. It's one thing to have your club sign a couple new players, but we're talking a very significant overhaul, and the removal or displacement of a lot of names I knew - Vassell and Samaras, for instance, or recent departures like Sylvain Distin - has made it almost difficult to recognize the club as City. (The irony of a fairly recent fan saying this is palpable, I'm sure, but I feel it nonetheless.) It's kind of stupid, of course, because last year's side was almost unendingly pathetic, scoring just ten goals at home and relying on its defense to stay out of the Championship. The year before that, while it started promising, finished no better. So surely it's not that I'm nostalgic. Maybe I'm just baffled at seeing a team I like actually go for it - it's almost like the Cubs this year, though they're easier to recognize because I already knew who Alfonso Soriano and Ted Lilly were, and also because the turnover was not nearly as thorough. I'll watch as many games this year as I reasonably can, and the highlights when available, and get to know this new side, and hopefully things will progress towards Europe over the next couple seasons as Shinawatra's goal is stated. But for now... it's still going to take some getting used to.
Sunday, July 22, 2007
It's back
Due to Man City's impossibly lackluster finish to the 2006-2007 campaign, I pretty much lost interest in posting about soccer for a while, but with the 2007-2008 season just a couple weeks from beginning, this is as good a time as any to get back into the swing of things.
I liked Stuart Pearce, so it was tough to see him go, but after two successive finishes in the bottom half of the table, and ten home goals this past year (a record low), I don't see how anyone could have been surprised. I don't know that it was all Pearce's fault - he wasn't given much money to work with, and every striker he brought in was just too inconsistent, with Samaras and Vassell having difficulty displaying their class on a match-to-match basis and Corradi struggling mightily in his first English season.
Barton was the best player on the team - at least among those who don't play on the back line (Micah Richards) - so it was a shame to see him go. But then again, it really, really wasn't. You just can't keep guys like that around. I'm not ashamed to admit that I read about his injury today and had a bit of schadenfreude about it. Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy, right?
Opinion is hugely split on the whole Shinawatra/Eriksson thing. I'm not so far terribly concerned about the owner - the charges against him have been levied by the coup that overthrew him, which doesn't exactly seem the most reputable source ever - but of course I think everyone is given a bit of pause by Eriksson, considering how his time with England ended. The optimists point to his strong club record; the pessimists point to England and the fact that his club successes mostly came in Italy. Of course, it's hard to say how much of England was Sven's fault; it seemed like he delegated a lot of the job to McLaren, which is another issue entirely, but certainly under McLaren's full-time stewardship England haven't done much so far (albeit with few chances to). You could also argue that the failure of the team to win came in part from the difficulty in assembling so many stars - I don't think even Brazil and Argentina had their sides stocked with so many world-famous players. When you have a team on which almost no one is used to being a role player - even the guys playing what are normally role-player positions - it may be hard to adjust, especially when clubs are complaining more than ever about players putting time in for their national teams. Eriksson didn't seem great about second-half adjustments, true, but look - England can't win the World Cup every year. This generation is talented, but their failure to win cannot be laid entirely at Eriksson's feet. And the fake sheik scandal notwithstanding, I think the charges that he somehow charmed Shinawatra into giving him the job are probably more than a bit overblown. Eriksson's a big name, like it or not; Shinawatra wanted to make a splash, and who else was out there?
Whether Rolando Bianchi is the striking savior of this club, I don't know; England is not Italy. It's not Sweden, either, where Bianchi has impressed with three goals in two games on City's preseason tour. But having another Italian around seems to have perked up Corradi, and that's a start. Man City have a long and sordid history of playing down to the level of their opponents, but in three preseason games so far against generally lesser opposition, they have three fairly comfortable wins. I'd call that progress.
Bring on West Ham.
I liked Stuart Pearce, so it was tough to see him go, but after two successive finishes in the bottom half of the table, and ten home goals this past year (a record low), I don't see how anyone could have been surprised. I don't know that it was all Pearce's fault - he wasn't given much money to work with, and every striker he brought in was just too inconsistent, with Samaras and Vassell having difficulty displaying their class on a match-to-match basis and Corradi struggling mightily in his first English season.
Barton was the best player on the team - at least among those who don't play on the back line (Micah Richards) - so it was a shame to see him go. But then again, it really, really wasn't. You just can't keep guys like that around. I'm not ashamed to admit that I read about his injury today and had a bit of schadenfreude about it. Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy, right?
Opinion is hugely split on the whole Shinawatra/Eriksson thing. I'm not so far terribly concerned about the owner - the charges against him have been levied by the coup that overthrew him, which doesn't exactly seem the most reputable source ever - but of course I think everyone is given a bit of pause by Eriksson, considering how his time with England ended. The optimists point to his strong club record; the pessimists point to England and the fact that his club successes mostly came in Italy. Of course, it's hard to say how much of England was Sven's fault; it seemed like he delegated a lot of the job to McLaren, which is another issue entirely, but certainly under McLaren's full-time stewardship England haven't done much so far (albeit with few chances to). You could also argue that the failure of the team to win came in part from the difficulty in assembling so many stars - I don't think even Brazil and Argentina had their sides stocked with so many world-famous players. When you have a team on which almost no one is used to being a role player - even the guys playing what are normally role-player positions - it may be hard to adjust, especially when clubs are complaining more than ever about players putting time in for their national teams. Eriksson didn't seem great about second-half adjustments, true, but look - England can't win the World Cup every year. This generation is talented, but their failure to win cannot be laid entirely at Eriksson's feet. And the fake sheik scandal notwithstanding, I think the charges that he somehow charmed Shinawatra into giving him the job are probably more than a bit overblown. Eriksson's a big name, like it or not; Shinawatra wanted to make a splash, and who else was out there?
Whether Rolando Bianchi is the striking savior of this club, I don't know; England is not Italy. It's not Sweden, either, where Bianchi has impressed with three goals in two games on City's preseason tour. But having another Italian around seems to have perked up Corradi, and that's a start. Man City have a long and sordid history of playing down to the level of their opponents, but in three preseason games so far against generally lesser opposition, they have three fairly comfortable wins. I'd call that progress.
Bring on West Ham.
Saturday, March 10, 2007
A tale of two Citys
For the second year in a row, Manchester City has been doing something rather odd - progressing to the quarterfinal round of the FA Cup (last year's appearance their first in something like two decades) while absolutely tanking in the league. The EPL season hasn't been kind to City - they've crawled no higher than ninth, currently sit just six points clear of the relegation zone, and have lost the ability even to win games at home. Since the conclusion of their surprising post-Christmas three-game winning streak, which concluded with a 2-1 win over Everton on New Year's Day, City are 0-1-4 in the league and have scored just a single goal. In the same period they're 3-1-0 in FA Cup games, although it probably bears mentioning that all three games have come against Championship opposition. City's opponent tomorrow is Blackburn, a club that City have already lost to twice this year by a combined 7-2 scoreline. In fact, boding particularly well for this tie, City last beat Blackburn on August 25, 2003, long enough ago that the winning goal was scored by Nicolas Anelka, who hasn't donned the City shirt since I started following the club, but whose goalscoring prowess certainly appears sorely missed.
With just ten games left in the season and staying up no longer the certainty it once was, perhaps it would be best if City lost to Blackburn on Sunday, which history seems to dictate they will anyway. Inability to finish has been the thorn in City's side all season, and putting all their eggs in Mido's basket only to see Spurs hold onto him at the eleventh hour of the transfer window means that the only candidate to save the season, aside from someone like Vassell or Samaras going on a seemingly unlikely tear, is Emile Mpenza, a Belgian striker whose highest all-competitions scoring total in the past six seasons is six goals in 2002-03. You will forgive my skepticism.
The point is that the FA Cup may well be a distraction. City's fortunes during last year's FA Cup run were decidedly better - four wins and five losses in nine games may not be anything to write home about, but it's certainly better than a draw and four losses in five. It's a bit suspicious on the heels of a three-game win streak. Maybe all the time off in February contributed to the sluggishness in the Wigan loss, but how do you explain 3-0 to Blackburn? (Other than the obvious fact that City can't beat Blackburn.)
There are some big games coming up. City still must host Chelsea, United and Liverpool, and there is probably no game in the remaining ten more important than April 6 when Charlton come to Eastlands. If City are still holding on by only a couple wins at that point, points will be absolutely paramount (as though they weren't already). But who's going to score? Joey Barton leads the team with five league goals but hasn't scored in the Premiership since December 17. Samaras has four goals but they've come in just two games. Vassell has found the net in the Cup, but not since November - and just once total - in the league.
It's dire. City seem to look worse with every league game, and as they've plummeted to 17th it's brought relegation worries to the front of my mind. One of the many reasons I chose to follow City was I didn't think they had much danger of being relegated, since they were a Robbie Fowler penalty miss out of Europe in 2005 when I picked them up. In 2006 they started hot and then faded to 16th; this year has been even worse. They're just 2-1-1 so far against the three teams currently occupying the relegation zone; if that number doesn't improve to 4-1-1 between now and the end of the year, things could get a lot worse.
So do I want City to advance in the FA Cup? Well, of course. It would be nice to see them exorcise the Blackburn demons, for one thing. But if they can't figure it out in the league, would it even matter? Has a Premiership team ever won the FA Cup and been relegated in the same year? I'm confident that City have talent so I don't know why it struggles so much to show itself - but if there was ever a time where they really, really needed to do that, it's now.
With just ten games left in the season and staying up no longer the certainty it once was, perhaps it would be best if City lost to Blackburn on Sunday, which history seems to dictate they will anyway. Inability to finish has been the thorn in City's side all season, and putting all their eggs in Mido's basket only to see Spurs hold onto him at the eleventh hour of the transfer window means that the only candidate to save the season, aside from someone like Vassell or Samaras going on a seemingly unlikely tear, is Emile Mpenza, a Belgian striker whose highest all-competitions scoring total in the past six seasons is six goals in 2002-03. You will forgive my skepticism.
The point is that the FA Cup may well be a distraction. City's fortunes during last year's FA Cup run were decidedly better - four wins and five losses in nine games may not be anything to write home about, but it's certainly better than a draw and four losses in five. It's a bit suspicious on the heels of a three-game win streak. Maybe all the time off in February contributed to the sluggishness in the Wigan loss, but how do you explain 3-0 to Blackburn? (Other than the obvious fact that City can't beat Blackburn.)
There are some big games coming up. City still must host Chelsea, United and Liverpool, and there is probably no game in the remaining ten more important than April 6 when Charlton come to Eastlands. If City are still holding on by only a couple wins at that point, points will be absolutely paramount (as though they weren't already). But who's going to score? Joey Barton leads the team with five league goals but hasn't scored in the Premiership since December 17. Samaras has four goals but they've come in just two games. Vassell has found the net in the Cup, but not since November - and just once total - in the league.
It's dire. City seem to look worse with every league game, and as they've plummeted to 17th it's brought relegation worries to the front of my mind. One of the many reasons I chose to follow City was I didn't think they had much danger of being relegated, since they were a Robbie Fowler penalty miss out of Europe in 2005 when I picked them up. In 2006 they started hot and then faded to 16th; this year has been even worse. They're just 2-1-1 so far against the three teams currently occupying the relegation zone; if that number doesn't improve to 4-1-1 between now and the end of the year, things could get a lot worse.
So do I want City to advance in the FA Cup? Well, of course. It would be nice to see them exorcise the Blackburn demons, for one thing. But if they can't figure it out in the league, would it even matter? Has a Premiership team ever won the FA Cup and been relegated in the same year? I'm confident that City have talent so I don't know why it struggles so much to show itself - but if there was ever a time where they really, really needed to do that, it's now.
Thursday, February 08, 2007
Sore perdedores
It has gotten to the point - certainly on US soil, but let's not forget the round of 16 in 2002, either - where it's not a US-Mexico soccer game unless it ends with the US winning and Mexico playing the part of the whiny, sore losers. This came to a particular head under Ricardo La Volpe, who derided the US in 2005 as having played like various female members of his family - this after a game in which the US won 2-0 and clinched a spot in Germany. The Americans took a beating after their "early" exit in '06 - partly deserved, partly gleeful kick-'em-when-they're-down mentality on the part of the foreign press and fans. But while the US were wholly outclassed by the Czech Republic, they were the only team in the tournament not to lose to Italy despite two red cards, at least one of which was pretty questionable (and if not for Brian McBride being in the wrong place at the wrong time, things might have been different), and at least part of the problem with the Ghana game was that the team already had one foot on the plane (which is certainly their own problem, but understandable in its way given how draining the Italy game must have been). None of this should really have changed the fact that the US has become, at worst, a top two team in CONCACAF; excepting the usually competitive Costa Rica and an occasional streaky outlier, the US/Mexico pairing is turning into CONCACAF's Old Firm, and with all the attendant venom.
This time it was another 2-0 win for the US and another series of complaints from Mexico about the US's tactics - never mind how well those tactics may have worked. Mexico dominated possession but couldn't put the ball in the net; the US scored twice with the relatively few chances they carved out. Arrogant soccer teams that fail to finish while dominating possession rarely place blame on themselves or give credit to the opposing defense; they usually suggest that the other team was "lucky" to win. And guess what?
"The result was unjust." The words of coach Hugo Sanchez. "This is a unique game in that you can deserve to win and still lose. We deserved to win and they did not."
So, Hugo, can you explain why you deserved to win? Was it your shots that did not go in or were saved? Your attacks that were snuffed out by the aggressive US defense? The two goals you couldn't keep out of your net? Surely you don't think Mexico should have won solely because they held the ball more.
The US's style involves counterattacking and defense. Is it something that bothers me a bit? Yes, because it gets exposed by some teams (the Czechs, for example) and makes it hard to come back from a deficit. But for some reason the Mexicans seem to feel that this style of play is dishonorable. Never mind that it's a style that has kept Mexico from scoring on US soil since 2000. Never mind that Mexico has seen this style over and over again in that time and yet has never managed to find a way to beat it outside of the huge home field advantage of Azteca. Even with a largely pro-Mexican crowd on hand in Glendale, Mexico couldn't find a way to win.
If Mexico is such a better team than the US - as the Mexican team and most or all of their increasingly obnoxious fans seem to believe - don't you think they could have won one game in the US since 2000? One out of eight? Instead, it's 7-0-1 to the US, and the losing streak appears to bother Mexico so much that they stomped off the field without shaking hands or exchanging jerseys after this game, like little, petulant children.
That's what this team is. A group of spoiled brats who can't believe they can't beat a team they consider inferior. Maybe it's time for Mexico to think about the new order of CONCACAF and realize they can't just coast on their superior talent pool anymore. If they want to be top of the heap, they're going to have to work a lot harder. But in the meantime, maybe they should close their mouths for a minute and check the scoreboard.
USA 2, Mexico 0. Again.
This time it was another 2-0 win for the US and another series of complaints from Mexico about the US's tactics - never mind how well those tactics may have worked. Mexico dominated possession but couldn't put the ball in the net; the US scored twice with the relatively few chances they carved out. Arrogant soccer teams that fail to finish while dominating possession rarely place blame on themselves or give credit to the opposing defense; they usually suggest that the other team was "lucky" to win. And guess what?
"The result was unjust." The words of coach Hugo Sanchez. "This is a unique game in that you can deserve to win and still lose. We deserved to win and they did not."
So, Hugo, can you explain why you deserved to win? Was it your shots that did not go in or were saved? Your attacks that were snuffed out by the aggressive US defense? The two goals you couldn't keep out of your net? Surely you don't think Mexico should have won solely because they held the ball more.
The US's style involves counterattacking and defense. Is it something that bothers me a bit? Yes, because it gets exposed by some teams (the Czechs, for example) and makes it hard to come back from a deficit. But for some reason the Mexicans seem to feel that this style of play is dishonorable. Never mind that it's a style that has kept Mexico from scoring on US soil since 2000. Never mind that Mexico has seen this style over and over again in that time and yet has never managed to find a way to beat it outside of the huge home field advantage of Azteca. Even with a largely pro-Mexican crowd on hand in Glendale, Mexico couldn't find a way to win.
If Mexico is such a better team than the US - as the Mexican team and most or all of their increasingly obnoxious fans seem to believe - don't you think they could have won one game in the US since 2000? One out of eight? Instead, it's 7-0-1 to the US, and the losing streak appears to bother Mexico so much that they stomped off the field without shaking hands or exchanging jerseys after this game, like little, petulant children.
That's what this team is. A group of spoiled brats who can't believe they can't beat a team they consider inferior. Maybe it's time for Mexico to think about the new order of CONCACAF and realize they can't just coast on their superior talent pool anymore. If they want to be top of the heap, they're going to have to work a lot harder. But in the meantime, maybe they should close their mouths for a minute and check the scoreboard.
USA 2, Mexico 0. Again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)