Blame Roman Abramovich. He took over Chelsea in June 2003, and at the end of the 2003-2004 campaign the club found itself in second place in the Premiership. The following year, they won the league. Manchester City's new owners likely had their sights set on this level of improvement when they took over in the summer of 2008 and rather shockingly added Robinho, but the club finished a distant 10th, worse even than the previous season under Sven-Goran Eriksson. This year, following an enormous spending spree on players like Gareth Barry, Carlos Tevez, Kolo Toure and Emmanuel Adebayor, the club sits in 6th, but a string of draws that kept City anchored just outside of the Champions League places likely sealed Mark Hughes' fate.
Of course, everyone seems to forget that in 2002-2003, Chelsea finished fourth. It's not like Abramovich led Fulham to a title in two seasons. For all the lip service that the owners believed in Mark Hughes and believed in City as a project, in the end they were scarcely more patient than Thaksin Shinawatra, who stated before the 2007-08 season that a top-ten finish would please him and then sacked Eriksson for finishing ninth and making Europe (if only via the Fair Play League). Hughes ended up with less than a season and a half, in spite of having City just a few points shy of the top four with a game in hand and into the semifinals of the Carling Cup.
Hughes was also quite popular with many of the players, particularly the British and Irish ones, with Shay Given and Hughes' countryman Craig Bellamy evidently leading a dressing-room revolt when they got the news. At the same time, he may not have been nearly as popular with other players - not least Robinho - and it's entirely possible that the owners felt Hughes simply did not have the stature to attract the major international stars they were hoping to bring to City. Various players linked with moves had laughed them off, some saying that City did not seem a serious club at the moment. Hiring Mancini, a major international manager with massive domestic success in Serie A, was probably seen as a step in that direction; reports of attempts to lure Guus Hiddink or Jose Mourinho fall under the same category.
And they might be right about this. There is little doubt that Hughes is a capable Premiership manager, but City do not wish to be Blackburn. The only British manager who seems to draw major international stars is Alex Ferguson, and even he couldn't hang onto Cristiano Ronaldo. On the other hand, maybe it's just the weather in England; most players, given a choice, seem to prefer Spain or Italy, in spite of the millions on offer in the Premiership.
Ultimately, whether or not this was a good idea will depend on Roberto Mancini (and, to perhaps not much less an extent, on Brian Kidd). If he leads Man City to a Carling Cup title and the top four, it will be a success - maybe Mark Hughes could still have done those things, but their achievement would make most Man City fans forgiving of his ouster. If City fall to United at the next Carling hurdle and end up in the Europa League or, even worse, out of Europe once more, it will have been an unmitigated disaster. Mancini or no, what is really needed to achieve these things is a serious shoring up of the defense, especially with Joleon Lescott now on the sidelines and Kolo Toure reportedly angling to find a way back to Spain. Drumming Richard Dunne out of the club in August is looking dumber by the day.
The best-case scenario is that Mancini can guide City into the top four, and the combination of Champions League football and an international manager will prove sufficiently enticing to the top talent City's owners want to bring into the side. The worst case is that Mancini proves no more successful and City become just another revolving-door for managers and players, with the fans never knowing who's coming and going from one month to the next.
I feel bad for Mark Hughes. Much like with Eriksson, and really with Stuart Pearce before him, I don't think he was fired for reasons that were all down to him. The defense needed strengthening; how much were their struggles really down to Hughes? How much difference will Mancini make without a big January buying spree that could have happened under Hughes anyway? Ultimately, Mancini needs to prove that he can lure international stars. If he's no more successful at that, it's unlikely that this move will make any difference, aside from fracturing the dressing room. And that would really just be a shame.
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Friday, December 04, 2009
The 2010 Draw, and Predictions
Hey, it's only been a year and a half since my last post. But no one reads this for my opinions on Man City and it's only now that we're really approaching 2010 hard-core. So let's do this.
Group A
South Africa
Mexico
Uruguay
France
The official FIFA world rankings only go back to 1993, which means we can only look at the last four World Cups when analyzing this next stat, but barring a miracle leap, South Africa's FIFA ranking will be the lowest ever for a host nation. Even in May 1994 the USA were ranked the #23 team in the world; in May 2002 the Japanese and South Koreans were #32 and #40 respectively. France were 18th in 1998; Germany were 19th in 2006. South Africa? As of November 2009's rankings, they're 86th, just behind Haiti and just ahead of Qatar. They're also 17th in Africa; in qualifying (which they participated in because it doubled as qualifying for the African Cup of Nations), they were eliminated in the second round, losing twice to Nigeria as well as to noted non-power Sierra Leone (currently 141st in the world). Going on results alone, they wouldn't have made this Cup, their third ever, in a million years.
That's the prize that comes with being the host nation, of course, though Mexico, Uruguay and France might argue that they were rewarded instead. Certainly France have to consider themselves one of the luckiest teams in the draw; after making it into the field by the skin of their hands (see what I did there?), Les Bleus have drawn the only weak team from the seed pot and avoided all of their European compatriots.
Mexico and Uruguay are both top 20 teams in the latest rankings, so it's not all fun and games for France, and their recent World Cup history is a bit patchy - a loss at the final hurdle of qualifying to miss the '94 Cup, winners as hosts in '98, a horrible crashout without scoring a single goal in '02, a shocking run to the final game in '06. By that standard we should be due for another poor showing, and their qualifying struggle might indicate as much. Mexico are certainly no pushovers, making the last 16 in each of the last four World Cups (though failing to advance in the knockouts each time), and I like them to get out of the group here. As for who's joining them? Well, South Africa would make history if they became the first host nation not to make it out of the group stages (even if they are almost certainly the weakest host nation in history), and they did seem to acquit themselves at the Confederations Cup. That said, I can't really justify picking them to advance; sooner or later that host streak has to end, and it likely does so here. I'll say France advance, although Uruguay wouldn't surprise me.
Group B
Argentina
Nigeria
South Korea
Greece
Were South Korea not all the way down at #52 in the latest rankings, this might look something like a Group of Death (which would have made it arguably the third Cup in a row in which Argentina ended up there). But they are, and they aren't playing at home, so this doesn't seem like their Cup. No one seems quite sure what to expect out of Nigeria or Greece either, in spite of the latter being ranked 12th. Really, even Argentina are a bit of a mystery given their slog through CONMEBOL qualifying. Aside from Argentina not advancing, little out of this group would surprise me. Nigeria are playing on their home continent, and they made the Olympic finals in 2008 (although, as we all know, not every nation takes those wholly seriously), so I could see them making it out as well.
Group C
England
United States
Algeria
Slovenia
After getting drawn into a Group of Near-Death in 2006, the Americans seem to have lucked out here. England, while #9 in the world, were the lowest ranked of the seeds aside from South Africa. Ghana and Paraguay are the only teams in the CONMEBOL/CAF pot ranked lower than Algeria, and Slovenia are #33 in the world only after a bizarre 16-spot jump following their playoff defeat of Russia. Nevertheless, out of the 13 UEFA teams in the field, they're 12th in the rankings, ahead of only Slovakia (and that by a single point). It's not that these teams are going to be pushovers, but can you imagine if this group were England-USA-Ivory Coast-Portugal instead? That probably would have been the Group of Death.
You have to like the US' chances to advance regardless, simply because this World Cup isn't in Europe. Here's a fun fact: all-time, here are the Americans' records in World Cups hosted in Europe as opposed to those hosted everywhere else:
Europe (1934, 1990, 1998, 2006): 0-1-9, -16 GD
Elsewhere (1930, 1950, 1994, 2002): 6-2-7, -4 GD
So maybe they're not a juggernaut outside of Europe, but I think we can all agree that's a pretty significant difference. Add to that a group that isn't particularly strong, and I have to like the US' chances of advancing. England should also get out of the group barring a surprise.
Group D
Germany
Australia
Serbia
Ghana
Serbia (and Montenegro, at the time) were the surprise of 2006 qualifying, but in the actual tournament they wound up in the Group of Death and failed to pick up a single point. This time things seem a little more open. Ghana and Australia were both darlings of the '06 tournament, making the knockouts, but neither is dominant; Ghana, at #37, is one of the lowest-ranked nations in the field. Germany will almost certainly make it out of this group; beyond that, any of the other three is possible, though I would install Australia as the slight favorite.
Group E
Netherlands
Denmark
Japan
Cameroon
Cameroon became the first African nation to reach the quarterfinals of a World Cup, in 1990, but they've got just one win and no knockout appearances since. They're ranked 11th in the world right now, though, and in a group of only moderate difficulty on "home" soil, expectations will be high. The same can probably be said for the Dutch, #3 in the world and one of only two or three nations with a serious claim to the "best footballing nation never to win a World Cup" mantle. The Danes sit well back at #26, one of UEFA's weaker entrants by ranking, though they were 15th in the world this summer and beat Portugal in Lisbon en route to winning their qualifying group outright. Japan, currently languishing at 43rd in the world, seem unlikely to finish anywhere other than bottom of this group. Cameroon and the Netherlands are my picks to advance.
Group F
Italy
Paraguay
New Zealand
Slovakia
The reigning champs have been handed an almost insultingly easy draw. While Paraguay are making their fourth straight appearance and reached the knockouts in both 1998 and 2002, most of their key qualifying scalps (wins over Brazil and Argentina in particular) came at home. New Zealand might be the weakest team in the field; they're ranked #77, which isn't the outright worst, but when you add to that their play in Oceania, in which most nations are ranked below #150, they don't exactly get tested much. (To be fair, they did have to win a playoff to get here, but it came against Bahrain, hardly a powerhouse.) Only two years ago the Kiwis were ranked #156 themselves. They're a nice story but will almost certainly finish last. Slovakia are dead last among the UEFA teams in FIFA's rankings; the outcome of the group will probably be determined by their game with Paraguay. I like Italy and Paraguay to advance.
Group G
Brazil
North Korea
Ivory Coast
Portugal
If there is to be a Group of Death this year, this is probably it, though the presence of North Korea (at #84, the lowest-ranked team that played their way in) sticks out like a sore thumb. We're surely going to hear all kinds of talk about their shock win over Italy in 1966, and the 3-0 lead they had on Portugal before falling 5-3, but that was 44 years ago. This North Korea will almost certainly get worked like a speedbag by their more talented opponents. Here, too, the outcome of the group will probably come down to one game: Portugal-Ivory Coast. I have high hopes for the entertainment value of that game, though unfortunately the fact that it comes first on Portugal's schedule means that their third game versus Brazil will likely not be as good as it could be. I'll take the two Portuguese-speaking nations to advance here, though Ivory Coast certainly have a shot.
Group H
Spain
Switzerland
Honduras
Chile
Perhaps the most intriguing group. Spain are the best team in the world but have a long history of failure in the World Cup, lining up with the Dutch to lay claim to the "best footballing nation never to win a World Cup" title. While they regularly make the knockouts, only once (1950) have they made it past the quarterfinals. Now they're #1 in the FIFA rankings and the defending European champions; much more will be expected. Winning this group should be no problem; it's second place that will be hotly contested. Switzerland, Honduras and Chile are all relatively unknown teams on the larger world scale, but all might qualify for the title of "feistiest team in the 2010 World Cup." Chile are 17th in the world and Switzerland are 18th; Honduras are a distant 38th but were an exciting side during CONCACAF qualifying. Anyone could come second in this group, but I give the Swiss a slight edge based on their strong showing in 2006 and group win in qualifying thanks to a sweep of Greece (in spite of a somewhat embarrassing home loss to minnows Luxembourg).
Group A
South Africa
Mexico
Uruguay
France
The official FIFA world rankings only go back to 1993, which means we can only look at the last four World Cups when analyzing this next stat, but barring a miracle leap, South Africa's FIFA ranking will be the lowest ever for a host nation. Even in May 1994 the USA were ranked the #23 team in the world; in May 2002 the Japanese and South Koreans were #32 and #40 respectively. France were 18th in 1998; Germany were 19th in 2006. South Africa? As of November 2009's rankings, they're 86th, just behind Haiti and just ahead of Qatar. They're also 17th in Africa; in qualifying (which they participated in because it doubled as qualifying for the African Cup of Nations), they were eliminated in the second round, losing twice to Nigeria as well as to noted non-power Sierra Leone (currently 141st in the world). Going on results alone, they wouldn't have made this Cup, their third ever, in a million years.
That's the prize that comes with being the host nation, of course, though Mexico, Uruguay and France might argue that they were rewarded instead. Certainly France have to consider themselves one of the luckiest teams in the draw; after making it into the field by the skin of their hands (see what I did there?), Les Bleus have drawn the only weak team from the seed pot and avoided all of their European compatriots.
Mexico and Uruguay are both top 20 teams in the latest rankings, so it's not all fun and games for France, and their recent World Cup history is a bit patchy - a loss at the final hurdle of qualifying to miss the '94 Cup, winners as hosts in '98, a horrible crashout without scoring a single goal in '02, a shocking run to the final game in '06. By that standard we should be due for another poor showing, and their qualifying struggle might indicate as much. Mexico are certainly no pushovers, making the last 16 in each of the last four World Cups (though failing to advance in the knockouts each time), and I like them to get out of the group here. As for who's joining them? Well, South Africa would make history if they became the first host nation not to make it out of the group stages (even if they are almost certainly the weakest host nation in history), and they did seem to acquit themselves at the Confederations Cup. That said, I can't really justify picking them to advance; sooner or later that host streak has to end, and it likely does so here. I'll say France advance, although Uruguay wouldn't surprise me.
Group B
Argentina
Nigeria
South Korea
Greece
Were South Korea not all the way down at #52 in the latest rankings, this might look something like a Group of Death (which would have made it arguably the third Cup in a row in which Argentina ended up there). But they are, and they aren't playing at home, so this doesn't seem like their Cup. No one seems quite sure what to expect out of Nigeria or Greece either, in spite of the latter being ranked 12th. Really, even Argentina are a bit of a mystery given their slog through CONMEBOL qualifying. Aside from Argentina not advancing, little out of this group would surprise me. Nigeria are playing on their home continent, and they made the Olympic finals in 2008 (although, as we all know, not every nation takes those wholly seriously), so I could see them making it out as well.
Group C
England
United States
Algeria
Slovenia
After getting drawn into a Group of Near-Death in 2006, the Americans seem to have lucked out here. England, while #9 in the world, were the lowest ranked of the seeds aside from South Africa. Ghana and Paraguay are the only teams in the CONMEBOL/CAF pot ranked lower than Algeria, and Slovenia are #33 in the world only after a bizarre 16-spot jump following their playoff defeat of Russia. Nevertheless, out of the 13 UEFA teams in the field, they're 12th in the rankings, ahead of only Slovakia (and that by a single point). It's not that these teams are going to be pushovers, but can you imagine if this group were England-USA-Ivory Coast-Portugal instead? That probably would have been the Group of Death.
You have to like the US' chances to advance regardless, simply because this World Cup isn't in Europe. Here's a fun fact: all-time, here are the Americans' records in World Cups hosted in Europe as opposed to those hosted everywhere else:
Europe (1934, 1990, 1998, 2006): 0-1-9, -16 GD
Elsewhere (1930, 1950, 1994, 2002): 6-2-7, -4 GD
So maybe they're not a juggernaut outside of Europe, but I think we can all agree that's a pretty significant difference. Add to that a group that isn't particularly strong, and I have to like the US' chances of advancing. England should also get out of the group barring a surprise.
Group D
Germany
Australia
Serbia
Ghana
Serbia (and Montenegro, at the time) were the surprise of 2006 qualifying, but in the actual tournament they wound up in the Group of Death and failed to pick up a single point. This time things seem a little more open. Ghana and Australia were both darlings of the '06 tournament, making the knockouts, but neither is dominant; Ghana, at #37, is one of the lowest-ranked nations in the field. Germany will almost certainly make it out of this group; beyond that, any of the other three is possible, though I would install Australia as the slight favorite.
Group E
Netherlands
Denmark
Japan
Cameroon
Cameroon became the first African nation to reach the quarterfinals of a World Cup, in 1990, but they've got just one win and no knockout appearances since. They're ranked 11th in the world right now, though, and in a group of only moderate difficulty on "home" soil, expectations will be high. The same can probably be said for the Dutch, #3 in the world and one of only two or three nations with a serious claim to the "best footballing nation never to win a World Cup" mantle. The Danes sit well back at #26, one of UEFA's weaker entrants by ranking, though they were 15th in the world this summer and beat Portugal in Lisbon en route to winning their qualifying group outright. Japan, currently languishing at 43rd in the world, seem unlikely to finish anywhere other than bottom of this group. Cameroon and the Netherlands are my picks to advance.
Group F
Italy
Paraguay
New Zealand
Slovakia
The reigning champs have been handed an almost insultingly easy draw. While Paraguay are making their fourth straight appearance and reached the knockouts in both 1998 and 2002, most of their key qualifying scalps (wins over Brazil and Argentina in particular) came at home. New Zealand might be the weakest team in the field; they're ranked #77, which isn't the outright worst, but when you add to that their play in Oceania, in which most nations are ranked below #150, they don't exactly get tested much. (To be fair, they did have to win a playoff to get here, but it came against Bahrain, hardly a powerhouse.) Only two years ago the Kiwis were ranked #156 themselves. They're a nice story but will almost certainly finish last. Slovakia are dead last among the UEFA teams in FIFA's rankings; the outcome of the group will probably be determined by their game with Paraguay. I like Italy and Paraguay to advance.
Group G
Brazil
North Korea
Ivory Coast
Portugal
If there is to be a Group of Death this year, this is probably it, though the presence of North Korea (at #84, the lowest-ranked team that played their way in) sticks out like a sore thumb. We're surely going to hear all kinds of talk about their shock win over Italy in 1966, and the 3-0 lead they had on Portugal before falling 5-3, but that was 44 years ago. This North Korea will almost certainly get worked like a speedbag by their more talented opponents. Here, too, the outcome of the group will probably come down to one game: Portugal-Ivory Coast. I have high hopes for the entertainment value of that game, though unfortunately the fact that it comes first on Portugal's schedule means that their third game versus Brazil will likely not be as good as it could be. I'll take the two Portuguese-speaking nations to advance here, though Ivory Coast certainly have a shot.
Group H
Spain
Switzerland
Honduras
Chile
Perhaps the most intriguing group. Spain are the best team in the world but have a long history of failure in the World Cup, lining up with the Dutch to lay claim to the "best footballing nation never to win a World Cup" title. While they regularly make the knockouts, only once (1950) have they made it past the quarterfinals. Now they're #1 in the FIFA rankings and the defending European champions; much more will be expected. Winning this group should be no problem; it's second place that will be hotly contested. Switzerland, Honduras and Chile are all relatively unknown teams on the larger world scale, but all might qualify for the title of "feistiest team in the 2010 World Cup." Chile are 17th in the world and Switzerland are 18th; Honduras are a distant 38th but were an exciting side during CONCACAF qualifying. Anyone could come second in this group, but I give the Swiss a slight edge based on their strong showing in 2006 and group win in qualifying thanks to a sweep of Greece (in spite of a somewhat embarrassing home loss to minnows Luxembourg).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)