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.

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.

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.

Whatford?

I suppose we had to see that one coming. If there's one thing City seem known for - certainly in my two years following the club - it's playing down to the level of opposition. (See: Rovers, Doncaster; Chesterfield.) The game sounded like it was being played in pretty rough conditions, to be fair, but a 0-0 draw against Watford, a newly-promoted side in the relegation zone, at home, following a 3-1 dispatching of Villa? Not the game I was hoping to hear, and it sucks because weekday games are the easiest to listen to for me. Ferris and Hinchcliffe got pretty slap-happy during the broadcast, such was the level of play on the field.

That opportunity for three points having gone by the wayside, picking up a point at Old Trafford - which I think is the best anyone can hope for - becomes ever more important. You can usually throw out the records on derby day - City took four points last year despite being significantly lower in the table come season's end - but United have been playing pretty well. I suppose it would be nice if the Benfica game tomorrow were a war of attrition, although Richard Dunne says there's nothing to worry about. Even with a pretty good defense (the Wigan game excepted), though, I hope City don't think they can go far without improving their finishing.

Annoying thing about Saturday's game: kickoff is 6:45 in the morning here, and it's not going to be televised on FSC, even in tape delay. This is going to make it really hard to follow.

On the road again

Manchester City's season so far had basically been two distinct campaigns: one, the home campaign which has yet to see a defeat and features just one goal allowed (4-3-0, +6); the other, a miserable away campaign which, entering the day, had not seen a win (0-1-6) and was embodied by a miserable goal differential of -12.

Perhaps this is the start of something. City haven't necessarily lacked chances this season; it's finishing them that's been the key problem (even after today's outburst, City have just 13 goals in 15 matches). Today it wasn't an issue. Despite sitting fifth in the table, and despite playing at home, Aston Villa looked totally overmatched, especially on defense. City picked them apart, jumping to a 2-0 halftime lead and eventually winning 3-1.

Naturally, City still missed a ton of good chances, but then that's football. If they score three goals it doesn't seem fair for me to complain that they should have scored six. The point is: there are six sides left without a road win and City aren't one of them. This could just be another instance of lightning in a bottle (see: West Ham home win on 9/23, which engendered so much hope and was followed by a 1-3-2 run and two goals scored in the six games following), and the December slate is not easy:

12/4 vs. Watford
12/9 at Man U
12/17 vs. Spurs
12/23 vs. Bolton
12/26 at Sheffield U
12/30 at West Ham

Not exactly a cakewalk, is it? Sure, the Watford game should be a win (frankly, if it's not, there are much bigger concerns, aren't there?), but after that it's three road games - one the Derby - and two home games against teams that tend to give City fits. The three games in a week, the latter two on the road, isn't particularly fun-sounding either.

City's season is going to be determined by December. Currently they're on twelfth but just five points back of third - in all, eleven teams are within two wins of third place, in fact, and with Man U and Chelsea pulling well away at the top, it's the race for 3 and 4 (and to a lesser extent, 5, and maybe 6 and 7 depending on Cup results) that's going to be the most interesting for the rest of the season (not that the Man U-Chelsea tug of war won't be interesting, but, well, I hate both those clubs).

With that said, you have to look at wanting 10-14 points out of December. A lot to expect from six matches? Maybe. But if you're going to make Europe, Watford and Sheffield United have to be wins, and City have played well enough at home that you'd think they could take down one of Spurs or Bolton. That's nine right there, and if the defense stays up to snuff, one of the remaining three could easily be a draw. That's already ten. Fourteen is significantly more generous - it assumes either three home wins or a win over slumping West Ham (hardly impossible, even at Upton Park), and even then requires no more than one loss in the six, which could be a tall order. But if you ask me, ten isn't just doable, it's pretty much the least of what needs to happen if this club is going to make a push for Europe. And I really, really want to see a push for Europe.

But for the time being, let's just be happy with a road win. And Sylvain Distin's goal - my God.

Needed that.

Big win over West Ham, although it'd be nice to see City get a win on the road (I watched the highlights of the Chesterfield game, and that first goal was in fact exactly as crap as the announcers made it out to be). Everton is the next chance, though since they're one of just two sides in the EPL still without a loss (Villa are the other) and trounced Liverpool 3-0 at Goodison Park on the 9th, we may be waiting to see one until... well, the next two are Wigan and Charlton, neither of which seems impossible (Charlton are off to a lousy start). Still, the sooner the better.

Samaras' first goal against the Hammers was terrific; shades of Maxi Rodriguez, dare I say? The second was fairly standard but it's a good sign to see someone on City finishing, and simultaneously to see what looks like Samaras perhaps starting to find the plot, after seeming a slow study last year and the start of this one. As Pearce says, he is just 21. If he gets it together, six million pounds will seem like a steal.

Speaking of which, Ishmael Miller, who deserves nearly as much credit as Samaras for that first goal with his blistering 70-yard run. Between him and Richards - and Samaras, for that matter - we could be looking at the start of a great youth movement in Manchester. Now City just need to creep towards Europe, lest the youngsters get impatient and go all SWP on us.

Creeping towards Europe step #1? Win some freaking road games. Keeping a nice record at home would be great, but without some road wins I don't see a top seven finish. (And that's assuming a top-five team wins the FA and Carling Cups, not a total sure thing.)

Second verse, same as the first

Pulling for Manchester City is starting to make being a Cubs fan look enticing. Sure, exiting a cup that is secondary to the FA Cup in everyone's eyes isn't that big a deal... but two years in a row, both to League One sides? Not cool. And of course, I was listening to both games on the radio over the internet. The difference being that last year it didn't really occur to me that City might not win, whereas this year I spent the whole time on edge, even after Samaras' goal, only to be stabbed right through the heart twice in 20 minutes in half number two.

Yes, the game was on the road, in middling conditions, but it was still against a League One side (and a mediocre League One side at that). Sure, in a single-elimination knockout cup these sorts of things will happen... but it seems to happen to Man City a lot. This is three times in three seasons, in fact, with Oldham in the 2005 FA Cup as well, and heck, there' s still time for a fourth in that span.

So what happened? Well, the defense, which I unwisely professed not to have been worried about, was kind of atrocious. More appropriately, the defense among the midfielders was just horrendous, or at least so it sounded. Every time Chesterfield took possession of the ball in their own end, I wouldn't hear a single City name until Dunne or Distin or Richards finally showed up - but where were guys like Barton, Hamann, and Jordan? Reyna didn't seem to do much on defense either (and in fact his short clear led to Niven's goal). If you're going to run a 3-5-2, the midfielders have to play more defense, and it just didn't seem to be happening. I should stress that as I was only listening to this, I can only say so much about the accuracy of it, but considering the final score, I doubt I'm that far off.

As for the offense, it was the same old story. City should try to get Ruud van Nistelrooy or someone like that - someone who finishes. Because right now, no one on this team seems to be able to do it. Corradi was just off on two or three headers, and while Samaras knocked one rebound in, he didn't do much else. Everyone else seemed pretty invisible.

How inevitable was this loss, given City's recent history in cups and their woeful play so far this season? Here were the ESPN.com headlines on the team pages after each of the three Prem sides crashed out:

Boro (lost to Notts County): "Boro Humiliated"
Fulham (lost to Wycombe): "Fulham Sent Tumbling"
City: "Pressure on Pearce"

Why even focus on the unlikelihood of the loss? This is Man City we're talking about, clearly. Certainly Boro's and Fulham's losses were worse - both were home games, and both opponents were League Two sides, not even League One - but still. Clearly City just need to try and rig the draws so they don't get stuck playing these teams on the road. City's last League Cup home game against a non-Prem team was a 7-1 trouncing of Barnsley in 2004; since then, two road games, two defeats. The Oldham game of January '05 was also on the road, while last year's FA Cup run was conceived almost exclusively at home (Richard's miracle goal to tie was at Villa, so City then won the replay at home).

But then, how does any team expect to win anything if they can't win away from home? Someone needs to look into why City are just so atrocious on the road. Quickly. Before next year's League Cup at least. Although at the current rate, City might be lucky just to start in the second round next year, instead of the first.

Next on the schedule: home for West Ham, at Everton, home for Sheffield United. City had really better win at least one of those. Note: City still undefeated at home this year (1-1-0)! Let's keep it that way.

Just like starting over

Not long after Stuart Pearce took over at Manchester City, the club went on a significant streak of matches without a loss. Then came the middle of last season, when they went into a tailspin and in the end were almost lucky to finish as high as 15th. Now, after a 1-1-3 start to this season (including a 4-2 loss to Blackburn on Sunday), City are struggling like crazy and rumor has it that Pearce may be on the hot seat soon, if he isn't already.

City made a lot of signings in the offseason, bringing in Hatem Trabelsi, Ousmane Dabo, Dietmar Hamann, Paul Dickov, and Bernardo Corradi, as well as Swedish national keeper Andreas Isaksson (though he has yet to play). They completed a loan deal for DaMarcus Beasley at the transfer deadline, and he now says he's interested in signing a long-term contract. Yet despite all this new talent, City are failing to win, and to add insult to injury, David James and Andy Cole headed south for Portsmouth, which has stunningly risen to the very top of the table.

Perhaps it was too much new talent, and the new Blues just haven't managed to gel yet. For the first four games, Pearce didn't use the same striker setup twice (finally in game five he repeated one, with Corradi and Dickov together up front), and so far only Joey Barton has scored any goals - and one of those was from the spot. From what I've seen, chance after chance goes by the wayside; City's difficulty in finishing last year was a lot of what killed them, and things aren't going to improve if they can't start putting a few balls into the net. (That seems self-evident, but really I'm not especially concerned about City's defense, Sunday's abomination notwithstanding. The scoring is where the major problem lies.) Things are bad enough that the only real news City's made so far this year is the Ben Thatcher fiasco.

So after a dispiriting Sunday match, what looms on the horizon? A mid-week cup-tie in the League Cup with League One side Chesterfield, perhaps ominously just one slot ahead of Doncaster in the third-division table right now. Surely no City fan can forget last year's painful crashout to Rovers; the Chesterfield match is, like that one was, on the road, and with City's offensive troubles they can either use this game to come together, or severely risk stumbling to another early exit.

I suppose I brought this on myself. I could easily have picked Chelsea, or Liverpool, or Arsenal. But it's too late now. For better or worse, I picked Man City, and after last year's League Cup there was no going back for me. Heartbreak has always been part of my life as a sports fan thanks to the Cubs; perhaps I didn't need to add more, but if that's how it's going to be, so be it. I'm not going anywhere.

Champions League "Preview"

There won't be much to this, and it'll probably be either (a) totally inaccurate or (b) spot on only because the groups align exactly as anyone would think. But with the return of Champions League group play, we might as well at least discuss it.

Group A
Barcelona
Chelsea
Werder Bremen
Levski Sofia

Werder Bremen is considered by many to be a potential surprise, but in this group? The games between Barca and Chelsea should be good (one would hope), but how do they not both move on? Even if Bremen can hang close, their final game is at Barca (December 5), while Chelsea finishes by hosting the Bulgarians that day. I'd take Barca first and Chelsea second.

Group B
Bayern Munich
Inter Milan
Spartak Moscow
Sporting Lisbon

Hard to imagine the Russians making much noise here. Sporting could surprise, but it would seem foolish to pick anyone other than Bayern (even sans Ballack) and Inter.

Group C
Liverpool
PSV Eindhoven
Bordeaux
Galatasaray

Once again, the group seems pretty straightforward. Liverpool have been good recently at surpassing their domestic form in the CL, so they'll have to hope for that. PSV, semi-finalists in 2004, have been a mixed bag to start the Eredivisie season, but have had little trouble scoring, with six goals from three games. Galatasaray have had some European success in the past, winning the UEFA Cup in 2000 after getting knocked out of the CL and then defeating CL champs Real Madrid in the Super Cup, but it's been a while since that heyday; still, they've got a history of surprises. They may not advance, but Liverpool and PSV shouldn't assume wins in Turkey. Bordeaux are something of an enigma but probably figure not to advance.

Group D
Olympiakos
Roma
Shakhtar Donetsk
Valencia

The Group of... well, not death. More like the group of who the hell knows. There isn't really a standout power in this group (Roma or Olympiakos, maybe) and while Donetsk seems like an obvious minnow, I can't imagine anyone knowing enough about them to say for sure. Clubs from the six major leagues seem to do most of the winning in the CL, at least the past couple years when I've been watching, so it's tempting just to pick Roma and Valencia and be done with it. But I think this one's going to be wide open. Could be the most exciting group top to bottom, but of course no one will see any of the games because it lacks a marquee team.

Group E
Lyon
Real Madrid
Dynamo Kiev
Steaua Bucuresti

Once again, it's easy to pick the big two. And in this case I think I will. Real seemed to struggle last year (including getting steamrolled by none other than Lyon in their opening game), yet advanced anyway mostly by feasting on Olympiakos and Rosenborg. It's hard to believe that Kiev and Bucharest will present significantly stiffer challenges. Lyon, meanwhile, is better than most people tend to realize.

Group F
Manchester United
Benfica
Glasgow Celtic
FC Copenhagen

Man U were simply awful in group play last year, a happening that doesn't figure to repeat itself if they continue their fast start to the domestic campaign. They'll have to contend with Benfica again, but Celtic and Copenhagen are unlikely to be the repeats of Villarreal and Lille. I wouldn't bet against Copenhagen going winless, unless they can top a Celtic team that tends to underachieve in Europe. Man U and Benfica advance if history is any indicator.

Group G
Arsenal
CSKA Moscow
FC Porto
Hamburg SV

Arsenal has looked lousy to start the year, but last year they were embroiled in one of their worst domestic campaigns in years and still managed to roll to the CL final (reversing their tendency to place 1 or 2 in the league and then get knocked out of Europe early). If they play to their capabilities they shouldn't be significantly tested in this group. Not that any of the teams are bad, but only one is Big Six (Hamburg) and it's not exactly its league's best. This really looks like Arsenal vs. Arsenal, but it's not like they're not capable of beating themselves. Porto did win the thing a few years ago, but they don't have Mourinho anymore.

Group H
AC Milan
AEK Athens
Anderlecht
Lille

Like Group G, this looks to be little more than a giant playing against its own weaknesses. Anderlecht had a terrible streak of group games lost over the past couple years and only just broke it after being eliminated. Athens haven't done a whole lot recently, though they did drill Hearts to get to this point, for whatever that's worth. Lille played fairly well last year and have to be considered a strong candidate for second place in the group.

Open letter to Stuart Pearce

Dear Stuart,

Is this ESPN.com story right? Are you guys about to complete a loan deal for DaMarcus Beasley from PSV?

OH MY GOD PLEASE GET IT DONE.

Sincerely,

Robert Flaxman
American Manchester City fan