It's not really fair to compare any game to last year's Champions League final, I don't think, but it still must be said that the 2006 edition was fairly disappointing. Arsenal were reduced to ten men on a foolish takedown by Jens Lehmann early in the game - and there's nothing worse than a red card to the goalie, because then you have to burn a substitution to put in a new goalie AND pull a non-goalie off - and yet somehow went ahead 1-0 on a nice header by Sol Campbell... but Barcelona knew they could bide their time, and sure enough, the winning two goals came in a flurry with only around 15 minutes to go. And that was that. Not all that exciting from start to finish, and it was disappointing that we didn't get to see two full sides - especially two that have historically underachieved in Europe and were getting back at their past - go at it for the whole game. C'est la vie, as they say outside the Stade de France.
Sorry I haven't updated this in a while (I say to the zero people who read this), but it's amazing how fast you'll lose interest in soccer when your club team is going down the toilet. I know injuries take a lot of the blame, but WOW did Man City turn a promising year into a lousy one. Nine losses in ten to end the year, I believe it was? Routine clean sheets by opposing keepers... ugly stuff. And then Pearce let Riera go back to Espanyol, which was disappointing (at least Samaras is here to stay, for now anyway). Then again, Riera couldn't have been playing that well the last couple months for City to drop all the way to 15th.
It's always nice when your team has a bad year and you know they don't really have the money to get much better. Man City is like, I don't know, the Minnesota Twins right now - they've got some good players, but not enough to win, but they don't have enough money to make any real marquee signings, so if they're going to get better it'll have to be through the "farm system." Hey, the Wright-Phillipses came from the Academy. Why not more?
Speaking of which, Pearce apparently continues to try and lure SWP back to Eastlands. I mean, would you even want this guy at this point? Here's someone who might have helped Man City into Europe this year, but instead he forces a transfer to Chelsea because they're champions (and probably because he can get more money there too, let's be honest). Then he doesn't play - gee, you transfer to a team that was already league champion without you and you're shocked that your new nickname could be Mr. 80th Minute? - and now he wants out? Bah. I guess I wouldn't be upset if he came back - God knows City need more goals. But what does that mean for Vassell and Samaras, both of whom I like? I guess technically SWP is an attacking midfielder, so maybe it means nothing. What a front line that would be! On second thought, make it happen.
Thursday, May 18, 2006
Thursday, March 23, 2006
Oh, you think so, Doctor?
Bruce Arena today proclaimed that playing Germany was a "mistake." Let's see...
*defending World Cup finalist
*playing at home
*desperate for a win
*starting most of its best players, whereas the US was playing at most three guys who are likely to start in June
Granted, the U.S. wouldn't have known #3 when the game was scheduled, but the first two were obvious and the fourth one must have seemed likely considering the timing of the game.
Here's what I'm worried about. The U.S. is going to enter this tournament with a lot of pressure. If you believe they're the #5 team in the world, then you think "well, they should make the knockouts." If you don't - and most people don't - then you want them to screw up so you can say "I told you so." Either way, anything besides at least a round of 16 appearance is going to be painful. I shouldn't be dreading the tournament so much, but it's hard not to at this point. Even when the full team was out there (against Poland), they didn't look great. I guess there's still plenty of practice left, though.
*defending World Cup finalist
*playing at home
*desperate for a win
*starting most of its best players, whereas the US was playing at most three guys who are likely to start in June
Granted, the U.S. wouldn't have known #3 when the game was scheduled, but the first two were obvious and the fourth one must have seemed likely considering the timing of the game.
Here's what I'm worried about. The U.S. is going to enter this tournament with a lot of pressure. If you believe they're the #5 team in the world, then you think "well, they should make the knockouts." If you don't - and most people don't - then you want them to screw up so you can say "I told you so." Either way, anything besides at least a round of 16 appearance is going to be painful. I shouldn't be dreading the tournament so much, but it's hard not to at this point. Even when the full team was out there (against Poland), they didn't look great. I guess there's still plenty of practice left, though.
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
Slaughterhouse five
Way to celebrate getting the #5 world ranking by looking like absolute ass, United States. I realize that this was by no means a full A-team, and when you find yourself saying "let's start Brian Ching at striker" that might be a clue that you're not trying as hard to win as maybe you could. But I'm less concerned with the offensive showing - which, like the game against Germany in Korea, was one of those "controlling the pace for a while, but not quite able to break through" games that are so unendingly frustrating to watch - and much more concerned with the defensive showing. The announcers were busy flattering the U.S. defense in the first half, which made me wonder what game they were watching - sure, the Germans didn't score, but it wasn't for lack of trying on the Americans' part. There was way too much space all around the box, as though three guys couldn't be bothered to come back upfield to defend, during large parts of the game. The back-passing was frequently way too dangerous. The fact that the U.S. lasted the whole first half without giving up a goal was less a testament to the U.S. defense and more a testament to the ineptitude of the German attack in that half.
The second half presented no such problems. And the less said about that, the better. I will say that if you're looking to see why the U.S. lost so badly, just watch the tape on goal #2. Good shot by Neuville, but some of the worst defensive ball handling you will maybe ever see from a supposed top five nation was what allowed the shot to happen. And that's all I have to say about that.
The second half presented no such problems. And the less said about that, the better. I will say that if you're looking to see why the U.S. lost so badly, just watch the tape on goal #2. Good shot by Neuville, but some of the worst defensive ball handling you will maybe ever see from a supposed top five nation was what allowed the shot to happen. And that's all I have to say about that.
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
FAde out
Intense yet profoundly depressing exit for City in the FA Cup sixth round, falling at home - the second home defeat in three days - to West Ham. It's hard to be surprised, really; Samaras was out and Bradley Wright-Phillips, while a decent player, is not who you want starting at second striker in the biggest game of your season to date (and as City threaten to fade from the European chase, it probably will turn out to have been the biggest game of the year). Vassell can be an excellent scorer but I really think he needs a strong second option to push him. Samaras provided that after Cole's injury, but Wright-Phillips - just 21 last week and looking barely old enough to shave - is too timid a presence and, indeed, Vassell was held in check for most of the game.
Not held as well was Dean Ashton. When one team has the best scoring option on the pitch, that team has pretty good odds of winning, I think. And in fact, Ashton created the first West Ham goal pretty much out of whole cloth, making the City defense look pretty foolish before blasting one past James that you could barely even feel bad about.
The second goal was the result of another defensive breakdown, but this one was a bit more forgivable since it came after a fairly harsh sending off of Sun Jihai. I can see where the ref would say he took a swing; I think it looked like an attempt to yank his hand free except he forgot his hand already was free at that point. Either way I don't know if it was a straight red, but what are you going to do?
City seemed to play with more urgency after going down 1-0, and even more after dropping to ten men. But you do have to wonder where that urgency was earlier. This game was City's focus, so much so that they basically tanked against Wigan to save up for it, and yet aside from a couple of middling chances early on, City practically seemed content to play for a draw (which surely could not have been the case considering their away form this season) before Ashton opened the scoring in the 41st.
I actually put the game on fast-forward after the second goal, but Musampa's strike sucked me back in for the last nine minutes, which were heart-stopping but never quite good enough. Then the recording ran out at 93:49 and I had to run onto the internet just to confirm what I quite naturally suspected. And with that, City were out.
A disappointing end, but it wasn't a bad run for a team that had only gotten this far twice in the last two decades plus. The back-from-the-brink Villa game only has me more attached to this club, and as depressing as their results can be, I usually enjoy watching the way they play, with crisp ball movement throughout the midfield. (Of course, this always manages to stop as they approach the 18-yard box.) I think it's about time to pick up a jersey (though I will need to manage a little more cash first), though I'm not sure what name I'd put on it. I don't feel a real compulsion to put my own name on, but it's even more dangerous in soccer than in other sports to put a player's name on and then watch as he leaves the team. (I bet there were plenty of SWP sky blue jerseys that look pretty silly now.) I wouldn't mind a Barton jersey, honestly, but with the rumors apparently swelling that Arsenal are interested, it's too risky (that's hardly the only reason it's risky, but it's the most presently compelling). Reyna's part of the reason I even started following the club in the first place, but he's been all over; you'd sort of like a homegrown guy if you can get him. We'll see. By the time I actually have the money, half the team might be different. Maybe I'll just get a blank one.
Not held as well was Dean Ashton. When one team has the best scoring option on the pitch, that team has pretty good odds of winning, I think. And in fact, Ashton created the first West Ham goal pretty much out of whole cloth, making the City defense look pretty foolish before blasting one past James that you could barely even feel bad about.
The second goal was the result of another defensive breakdown, but this one was a bit more forgivable since it came after a fairly harsh sending off of Sun Jihai. I can see where the ref would say he took a swing; I think it looked like an attempt to yank his hand free except he forgot his hand already was free at that point. Either way I don't know if it was a straight red, but what are you going to do?
City seemed to play with more urgency after going down 1-0, and even more after dropping to ten men. But you do have to wonder where that urgency was earlier. This game was City's focus, so much so that they basically tanked against Wigan to save up for it, and yet aside from a couple of middling chances early on, City practically seemed content to play for a draw (which surely could not have been the case considering their away form this season) before Ashton opened the scoring in the 41st.
I actually put the game on fast-forward after the second goal, but Musampa's strike sucked me back in for the last nine minutes, which were heart-stopping but never quite good enough. Then the recording ran out at 93:49 and I had to run onto the internet just to confirm what I quite naturally suspected. And with that, City were out.
A disappointing end, but it wasn't a bad run for a team that had only gotten this far twice in the last two decades plus. The back-from-the-brink Villa game only has me more attached to this club, and as depressing as their results can be, I usually enjoy watching the way they play, with crisp ball movement throughout the midfield. (Of course, this always manages to stop as they approach the 18-yard box.) I think it's about time to pick up a jersey (though I will need to manage a little more cash first), though I'm not sure what name I'd put on it. I don't feel a real compulsion to put my own name on, but it's even more dangerous in soccer than in other sports to put a player's name on and then watch as he leaves the team. (I bet there were plenty of SWP sky blue jerseys that look pretty silly now.) I wouldn't mind a Barton jersey, honestly, but with the rumors apparently swelling that Arsenal are interested, it's too risky (that's hardly the only reason it's risky, but it's the most presently compelling). Reyna's part of the reason I even started following the club in the first place, but he's been all over; you'd sort of like a homegrown guy if you can get him. We'll see. By the time I actually have the money, half the team might be different. Maybe I'll just get a blank one.
Thursday, March 02, 2006
Ice Station Kaiserslautern
There's a reason the World Cup is played in the summer. The US-Poland friendly, one of two taking place in the host nation of Germany this month, was practically whited out by blizzard-like conditions for much of the second half. The 80th minute even saw the introduction of a yellow ball for improved visibility on the field (though perhaps ironically, I found it harder to see on the TV).
The first half was pretty brutal. The US didn't look very good, with mediocre passing and a problematic tendency to allow effective Polish counterattacking. They also didn't get too many good offensive sequences going. I know the field was hard and it was freezing, but Poland didn't seem too bothered (although I guess they don't have a place in their country they can really retire to in the winter to avoid these sorts of conditions).
The second half was a different story. Even with the snow picking up, the US came out of halftime looking like a different team. Of course, to some degree they were, with a couple changes made at the break; both teams put in their B goalies to start the second half, in particular. Did Clint Dempsey's goal, just three minutes in, result from a minor mistake that Jerzy Dudek might not have made? Considering that Artur Boruc apologized to his coach, and the coach still told the media, "That's not enough; you need to concentrate more," I guess it did. But it was still Dempsey being in good position at the right time, and if Taylor Twellman isn't getting in there to disrupt Boruc's punch attempt, probably nothing happens. Either way, however, the US team looked markedly better in the second half - better than their first half form, but also just better than the Poles in general. The offense looked more dangerous, the defense made fewer mistakes, and Tim Howard was good in his few chances.
Still, does this game tell us much going forward? Maybe not. Certainly the US cannot afford to have a first half like that against Italy or the Czechs - or Ghana, for that matter. When you end up in a group with two of the best attacking teams in the world (and certainly in Europe), you have to play the best defense possible, and I think this team does have a good defense, or at least the pieces for it, but it took a half to show up in Kaiserslautern, and against another team it might have been fatal. Of course, there should be more training time, and there are still two more friendlies (though this was the only one with the full A team), so we'll see.
The match against Germany should be interesting. I assume it can't be a coincidence that the two major friendlies the US scheduled for March are against the two teams that defeated the US in 2002, and it's certainly not a coincidence that both are in Germany - counting today's win, the Americans have just two wins (to seven defeats and two draws) in Europe under Arena. (The other: a friendly win over... Poland, in Poland in 2004.) A little worrying for June? Well, yeah. But then, I'd be worried about the draw no matter where it was. Still, getting two major European sides, playing close to their home countries... a bit problematic. Let's see how the game on the 22nd preps the US for that kind of atmosphere.
In other news, I also watched the England-Uruguay game. Tough break for Uruguay, but then they really didn't deserve the win anyway - still, England seemed to mail it in for much of the first half and, ironically, really only started to cook when bench players entered - the tying goal was scored by sub Peter Crouch (bizarrely wearing a uniform with 12 on the back and 21 on the front, which cannot possibly be legal) and the winner set up by a great cross from Shaun Wright-Phillips. (To be fair to the starters, Joe Cole set up the first goal and scored the second.) Rio Ferdinand made several mistakes - maybe this guy still has a job at Man U because he cost so much, but how does he keep starting for the national team when everyone thinks he sucks? - but the defense was pretty strong overall despite the early loss of Wayne Bridge. Pouso's goal was brilliant; you can't defend against that. But apart from that, Uruguay had few real chances. I don't know if you'd say England deserved the win, but they were certainly the more dominant team for at least the second 45.
The first half was pretty brutal. The US didn't look very good, with mediocre passing and a problematic tendency to allow effective Polish counterattacking. They also didn't get too many good offensive sequences going. I know the field was hard and it was freezing, but Poland didn't seem too bothered (although I guess they don't have a place in their country they can really retire to in the winter to avoid these sorts of conditions).
The second half was a different story. Even with the snow picking up, the US came out of halftime looking like a different team. Of course, to some degree they were, with a couple changes made at the break; both teams put in their B goalies to start the second half, in particular. Did Clint Dempsey's goal, just three minutes in, result from a minor mistake that Jerzy Dudek might not have made? Considering that Artur Boruc apologized to his coach, and the coach still told the media, "That's not enough; you need to concentrate more," I guess it did. But it was still Dempsey being in good position at the right time, and if Taylor Twellman isn't getting in there to disrupt Boruc's punch attempt, probably nothing happens. Either way, however, the US team looked markedly better in the second half - better than their first half form, but also just better than the Poles in general. The offense looked more dangerous, the defense made fewer mistakes, and Tim Howard was good in his few chances.
Still, does this game tell us much going forward? Maybe not. Certainly the US cannot afford to have a first half like that against Italy or the Czechs - or Ghana, for that matter. When you end up in a group with two of the best attacking teams in the world (and certainly in Europe), you have to play the best defense possible, and I think this team does have a good defense, or at least the pieces for it, but it took a half to show up in Kaiserslautern, and against another team it might have been fatal. Of course, there should be more training time, and there are still two more friendlies (though this was the only one with the full A team), so we'll see.
The match against Germany should be interesting. I assume it can't be a coincidence that the two major friendlies the US scheduled for March are against the two teams that defeated the US in 2002, and it's certainly not a coincidence that both are in Germany - counting today's win, the Americans have just two wins (to seven defeats and two draws) in Europe under Arena. (The other: a friendly win over... Poland, in Poland in 2004.) A little worrying for June? Well, yeah. But then, I'd be worried about the draw no matter where it was. Still, getting two major European sides, playing close to their home countries... a bit problematic. Let's see how the game on the 22nd preps the US for that kind of atmosphere.
In other news, I also watched the England-Uruguay game. Tough break for Uruguay, but then they really didn't deserve the win anyway - still, England seemed to mail it in for much of the first half and, ironically, really only started to cook when bench players entered - the tying goal was scored by sub Peter Crouch (bizarrely wearing a uniform with 12 on the back and 21 on the front, which cannot possibly be legal) and the winner set up by a great cross from Shaun Wright-Phillips. (To be fair to the starters, Joe Cole set up the first goal and scored the second.) Rio Ferdinand made several mistakes - maybe this guy still has a job at Man U because he cost so much, but how does he keep starting for the national team when everyone thinks he sucks? - but the defense was pretty strong overall despite the early loss of Wayne Bridge. Pouso's goal was brilliant; you can't defend against that. But apart from that, Uruguay had few real chances. I don't know if you'd say England deserved the win, but they were certainly the more dominant team for at least the second 45.
Thursday, February 23, 2006
The Battle of Stamford Bridge
It was rough luck for Chelsea, really - down to ten men on a harsh straight red to Asier Del Horno, they actually managed to take the lead on a pitiful own goal, only to give it back on another own goal and finally lose 2-1 after a nice Eto'o header. On the other hand, I've seen high school soccer fields in better shape than the Stamford Bridge pitch, so maybe it was just karma.
The first 45 minutes were a real slog, as neither team got much going. Chelsea seemed content to sit back on their heels, rarely displaying any sort of nose for the goal, as though they were indeed planning on the 0-0 draw Mourinho had stated he would settle for. Plans didn't change much when Del Horno barreled into Messi in the 37th - a foul, sure; a yellow, maybe. A red? Certainly not when you see it on replay. Either way, though, it's just more fuel for the already quite contentious relationship between the sides, illustrated even further by Chelsea's refusal to kick the ball out of play when Motta was clipped, play so unsportsmanlike it appeared to prompt Mourinho to leave his box to apologize to Rijkaard. Of course, Mourinho being Mourinho, he must have looked at the tape later before determining Messi was an "actor and a cheat" - the replay did make it look like Messi oversold Del Horno's contact more than a little, but I'd love for Mourinho to name me some soccer players who don't do that. Cheating, or just gamesmanship? I don't know. I mean, I think a red card should be determined more by apparent intent than by result - if you go flying in with studs up and you're nowhere near the ball, you might be deserving of a red card whether you actually hurt someone or not. Messi insists he felt like Del Horno was trying to hurt him; I don't think the video really bears that out, while the ref says he feels he made the right decision based on the full-speed play. Being an official has certainly become a much tougher job in the age of instant replay, and especially slow-motion replay - people criticize decisions made based on angles and speeds that the ref is never going to see. Was the red harsh? Yes. But at full speed, can I see why he gave it? Yeah, I guess I can.
Oddly, it was Chelsea who came alive first after the break, with a couple of strong runs from Arjen Robben and, eventually, the setpiece that led to the own goal, though Motta was a real goat in giving that one up. (No surprise he was pulled off seven minutes later.) But Barca started to hit their stride around the time when Henrik Larsson was put in for Motta, and largely dominated the last 25 minutes or so. They ended up with a massive 69-31 edge in possession, along with 23-10 in shots and 9-2 in shots on goal. Had Chelsea had 11 men all game, the outcome would surely have been different - the stats if not the score, though the marking on Eto'o's header might not have been so poor with an additional man out there - but they didn't.
However much they may be running away with the EPL for the second year in a row, Chelsea find themselves up against it in the Champions League once more, and much earlier than last year's semifinals. Were they down 2-1 and going home, you might almost like their chances - but headed to Spain down 2-1? Unless they can pitch a 2-0 shutout at Camp Nou - and Barca haven't lost a 2-0 shutout at home since last February in the Primera - Chelsea are going to have to score at least three goals. On the road. The Blues dropped the first leg 2-1 last year and won the return 4-2 with three goals in the first twenty minutes... but last year, they started on the road and finished at home. Mourinho will need to have a miracle up his sleeve to pull this one off; I think Chelsea's quest for European silverware will have to wait another year.
The first 45 minutes were a real slog, as neither team got much going. Chelsea seemed content to sit back on their heels, rarely displaying any sort of nose for the goal, as though they were indeed planning on the 0-0 draw Mourinho had stated he would settle for. Plans didn't change much when Del Horno barreled into Messi in the 37th - a foul, sure; a yellow, maybe. A red? Certainly not when you see it on replay. Either way, though, it's just more fuel for the already quite contentious relationship between the sides, illustrated even further by Chelsea's refusal to kick the ball out of play when Motta was clipped, play so unsportsmanlike it appeared to prompt Mourinho to leave his box to apologize to Rijkaard. Of course, Mourinho being Mourinho, he must have looked at the tape later before determining Messi was an "actor and a cheat" - the replay did make it look like Messi oversold Del Horno's contact more than a little, but I'd love for Mourinho to name me some soccer players who don't do that. Cheating, or just gamesmanship? I don't know. I mean, I think a red card should be determined more by apparent intent than by result - if you go flying in with studs up and you're nowhere near the ball, you might be deserving of a red card whether you actually hurt someone or not. Messi insists he felt like Del Horno was trying to hurt him; I don't think the video really bears that out, while the ref says he feels he made the right decision based on the full-speed play. Being an official has certainly become a much tougher job in the age of instant replay, and especially slow-motion replay - people criticize decisions made based on angles and speeds that the ref is never going to see. Was the red harsh? Yes. But at full speed, can I see why he gave it? Yeah, I guess I can.
Oddly, it was Chelsea who came alive first after the break, with a couple of strong runs from Arjen Robben and, eventually, the setpiece that led to the own goal, though Motta was a real goat in giving that one up. (No surprise he was pulled off seven minutes later.) But Barca started to hit their stride around the time when Henrik Larsson was put in for Motta, and largely dominated the last 25 minutes or so. They ended up with a massive 69-31 edge in possession, along with 23-10 in shots and 9-2 in shots on goal. Had Chelsea had 11 men all game, the outcome would surely have been different - the stats if not the score, though the marking on Eto'o's header might not have been so poor with an additional man out there - but they didn't.
However much they may be running away with the EPL for the second year in a row, Chelsea find themselves up against it in the Champions League once more, and much earlier than last year's semifinals. Were they down 2-1 and going home, you might almost like their chances - but headed to Spain down 2-1? Unless they can pitch a 2-0 shutout at Camp Nou - and Barca haven't lost a 2-0 shutout at home since last February in the Primera - Chelsea are going to have to score at least three goals. On the road. The Blues dropped the first leg 2-1 last year and won the return 4-2 with three goals in the first twenty minutes... but last year, they started on the road and finished at home. Mourinho will need to have a miracle up his sleeve to pull this one off; I think Chelsea's quest for European silverware will have to wait another year.
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Real-ly bad
I'm not sure I've ever seen a team this loaded look so mediocre. I was expecting Real Madrid vs. Arsenal to be a good game, probably better than the bookmakers did. Arsenal may have been missing a bunch of players through injury, and yet it never seemed to matter.
Aside from a couple of solid shots from Roberto Carlos and a wicked drive from Robinho that happened to be right at Lehmann, Real never seemed to seriously threaten. Certainly the first 30 minutes of the game were all Arsenal; Real snatched the last 15 minutes of the first half, but when the second half started up it was mostly Arsenal again. They just made the Real defense look bad - but then, the Real defense isn't that great. (6-1 at Zaragoza? 6-1 vs. anyone?)
The more impressive part was that Arsenal's makeshift defense managed to keep Real off the board. But few of the Real players seemed on top of their games - in particular, Beckham, Ronaldo, and Zidane were all pretty ineffective. That helped, as did the fact that Arsenal's counterattacks were so successful. Indeed, in spite of Real's stunning 65-35 edge in possession, it never felt like they were the ones dominating the game. Maybe that's because after Thierry Henry's great goal in the 47th, Arsenal no longer seemed as interested in attacking. Yet they were still offered a number of chances due to horrible passing by the Real defense, which committed as many stupid turnovers as you could possibly expect any team to make in any one game.
Time of possession isn't everything, obviously. Arsenal were clearly the better team for at least 75 of the 90 minutes - honestly, had Real scored on one of their late chances (like the ball Ronaldo couldn't quite get to with only a few minutes left), I would have talked about how bad Arsenal's luck was in not winning. Either way, though, they've got their away goal - and with the win, any tie at Highbury sends them through. As Derek Rae was saying, it would be ironic if in one of their weaker Premiership seasons in recent memory - a mere fifth right now (which would be out of the 2006-07 CL), after not having finished worse than second since 1996-97, and not lower than fourth since 1995-96 - Arsenal finally broke through in Europe, where they have notoriously struggled despite their domestic success (and obviously with all those high finishes in the EPL they've had plenty of European chances in the last decade). Indeed it would be - and even more ironic if they did so with all their injury problems. But we'll see what happens - this Real team is certainly loaded enough to win at Highbury if they can get their act together.
Tomorrow's game? Chelsea vs. Barca. I'm even more excited for this one.
Aside from a couple of solid shots from Roberto Carlos and a wicked drive from Robinho that happened to be right at Lehmann, Real never seemed to seriously threaten. Certainly the first 30 minutes of the game were all Arsenal; Real snatched the last 15 minutes of the first half, but when the second half started up it was mostly Arsenal again. They just made the Real defense look bad - but then, the Real defense isn't that great. (6-1 at Zaragoza? 6-1 vs. anyone?)
The more impressive part was that Arsenal's makeshift defense managed to keep Real off the board. But few of the Real players seemed on top of their games - in particular, Beckham, Ronaldo, and Zidane were all pretty ineffective. That helped, as did the fact that Arsenal's counterattacks were so successful. Indeed, in spite of Real's stunning 65-35 edge in possession, it never felt like they were the ones dominating the game. Maybe that's because after Thierry Henry's great goal in the 47th, Arsenal no longer seemed as interested in attacking. Yet they were still offered a number of chances due to horrible passing by the Real defense, which committed as many stupid turnovers as you could possibly expect any team to make in any one game.
Time of possession isn't everything, obviously. Arsenal were clearly the better team for at least 75 of the 90 minutes - honestly, had Real scored on one of their late chances (like the ball Ronaldo couldn't quite get to with only a few minutes left), I would have talked about how bad Arsenal's luck was in not winning. Either way, though, they've got their away goal - and with the win, any tie at Highbury sends them through. As Derek Rae was saying, it would be ironic if in one of their weaker Premiership seasons in recent memory - a mere fifth right now (which would be out of the 2006-07 CL), after not having finished worse than second since 1996-97, and not lower than fourth since 1995-96 - Arsenal finally broke through in Europe, where they have notoriously struggled despite their domestic success (and obviously with all those high finishes in the EPL they've had plenty of European chances in the last decade). Indeed it would be - and even more ironic if they did so with all their injury problems. But we'll see what happens - this Real team is certainly loaded enough to win at Highbury if they can get their act together.
Tomorrow's game? Chelsea vs. Barca. I'm even more excited for this one.
Sunday, February 19, 2006
Snatching a replay from the jaws of defeat
Matches like this one make soccer what it is, and anyone who couldn't appreciate, at the very least, the drama of Micah Richards' last-gasp header will never understand the sport. I'm quite certain I've never screamed that loud, possibly at any sporting event ever, certainly never at another soccer game. It would have been even nicer to see it live, but I studiously avoided all information pertaining to the game until I got home, and so it worked out about the same. My roommate did know the outcome, but he was very good about not saying anything revealing - though when, out of the corner of my eye, I saw him lean in as Barton prepared the corner, I got a mite suspicious.
It was a very frustrating game to watch at times, nonetheless. In fact, it was a very frustrating game to watch for about 94 minutes. For my money - though let's bear in mind that I've only gotten to watch them play so much - City looked as good offensively as they have all season, and this without Andy Cole on the pitch. Samaras looks better every time out, Vassell has blazing speed, and I love the way Riera and Barton move the ball around. It's really astonishing to realize how poor this team has looked on offense at times this season, especially on the road - whenever I watch they seem to move the ball very well. Their passing isn't just technically good, it's fun to watch, inventive and spread out. It's why I watch soccer in the first place - no one wants to see a slog with guys just knocking into each other all over the place.
But as good as they looked on offense for about 100 yards, the last 18 seemed to stymie City for pretty much the whole match. Seemingly wide-open chances went by the wayside, setpieces led to any number of near misses. The stat line says it all: City had 44 shots with seven on goal; Villa had just 18 shots but three were on goal. City also dominated time of possession, 57-43. They simply couldn't put it in. Midway through the first half, I grumbled to Drew, "This is the kind of game they lose 1-0" (remembering the Bolton game in particular). And sure enough, that's how it looked like it would finish - one good Villa counterattack was basically all they needed the whole game. And it nearly held up.
If City can finish just slightly more often, though, they could turn things around. This team has been woefully inconsistent this season, going 8-2-4 at home and 3-2-7 on the road in the Premiership. In this, the first road cup game since the Doncaster debacle, City dominated play throughout the game and would have been exceedingly unlucky to have lost. Sure, Villa are just 15th in the League, but cup games - and FA Cup games in particular - are always different.
I don't want to be confident, because City will surely stumble as soon as I think too highly of them, but it's hard not to like their chances in the March 8 replay. City already beat Villa 3-1 at City of Manchester Stadium back at the end of October, and as noted they've played much better at home than away this year - no home losses since January 4, and of the four home defeats this season, only one came to a team not currently in the top four in the table.
Cautious optimism is the key phrase here. I just hope FSC televises the replay, since there's no way for me to catch a midweek game on the radio, working during the day.
It was a very frustrating game to watch at times, nonetheless. In fact, it was a very frustrating game to watch for about 94 minutes. For my money - though let's bear in mind that I've only gotten to watch them play so much - City looked as good offensively as they have all season, and this without Andy Cole on the pitch. Samaras looks better every time out, Vassell has blazing speed, and I love the way Riera and Barton move the ball around. It's really astonishing to realize how poor this team has looked on offense at times this season, especially on the road - whenever I watch they seem to move the ball very well. Their passing isn't just technically good, it's fun to watch, inventive and spread out. It's why I watch soccer in the first place - no one wants to see a slog with guys just knocking into each other all over the place.
But as good as they looked on offense for about 100 yards, the last 18 seemed to stymie City for pretty much the whole match. Seemingly wide-open chances went by the wayside, setpieces led to any number of near misses. The stat line says it all: City had 44 shots with seven on goal; Villa had just 18 shots but three were on goal. City also dominated time of possession, 57-43. They simply couldn't put it in. Midway through the first half, I grumbled to Drew, "This is the kind of game they lose 1-0" (remembering the Bolton game in particular). And sure enough, that's how it looked like it would finish - one good Villa counterattack was basically all they needed the whole game. And it nearly held up.
If City can finish just slightly more often, though, they could turn things around. This team has been woefully inconsistent this season, going 8-2-4 at home and 3-2-7 on the road in the Premiership. In this, the first road cup game since the Doncaster debacle, City dominated play throughout the game and would have been exceedingly unlucky to have lost. Sure, Villa are just 15th in the League, but cup games - and FA Cup games in particular - are always different.
I don't want to be confident, because City will surely stumble as soon as I think too highly of them, but it's hard not to like their chances in the March 8 replay. City already beat Villa 3-1 at City of Manchester Stadium back at the end of October, and as noted they've played much better at home than away this year - no home losses since January 4, and of the four home defeats this season, only one came to a team not currently in the top four in the table.
Cautious optimism is the key phrase here. I just hope FSC televises the replay, since there's no way for me to catch a midweek game on the radio, working during the day.
Thursday, February 16, 2006
Paging William Styron
This Sunday, the soccer gods really don't like me. Airing live on Fox Soccer Channel at 1 pm is Man City's match against Aston Villa in the fifth round of the FA Cup. Man City! FA Cup! Live at a reasonable time! This would be the first time I've ever watched a City game truly live (if I get to do so), though I did listen to the Doncaster game live (ugh). It's easier during cups, of course, because those games are often at night, whereas regular weekend league games are during the day - and during the day in England means early morning in Chicago, and if you think I'd get up at 6 am on a Saturday when I could watch the game plausibly live that afternoon, you're crazy.
Anyway. Naturally, airing at the same time is the US team in a friendly against Guatemala. Realistically, I am (or should be) more invested in US soccer than in Man City, but once the games don't mean as much, it's harder to care, and Guatemala - with all due respect - is not the most marquee of friendly opponents. Of course, my roommate is not a City fan, so guess which game he'd rather watch?
The obvious solution is to watch the Man City game live, and TiVo the US game for perusal later. But what if I'm not home? So actually, I have the City game set up in the TiVo. If it turns out I'm home on Sunday, then I'll switch it to record the US game and watch City live. If not, I don't miss City, and my roommate gets to watch the US game live anyway. I'd miss it totally in that case, but it's not as big a loss.
Of course, we can't forget how poorly my only previous live experience went, and for their general mediocrity Villa are still a couple notches above Doncaster on overall talent. Let's hope this won't be 90 minutes of my life I'll want back later.
Since we're talking about it, ever-so-quick discussions of the City win over Charlton and the US win over Japan, both by 3-2 scores.
City:
*Nice goal by Samaras. That's why you get a guy that size. But what was that when he was wide open later? He needs to be more aggressive, especially now that he'll probably see more time with Cole down.
*Barton - wow. It's amazing the way this guy has exploded since the transfer flap, and even more amazing how quickly the fans got back behind him. Loved that he charged to the stands while grabbing the front of his jersey - makes me optimistic that Pearce can ink him soon. I just hope this isn't a "playing for a contract" case and once he does sign he suddenly vanishes.
*Another nice win at home. Now can they win on the road? Three road wins all year and two of those were at Birmingham and Sunderland, and those were both in August. The only other was 5-2 at Charlton on December 4. But winning on the road will be required in the FA Cup, and in the European hunt - see this weekend, not to mention the rest of the EPL season.
US:
*Taylor Twellman is awesome.
*The annoying thing about a game like this is when your team is dominating, makes a whole bunch of substitutions, and then looks like crap. The last 15 minutes or so were really quite mediocre, whereas the first 75 were just so fun to watch because of the American dominance.
*Tied with Mexico at #6 in the new FIFA rankings. Yeah, that's more like it. There's no current excuse for the Mexicans to be higher than we are - equal's fine for now.
Anyway. Naturally, airing at the same time is the US team in a friendly against Guatemala. Realistically, I am (or should be) more invested in US soccer than in Man City, but once the games don't mean as much, it's harder to care, and Guatemala - with all due respect - is not the most marquee of friendly opponents. Of course, my roommate is not a City fan, so guess which game he'd rather watch?
The obvious solution is to watch the Man City game live, and TiVo the US game for perusal later. But what if I'm not home? So actually, I have the City game set up in the TiVo. If it turns out I'm home on Sunday, then I'll switch it to record the US game and watch City live. If not, I don't miss City, and my roommate gets to watch the US game live anyway. I'd miss it totally in that case, but it's not as big a loss.
Of course, we can't forget how poorly my only previous live experience went, and for their general mediocrity Villa are still a couple notches above Doncaster on overall talent. Let's hope this won't be 90 minutes of my life I'll want back later.
Since we're talking about it, ever-so-quick discussions of the City win over Charlton and the US win over Japan, both by 3-2 scores.
City:
*Nice goal by Samaras. That's why you get a guy that size. But what was that when he was wide open later? He needs to be more aggressive, especially now that he'll probably see more time with Cole down.
*Barton - wow. It's amazing the way this guy has exploded since the transfer flap, and even more amazing how quickly the fans got back behind him. Loved that he charged to the stands while grabbing the front of his jersey - makes me optimistic that Pearce can ink him soon. I just hope this isn't a "playing for a contract" case and once he does sign he suddenly vanishes.
*Another nice win at home. Now can they win on the road? Three road wins all year and two of those were at Birmingham and Sunderland, and those were both in August. The only other was 5-2 at Charlton on December 4. But winning on the road will be required in the FA Cup, and in the European hunt - see this weekend, not to mention the rest of the EPL season.
US:
*Taylor Twellman is awesome.
*The annoying thing about a game like this is when your team is dominating, makes a whole bunch of substitutions, and then looks like crap. The last 15 minutes or so were really quite mediocre, whereas the first 75 were just so fun to watch because of the American dominance.
*Tied with Mexico at #6 in the new FIFA rankings. Yeah, that's more like it. There's no current excuse for the Mexicans to be higher than we are - equal's fine for now.
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
Team Strike Force
This is why I watch soccer. Barton - despite being booed by the home fans for much of the match - looked phenomenal, backing up his claim of being "110% committed" to City despite the transfer request and seeming like a man who wants both to stay and to prove his self-perceived value. Riera - who I didn't get a good look at in the derby - looked great. Vassell and Cole make me tremendously happy as a striker duo. The three goals were all terrific, and for once I didn't know where they were coming or who scored them ahead of time. All told the offense looked quite crisp, with some brilliant passing, after the first ten minutes or so (it took about that long to find a groove). Granted, Toon frequently looked just miserable on defense, but you take what you can get. It was a terrific game to watch for a City fan; Newcastle supporters must have been ready to hang themselves, by comparison.
Samaras looked like a bull in a china shop, but it was just his first game. More actual practice with the team, and gameplay, and maybe he won't just be barreling into opposing players every time he's near the ball. (One certainly hopes so, considering the transfer fee. If they end up havng to lose other guys - like, say, Barton - because they spent so much on Samaras, I don't know.)
By the way, I love - love - that Pearce put in a loan bid for SWP. I don't think I even would want the guy coming back to Manchester - clearly he's something of a glory hog, so it's his own fault that he's sitting on a bench for the champs rather than starting for a team that could still make Europe if only they could find some damn road consistency - and you have to love Cole and Vassell, even if Cole is 34 and Vassell probably passes too much. (They looked so good today, though. Cole's assist on the Vassell goal... goddamn it was fantastic.) Anyway, the point is this: you have to love Pearce's attitude on that one. I almost feel like he was just doing it to mess with Chelsea.
Samaras looked like a bull in a china shop, but it was just his first game. More actual practice with the team, and gameplay, and maybe he won't just be barreling into opposing players every time he's near the ball. (One certainly hopes so, considering the transfer fee. If they end up havng to lose other guys - like, say, Barton - because they spent so much on Samaras, I don't know.)
By the way, I love - love - that Pearce put in a loan bid for SWP. I don't think I even would want the guy coming back to Manchester - clearly he's something of a glory hog, so it's his own fault that he's sitting on a bench for the champs rather than starting for a team that could still make Europe if only they could find some damn road consistency - and you have to love Cole and Vassell, even if Cole is 34 and Vassell probably passes too much. (They looked so good today, though. Cole's assist on the Vassell goal... goddamn it was fantastic.) Anyway, the point is this: you have to love Pearce's attitude on that one. I almost feel like he was just doing it to mess with Chelsea.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)