Thursday, December 12, 2013

Wilfried Zaha: Destination West Bromwich

Wilfried Zaha, Manchester United's most exciting (and most underutilised) acquisition of 2013, seems likely to be loaned out to another Premier League club this winter. The clubs associated include Everton (surprise, surprise), Newcastle United and, predictably, former club Crystal Palace.

United fans were initially excited by Zaha’s unharnessed horsepower, but his inability to break into David Moyes’ convulsant first team sees Red Devil fans enticed by what he might be, rather than what he will contribute to 2013-14. That probably means seeing him temporarily don blue or black and white.

A good argument is made by NBC’s Pro Soccer Talk that Everton might be an agreeable loan destination: the Toffees might be able to take points from other teams competing for the top four while getting the young England international the competition he needs to develop. A bonus comes in the form of manager Roberto Martinez, who dating back to his days at Swansea has nonpareil form at turning loan players into monsters.

What this theory fails to account for is that Everton, driven by a compelling foursome of loanees (Gareth Barry, Gerard Delofeu, Romelu Lukaku and possibly Zaha), might themselves muster enough points to keep United from Champions League qualification. Although it seems less likely, the same might be said of Newcastle United.

While Everton, Newcastle and Palace seem the most likely Zaha destinations, an under-the-radar option might exist. West Bromwich Albion boast a coach-turned-manager in Steve Clarke who managed the club to an upper half EPL finish last year and who has with Roy Hodgson turned a former yo-yo team into a solid Premiership club – albeit one that still appears to lack goals. Clarke also used temp man Romelu Lukaku in a devastating manner last year, has developed young winger Saido Berahino into a wonderful international prospect.

The Baggies sit fifteenth in the table and seem to have based much of their recruitment on maximizing returns from good, but not great players. The addition of Lukaku – who lopes around the field with the speed and manner of a big cat hunting – last term provided a physical weapon capable of freezing opposing defenses and creating space for midfielders like James Morrison. Were West Brom able to rotate Scott Sinclair, Berahino and Zaha, their forward corps would be perhaps more fascinating viewing than even the Man U Moyespocalypse.

Whether the Baggies have the available squad space and finances to make such a deal work remains questionable, but the club is certainly an option worth considering. It might make West Brom better, it would almost certainly make Wilfried Zaha better and would give fans of each side even more to tune in to.

Friday, December 6, 2013

Plus/minus: Aston Villa, Cardiff City, Manchester United, Southampton, Tottenham, 6th December 2013

Aston Villa
Player
Games
Minutes
GS
GA
Plus/minus
Scored/90
Conc/90
Team GD
Guzan
14
1260
16
16
0
1.143
1.143
0
Baker
8
643
10
11
-1
1.400
1.540
0
Vlaar
14
1215
14
14
0
1.037
1.037
0
Luna
11
945
12
12
0
1.143
1.143
0
Lowton
7
560
9
8
1
1.446
1.286
0
El Ahmadi
13
1017
13
13
0
1.150
1.150
0
Westwood
12
1073
11
14
-3
0.923
1.174
0
Delph
12
1023
14
14
0
1.232
1.232
0
Weimann
13
946
11
12
-1
1.047
1.142
0
Agbonlahor
11
893
11
12
-1
1.109
1.209
0
Benteke
12
929
10
12
-2
0.969
1.163
0
Clark
12
945
15
10
5
1.429
0.952
0
Bacuna
12
992
11
11
0
0.998
0.998
0
Okore
3
167
1
3
-2
0.539
1.617
0
Tonev
10
374
3
3
0
0.722
0.722
0
Helenius
3
49
0
1
-1
0.000
1.837
0
Kozak
10
574
9
7
2
1.411
1.098
0
Sylla
6
358
5
4
1
1.257
1.006
0
Bowery
3
27
0
0
0
0.000
0.000
0
Albrighton
1
19
0
0
0
0.000
0.000
0

Tuesday, December 3, 2013

Spurs/United a preview of what might eventually be

Let’s talk about neurology (again). Specifically, let’s talk about the way the human nervous system deals with learning a new strategy – either a movement strategy or a new way of applying what knowledge you already have.

Technically speaking, learning is a relatively permanent change, a product of a change in the architecture of the body’s nervous systems. Performance is another matter altogether; it is a temporary change in behaviour observed during supervised practice. It depends on many factors including the environment and the level of ambient stress.

Now, let’s talk about football – and more accurately, about this weekend’s past match between Tottenham Hotspur and Manchester United. Both teams are acclimating to new personnel, and thereby learning new tactics, methods and movements.

David Moyes’ arrival means the entire club is adapting to a new way of doing things, while the Whites have replaced a once-in-a-generation player with a wide array of disparate talents like Erik Lamela, Andros Townsend, Paulinho and Roberto Soldado. Each new player is now – and still – adapting to Andre Villas-Boas and the way he thinks about football and demands it played.

To expect instant change, or a team to understand implicitly a new motor learning strategy within months is unrealistic – for someone to retrain a learned behaviour, it takes anywhere as much as 400 repetitions. Add to that the communication barrier – message, language or mode – and suddenly it becomes reasonable to expect any particular situational play to take months to consolidate.


Occasions of exquisite performance, such as Manchester United’s 5-0 triumph over Bayer Leverkusen in the Champions League last week, can occur despite a lack of learning. Sometimes, circumstances transpire to create an atmosphere in which performance can occur despite a lack of learning. The learning will occur as each player’s reps increase, with the most benefit coming from time spent on the field in matches, rather than the training ground.

Tuesday, November 19, 2013

France's qualifying woes actually reflects well on FIFA - sort of

Today's UEFA World Cup playoffs will see France attempt to overturn a 0-2 deficit in hopes of qualifying for next year's football fiesta. Apparently local hopes aren't high, with one poll stating 84 percent of French citizens think the task will be too great for Les Bleus.

Ask the French Football Federation, and they'll intimate that the team shouldn't be in this position in the first place. This is because playoff seeding weights group-stage matches more heavily than friendlies. Because France drew a qualification group with four teams instead of five, Les Bleus were unable to achieve enough FIFA rankings points to demand a seed. Thus, Franck Ribery et al are now underdogs in a two-legged playoff against a quality Ukraine team who might boast one of the best home field advantages this side of Iceland. (And the US.)

France always contribute to the World Cup, whether because of sparkling football, a soliloquising coach or just because of their general combustibility factor (see: Anelka, Nicolas and Zidane, Zinedine). The Cup will miss them - as it will Zlatan Ibrahimovic or Cristiano Ronaldo, whichever player should not qualify. Plenty of teams are unlucky during the qualification process and thereby miss the Cup; four years ago, France got lucky when Thierry Henry's handball was instrumental in the Republic of Ireland missing out on a trip to South Africa.

FIFA are certain to want France to qualify for the sake of marketability and improved TV ratings, but may benefit indirectly by the absence of such a major nation. For many years - and especially since the farrago that the winning Qatar World Cup bid has been - the game's governing body has been seen as a laughable entity defined by factional and personal self-interest. Not "rigging the draw" to ensure all of Ibrahimovic, Ronaldo, Mexico and France's qualification is the first principled stand FIFA have made in years.

We can now celebrate Sepp Blatter and co. actually getting something right! Unfortunately, as recent events have come to light - predominantly surrounding football's newest/tiniest powerbroker, Qatar -  this stand is comparatively small. 

As will be the comfort taken by French football fans should Didier Deschamps’ men not triumph handsomely at the Stade de France this evening.

Saturday, November 16, 2013

World Cup 2014 deserves Iceland, not Ronaldo or Ibrahimovic

The argument that the World Cup would be immeasurably damaged by the absence of either Zlatan Ibrahimovic or Cristiano Ronaldo is understandable, but bobbins. While the sublime skills of these players would be missed – but perhaps not as much as their personalities – one wonders if the presence of  the best players in the world is actually what makes the World Cup great.

One of the greatest players in history, Georgie Best, never played at a World Cup Finals, yet the tournament during his career moved to the forefront of football’s imagination. Some more modern greats have appeared at the Big Dance on multiple occasions, only to continually disappoint. (I’m looking at you, Wayne Rooney. And you, Ronaldinho).

Throughout the qualifying process both Cristiano Ronaldo and Zlatan Ibrahimovic (and the French national team) have trod many stages upon which they might shine. Either or both may still do so – probably to the other’s detriment. But the biggest platform doesn’t necessarily require the biggest stars; the World Cup is more about the sport’s unifying force than the paragon of the sport’s performance.

Seeding the Qualification and playoff draw may help ensure that the best players and most popular teams make it through to the World Cup finals, thereby protecting television rankings in major markets like France. But it does so at the expense of smaller nations who have achieved just as much (and, if relative populations are taken into account, more) to make the final phase of qualification.

If skill begets achievement and achievement deserves its place at the Cup, look no further than the minnows.

Put frankly, the 2014 World Cup would be greater for having Iceland – population 320,000 – enter the Big Dance for the first time in place of Cristiano or Zlatan doing so again. While moments of tremendous skill – often, but not always, perpetrated by the game’s greats – help improve the perceived quality of a tournament, this isn’t the reason why people watch the World Cup.

The Cup’s enduring appeal is a result of the multicultural and festive atmosphere that surrounds it, a product of nation playing nation at an event that occurs only every four years. The greatest and most dramatic moments from the last World Cup – which while perhaps not a great tournament technically, but absolutely engaging – were rarely a solo act of brilliance but the product of team play or the high stakes involved.

Moments of incredible technical prowess don’t make a World Cup. They help, certainly, but the reason the World Cup is the globe’s greatest sporting event isn’t necessarily soft-shoed talent – for that, look to the UEFA Champions League or any match featuring Lionel Messi – but the celebration of national pride and the unlikely stories behind the unfolding events.