In The Mixer

Ghost-goal raises spectre of technology in football

2009-08-19T18:41:00.006Z

Most people haven’t attended a refereeing course, but we can only assume that Lesson One covers what to do when a player hits the round thing between the two white posts – or maybe not if Crystal Palace’s recent trip to Bristol City is anything to go by.

It did not take long for the season to witness its first truly calamitous piece of refereeing, or for those in favour of introducing technology to aid officials to re-issue their orders to drag the game into the 21st century.

Neil Warnock is rarely without an opinion following a game, but the Palace manager was justifiably infuriated after watching his team fall victim to a piece of refereeing incompetence that would have tested the patience of a saint, let alone one of football’s perennial wind bags.

Palace’s on-loan striker Freddie Sears thought he had put them ahead against City having slammed the ball into the back of the net only for the referee Rob Shoebridge, after consulting both his assistants, to say he had failed to find the target.

A simple mistake for those who are visually impaired, but sadly for Shoebridge, who has been removed from his post for the next two weeks, the gift of sight is a pre-requisite for a modern football official.

Those in favour of the introduction of technology cite such bizarre incidents as obvious reasons to remove some of the burden away from referees and hand it to a computer or at least a fourth official with the aid of a monitor and a television replay.

The argument is often put forward, usually by those who have been wronged by some refereeing injustice, with incredulity as if having Hawk-Eye monitoring the goal-line is part of the natural progression of human history.

“We can put a man on the moon,” grumbled Warnock, “but we can’t have cameras on the goal posts.”

Of course the Palace manager has a point, but he is also perhaps missing one, which those who promote the ever-expanding use of technology often neglect.

Unbeknown to the Palace boss, a giant leap for mankind has been made in this field. But the question is not whether we could use all manner of devices to help referees but whether we should? And whether the introduction of even limited technology would be the beginning of an insidious invasion of gadgetry and replays that leads to the slow destruction of the beautiful game?

On the surface no one would object to some form of device that could tell if the ball had crossed the line, providing the decision was almost immediate. You would not want the intervening moments to be punctuated by a game changing event such as a sending off, an injury or a goal at the other end.

But what of other decisions: offsides for example – should controversial goals where a player may have just strayed behind the last defender before finding the back of the net be referred to the fourth official to view again on the monitor?

And should the referral be the decision of the referee or the team who feel they have been wronged? Imagine the fuss if a ref refused to refer a decision and it later turned out to be wrong. Anyone who thinks this sort of technology would clean up the game is likely to be disappointed.

This type of pressure on referees would inevitably result in players being the ones who decided if the video was going to be called into play, and the unseemly haranguing of officials would become more and more commonplace. You can bet your boots, a gaggle of players would gather round the ref every time a goal was scored demanding it be referred to the fourth official in the hope the video would unearth some previously unseen infringement.

And what about incidents that are not objective matters of fact? If we accept that offsides should be referred to a video arbiter, the next step will surely be penalty decisions, serious fouls, or violent conduct.

The obvious answer is that you must draw the line somewhere, to avoid the game degenerating into a long and drawn out affair, but the question is where do you rake that line in the sand?

Many other sports of course successfully manage to make use of video technology to the benefit of the game, but perhaps none are similar enough to provide a model which football could successfully employ.

Rugby is perhaps the nearest in structure and the one from which football could learn the most. Officials refer matters to video referees with questions that return to objective matters of fact such as whether or not a player has managed to touch the ball down over the try line.

Football referees could conceivably do the same. So rather than refer a penalty decision or a foul to a video referee, they could ask a question such as did the defender get a touch on the ball, or did the ball make contact with his hand.

This would seem to make a lot more sense than a system such as that in tennis where opposing players can each stop play three times to challenge a decision. If applied to football, this could easily lead to abuse with unscrupulous captains choosing to arrest their opponents in full flow at opportune moments, while waiting for a break in play to make a challenge could result in the game carrying on for some minutes before the action was recalled.

The introduction of technology into football is perhaps not inevitable, and certainly not while staunch opponent Michel Platini remains at the Uefa helm, but it becomes more and more likely with every passing piece of incompetence from officials.

Good intentions are never enough to justify any change in the rules, with football being the mega-money industry it is, the application of technology into the game needs to be carefully thought through.

And perhaps the first scientific experiment the game’s governing body could undertake should be a simple eye test for referees – first up Rob Shoebridge?

Lampshade signing shines light on Benitez future

2009-08-19T12:34:00.003Z

A Liverpool legend once sang money cant’t buy you love, but there is one man on Merseyside who would probably disagree.

As Liverpool prepare to face Stoke at Anfield on Wednesday, looking to put their first Premier League points on the board in the new campaign, manager Rafa Benitez has managed to fit in a spot of bargain basement shopping to fill a gaping hole in the Reds defence.

European journeyman Sotiris Kyrgiakos is likely to be recruited at a cost of around £2 million and boasts a CV that includes Rangers, Panathinaikos and Eintracht Frankfurt – hardly a collection to set the pulses racing of expectant Reds fans.

The arrival of the Greek international will almost certainly come too late to prevent Liverpool fielding 18-year-old Spaniard Daniel Ayala – who looked hopelessly out of his depth in last season’s FA Youth Cup final mauling by Arsenal - in the heart of their defence against a physically demanding Potters side.

With Martin Skrtel struggling to recover from a jaw injury sustained against Tottenham at the weekend and Daniel Agger back on the treatment table – a home from home for the Dane – the lack of depth in Benitez’s current squad has been crudely exposed with the season barely begun.

Hull’s Michael Turner and Wednesday’s opponent Ryan Shawcross are both seemingly out of reach, leaving Benitez to turn his attention to a player who is unlikely to have been top of his shopping list when the reliable Sami Hyypia first announced he would be leaving Liverpool to play out his career in Germany.

The Liverpool manager, who was reportedly promised £20 million on top of anything he raised in player sales when he signed his new contract, is currently sitting on an £8 million profit for his summer trading to date. The departures of Xabi Alonso, Alvaro Arbeloa, Sebastien Leto, Jack Hobbs and Paul Anderson have generated around £40 million, while Glen Johnson and Alberto Aquilani have cost the Reds in the region of £32 million.

The Spaniard, who is never shy in volunteering an opinion, has so far refrained from criticising co-owners George Gillett and Tom Hicks for failing to make funds available, but should The Reds fail to pick up maximum points at Anfield on Wednesday, we can expect him to bite his tongue no longer.

Benitez has a history of making principled stands that have brought his tenure at his previous clubs to unseemly premature ends.

He walked out of Real Madrid, where he coached the youth team, following a dispute with the president, he quit Extramadura for the same reason, and he famously left Valencia claiming promises had been broken over transfer policy – he wanted a sofa and they bought him a lampshade.

Kyrgiakos will not enjoy the analogy, for he has been scouted in football’s lighting department rather than its more luxurious soft furnishings section. And as guaranteed as a sale at DFS, the Americans are playing with fire and risking not only the wrath of their manager but also his future at the club.

The Reds looked dangerously short on creativity in their season opener against Tottenham, with only the late introduction of Yossi Benayoun providing any penetrative spark.

But long-term Benitez target and Valencia playmaker David Silva is unlikely to be winging his way to Anfield despite reports claiming the Liverpool manager had all but secured a deal only to be told the money was not there by the two men guarding the purse strings.

Results will dictate whether or not Benitez directs his ire at his employers or decides to quietly make-do with the players at his disposal. But should he decide the current financial state of the club is preventing him from doing his job, he may just decide he would be better off elsewhere.

Fit And Proper Person

2007-06-22T11:37:00.000Z

This may seem hard to believe, but the Premier League does actually have rules governing who can gain control of a Premiership football club. You see, not just any Tom, Dick or deposed despot can put on their wellies, wander into top paddock and milk the Premiership cash cow. No, they must first pass what is known as the ‘fit and proper person test’.

This is a fairly new idea in football. Whilst other sports, such as rugby, have had vetting procedures in place for many a year, football has always been a free market. If you had the money, you could have a slice of the action. Well, not any more. About a year ago, some bright spark at Soho Square decided that given the trend amongst foreign billionaires to invest in Premiership football teams – you don’t get that rich without doing something wrong – it would be right and proper to introduce rules to safeguard the beautiful game from an influx of undesirables; hence the ‘fit and proper person test’.

It is probably jumping the gun to try and second guess how the Premier League goes about deciding what constitutes a so-called ‘fit and proper person’ - after all, if the bigwigs who govern the top tier of our national game had the same sense of justice and moral obligation as you or I, West Ham would have been relegated months ago – nevertheless, one would hope that the scope of their criteria extended so far as to examine the financial propriety and human rights record of whosoever tries to gain control of a Premiership club.

Now this brings us on to the former Thai Prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra whose bid of £81 million to buy Manchester City was yesterday recommended to shareholders by the club’s board. It would appear, therefore, that only the minor obstacle of being deemed both ‘fit and proper’ now stands in between Shinawatra and his dream of taking control of a Premiership team.

So, is Mr Shinawatra a fit and proper person? Well, up until yesterday, the only information that I had on Thaksin Shinawatra was a series of allegations of financial impropriety – he’s alleged to have profited to the tune of £1 billion following a deal made possible by his own legislation - and Amnesty International’s repeated concerns vis-à-vis over two thousand uninvestigated murders, the use of excessive force against demonstrators, torture of detainees, and the impunity enjoyed by state officials for alleged human rights violations.

One would have thought that all this would be sufficient to disqualify Mr Shinawatra from taking over at Man City, but having recently seen an interview with the man, I have to admit that he comes across as quite a cheerful and congenial chap. In fact, I would go so far as to say that he has a certain teddy-bearish quality about him. My media-induced lack of cynicism has, therefore, led me to turn my attentions away from the fact that Mr Shinawatra’s government was frequently challenged with allegations of corruption, dictatorship, demagogy, treason, conflicts of interest, human rights abuses, acting undiplomatically, the use of legal loopholes and hostility towards a free press and turn instead towards all the good that he achieved whilst in power – I've heard that he managed to cut poverty in half and provide near universal access to affordable healthcare.

For some reason, I’ve got a funny feeling that the Premier League will also choose not to focus on the negative, and Mr Shinawatra will be deemed both fit and proper to become Chairman of Manchester City.

UEFA To Investigate Serbian Racism… Then Do Nothing

2007-06-19T13:44:00.000Z

If I were the head of the Serbian Football Federation, I’d be worried. The racist chanting by Serbian fans during their U21 team’s final group match against England has really landed them in it. UEFA don’t mess about when it comes to serious matters like this; they operate a policy of ‘zero tolerance’.

Or at least that’s what UEFA's clownish spokesman, William Gaillard, would like us to believe.

Among the besuited, champagne-quaffing footballcrats at UEFA, ‘zero tolerance’ is something of a hazy expression. For it can imply numerous eventualities, to which if you or I were pushed to give a numeric tolerance-value, it would certainly not be zero. For example, when Ashley Cole was subjected to monkey chants at the Santiago Bernabeu, when England played Spain three years ago, the Spanish FA were fined £30,000. Considering gate receipts for that game would have been upwards of £1.5 million, the fine imposed was not zero-tolerant. I would probably place it somewhere in the region of 6-tolerance, which is fairly tolerant, given that my scale only goes up to 10 and 10 would have involved letting the Spanish off scot-free.

So, following the embarrassing events of Sunday night, what punishment can we expect to see meted out to the Serbian FA?

Those of us who don’t ride to work on the UEFA gravy train would expect to see Serbia expelled from the competition. No ifs, no buts, no questions. That way, in any future tournaments, fans who come to support their team or country would know that racist behaviour was counterproductive to their cause. This is the commonsense solution. So will it happen? Of course not. UEFA have already said that nothing will happen before an investigation takes place on July 12th.

An investigation is presumably required to establish that the monkey chants were actually monkey chants and not some inoffensive noise that sounded just like monkey chants. By the time this investigation takes place, the tournament will have been over for nearly three weeks.

However, once the necessary investigation has established for certain that the monkey noises were actually monkey noises, we can then expect to see Serbia banned from taking part in the next Euro U21s. Not likely! This just wouldn’t be in keeping with UEFA’s policy of burying their head in the sand and trying not to do anything too proactive.

A ban is not going to happen. It never does with UEFA. Every racist incident in European football has been met with a paltry fine and no further action and that is exactly what will happen to Serbia. A drawn out investigation will be quietly concluded and UEFA’s mouthy spokesman will claim that the fine is another example of Europe’s governing body getting tough on racism. Meanwhile, Serbia’s mediaeval fans will continue to make their presence known in their own unpleasant way.

Tactics Not Tiredness Were To Blame For the European Demise Of Manchester United And Chelsea

2007-05-07T16:11:00.000Z

Following the Champions’ league exits of England’s top two sides, it seems that it is now universally accepted that going for victory in all competitions is foolish, it being ‘impossible to win on all fronts’. In fact, the very use of this terminology – usually found in descriptions of failed German attempts to conquer Europe – suggests that attempting to win the Champions’ League alongside other domestic competitions is as difficult as taking an army through Russia in wintertime. As many a General has found to his cost, this is indeed very difficult and by extension, United and Chelsea are excused for their poor showing in last week’s semi-finals. Just like the armies of Napoleon and Hitler, they had become battle-weary, whereas Liverpool – who according to Mourinho have been focussing solely on Europe since January – and Milan were not better, just fresher.

Now, to anyone who actually watched both matches, this view may seem a little hard to swallow. And anyone who witnessed Chelsea lump countless diagonal balls to Drogba or Manchester United obstinately refuse to mark the brilliant Kaka may wish to suggest that the root cause of the defeats imposed upon United and Chelsea was not fatigue, but tactical naivety. Going for victory on so many ‘fronts’ is undoubtedly a tall order, but both teams played into the hands of their adversary. Traps were laid and the Premiership’s top two sides gamely fell prey to their opponent’s devices.

One doesn’t imagine that the DVD of Liverpool’s epic victory over Milan two years ago is among Sir Alex Ferguson’s personal collection, but had he thrown even a cursory glance at that game, he couldn’t have helped but notice how Kaka took Liverpool to the proverbial cleaners before the tough tackling German, Didi Hamann, was brought on to nullify the Brazilian’s wizardry. With his influence diminished, Liverpool were able to get a foothold in the game and went on to stage one of the greatest comebacks of all time.

On Wednesday night, Sir Alex Fergusson’s United refused to pay any special attention to the dynamic Brazilian. Pre-game, when asked directly how he planned to deal with Kaka, Fergusson claimed with dismissive authority that he would be dealt with by the nearest man. This was not a bluff and was quite extraordinary considering how the balletic playmaker had twice dismantled the United defence just a week previously. Ferguson’s carefree attitude was bordering on arrogance and he was suitably punished when Kaka ghosted unmarked into the United box to slot home Milan’s crucial opening goal.

The Rossoneri were certainly not going to leave Ronaldo and Rooney unattended in a similar fashion. The Portuguese was constantly tracked and hounded by two men, whilst Rooney was left isolated up front. Despite an array of attacking talent at their disposal, United failed to provide any support for England's most potent striker. As Sven found out against Portugal, Rooney is not suited to playing up front on his own: he becomes frustrated, the responsibility becomes burdensome. He is at his best when another forward is able to occupy defenders, leaving him the space to operate in front of them. The combative Smith should have started against Milan, if only to bring Rooney into the game.

Whereas United were largely undone by their failure to deal with an outstanding individual, Chelsea were bereft of ideas from start to finish in their clash with Liverpool. Due to the regularity of the meetings between these two clubs, a synthetic rivalry has developed, which provokes as much volume and fervour inside Anfield as when more traditional foes are in town. Fans have claimed that the noise during Liverpool’s semi-final victory two years ago was like nothing experienced at Anfield before. On Tuesday night, it was possibly louder. And just like two years ago, Mourinho’s men were unable to silence the Liverpool faithful.

Like United, Chelsea left the focal point of their attack isolated up front and persisted in lumping aimless diagonal balls forward from Ashley Cole who seems to have lost all of the marauding instincts that characterised his game at Arsenal. In the vain hope that Didier Drogba could reproduce some of the magic that has enabled Chelsea to emerge unscathed from many a tight squeeze this season, they persevered with this tactic throughout the match. It was only the late introduction of Wright-Phillips and Robben that enabled Mourinho’s side to pose any attacking threat at all. However, by this stage, the tie had degenerated into an exhausted slugfest, with both sides hoping for a mistake rather than actively trying to create an opening.

For all Mourinho’s sound and fury before the game, his team exited with a whimper. They came to Anfield intent on preventing Liverpool scoring, but when the goal came, there was no plan B for them to fall back on.

So, simple as it is true, fatigue was not to blame for the Champion’s league demise of United and Chelsea. They just got it tactically wrong on the night.

Good Bye And Good Riddance to Big Sam

2007-05-01T14:12:00.000Z

It is common for football writers and pundits to heap praise upon players and managers whose media profile far outweighs their achievements or abilities. It is, however, rare for inappropriate superlatives to survive the test of time. In a rather strange inversion of a common assumption regarding the veracity of historical accounts, the more time that separates the lauding of a player or manager from their heyday, the more accurate the description is likely to be. If somebody writes in glowing terms about the achievements of Brian Clough or Bob Paisley, we know that this opinion has had time to mature and is firmly founded on years of perspective. Sure, we all have a tendency to romanticise the past, but this tendency is eclipsed by our ability to indulge in the present and ignore everything that we will come to reflect upon in time.

It is now less than a day since the unfathomably popular ‘Big Sam’ quit Bolton and already the hacks are busy shovelling praise left, right and centre. Perspective will, no doubt, come in time, but at the moment we are being subjected to a big, fat, Big Sam love-in.

Although we shouldn’t take away from his achievements – he took Bolton Wanderers from Division One and turned them into an above mid-table Premiership side - we should remember one thing above all else: during his reign, Sam Allardyce won nothing as manager of Bolton. His best Premiership finish was 6th and he qualified for the UEFA cup only once with the ensuing European adventure ending two rounds prior to the quarter-final. He is a good, solid Premiership manager, but not a great one, by any stretch of the imagination. Great managers win trophies even when handicapped by the subject of an interminable Allardyce whinge: an unlevel playing field.

To coin a popular expression, great managers make the impossible possible or at least turn the unlikely into an eventuality. Now, it is very difficult to imagine even the greatest manager usurping the big four and turning Bolton into title contenders, but an FA Cup, a League Cup or even a UEFA Cup was certainly not beyond the realms of possibility.

Arsene Wenger recently commented that if managers were all given equal resources, he would regularly come top of the league. Big Sam, however, disagreed and snorted his disapproval, claiming that the winner of this hypothetical championship would not be Wenger but Allardyce.

The former Bolton manager likes to indulge in this fantasy that he is champion among underdogs. Take out the big spenders and there he is, sitting pretty at the top of the tree. But the facts tell a remarkably different story. Even if we take the big four out of the equation, Allardyce’s premiership record is not a succession of titles but a 12th, 13th, 4th, 2nd and 4th place finish. This is hardly the record of one of the game’s greats. In fact, I’m willing to bet that if any of the ‘big four’ managers had this return after 5 years in the Premiership, they would be struggling to hang on to their jobs.

Many fans of the beautiful game will not be at all upset to see an end to this particular Bolton era. Under Allardyce, the team played their own unique brand of hoofball: they were dirty, scrappy, and downright unpleasant to watch. They were like Revie’s Leeds, but without the success. Predictably, though, their combative approach was a rather touchy subject for their former manager. When anyone dared question his chosen style of play, he would launch with unerring regularity into yet another whinge about how the team had to compensate for their lack of investment in the transfer market. Yawn.

Why Big Sam still remains such a popular choice for the England job is, quite frankly, beyond me. Perhaps the public are attracted to that gruff, rhinoceros-like personality: the northern toiler, doing everything he can to stay afloat whilst other top managers are gifted with the footballing equivalent of a silver spoon. Myself, I see only a grumpy, rancorous excuse-maker, whose teams play with all the style of lumbering heavyweight boxer.

The confused ramblings of a desperate old man

2007-04-20T10:45:00.000Z

It’s funny how quickly things can change in football. Until last week, Arsenal were probably the most stable and well-directed club in the country. The Emirates faithful were not burdened by concerns about whether or not their owners would be able to cope with the crippling debts they had secured against the club, or indeed, whether their manager may be sacked in an act of Stalinesque ruthlessness. They had a new stadium promising a healthy financial future, a manager who had delivered unprecedented success, and a stable board upon whom Arsene Wenger could rely.

Following David Dein’s resignation, however, amidst talk of a takeover by American billionaire Stan Kronke, the north London Club has been shaken to its core. What was once a cruise liner on a tour of success has been transformed overnight into a dinghy stranded in open water.

From beneath the mire of internet rumour, only a few clear facts have emerged. We can be fairly certain of one thing: Mr Arsenal (David Dein) was in favour of the American takeover, whilst the rest of the Arsenal board – headed by Chairman Peter Hill-Wood - were vehemently against any such proposal.

The Chairman was certainly keen to let everyone know his position regarding a possible change of ownership: ‘Why don’t we want the American at our club? Call me old fashioned, but we don’t need his money and we don’t want his sort. Our objective is to keep Arsenal English, albeit with a lot of foreign players.’

Keep Arsenal English? His sort? The temptation is to allow such jingoistic nonsense to pass without reply, but so bizarre is it coming from the chairman of Arsenal that it really does demand a few words. Had this rant spouted from the mouth of Doug Ellis before Villa fell into American hands, one could - just about - have understood it, but Arsenal are quite possibly the most cosmopolitan team in the world. The first-team is regularly made up of eleven foreign imports, the manager is French and the majority of their fans live outside North London.

One can only assume, therefore, that what Hill-wood was getting at when he said he wanted to ‘keep Arsenal English’ was that he and the other board members don’t fancy losing their jobs. So, unless of course, the ageing Chairman is party to plans on the part of the American to uproot the club and plonk them in the deep south or replace the tea lady with a coffee-pouring truck stop dame, then he comes across, at best, as a man caught up in an act of desperate self-preservation while at worst, he reminds you of a clichéd old granddad still bitter about the fact that the Americans came over here and nicked our women during the War.

Of course this doesn’t mean that Kronke should be welcomed with open arms, but claiming that he should be rejected on the basis of his nationality, when your club is quite so nationally diverse is ludicrously dumb.

In fact, Hill-Wood’s ramblings serve only to confuse the issue. There are questions that need to be asked and if the chairman had wanted to appear slightly less self-concerned and worried about his own future, he could have emphasised to a greater extent the fears that many fans have regarding the sudden influx of foreign – and in particular American – investment.

To the vast majority of Arsenal fans, the nationality of their owner will be of little concern. What they will want to know is whether or not a takeover could benefit their club. They need to know if Stan Kronke would have the money to invest substantially in the team after the buy-out. David Dein would no doubt have us believe that his support for the American is due to the club’s present – though relative – poverty. But would Kronke have to borrow substantial amounts to buy out the present owners? And would this debt be secured against the club?

These are the sort of issues that should have been brought up by Hill-Wood. He, on the other hand, obviously hoped that there would be a general agreement amongst the Arsenal faithful that selling out to an American would be a step in a terrible direction. He probably assumed that the average football fan is a barely coherent, patriotic, club-waving thug, whose tribal instincts would be so riled by the thought of imminent Yankee invasion that they would immediately jump into the Hill-Wood corner. This isn’t going to happen. Most Arsenal fans have become quite accustomed to a foreign presence and are distinctly laissez-faire in their attitude. This is probably due in no small measure to the fact that since they broadened their horizons, they have won three league titles, two FA Cups, and reached the Champions’ League final for the first time in their history. If these fans feel that new owners could help move the club forward then they will welcome them with open arms and will abstain – almost certainly - from patriotic tub-thumping.

Poles Apart: Benitez And Wenger

2007-03-11T11:54:00.000Z

The most entertaining sports are usually those that allow many and varied approaches to result in success. Competitions where victory is not solely guaranteed by either the physical, technical, or tactical elements of the game, but where different combinations of all three can yield rewards have a greater appeal for one reason or another. If the weak can sometimes defeat the strong through technique or speed of thought and if the technically inferior can overcome the gifted through hard graft, we find ourselves instinctively drawn to the sport.

Take tennis, for example and in particular Wimbledon. Towards the end of the last decade, what was once the greatest tennis tournament in the world became a rather unappealing spectacle, nothing more than an event to establish who on the planet had the fastest and most destructive serve. Now that guile (Federer) and guts (Nadal) can overcome even the most ferocious of opening shots, we once again have a competition that captivates us sports fanatics.

Perhaps it’s the narrative quality of these games that engage our imaginations in ways that pure tribal loyalty simply couldn’t.

Now football is one of those sports that simply refuses to have any particular style or approach imposed upon it. It is never simply a case of having the best athletes, the most technically gifted players or the most tactically astute manager. And nowhere is this more evident than in the annually contested entertainment banquet of the Champions’ League. This week, Barcelona’s superior technical ability was undone by Liverpool’s shrewd tactical approach, whilst Arsenal’s free-flowing, fast moving, two-touch possession game succumbed to a resilient and pragmatic PSV. It was, of course, very different last year when the rampaging, attacking instincts of both Arsenal and Barcelona swept all aside on their way to the final with the latter eventually emerging triumphant.

With so many different approaches to the game in evidence, it stands to reason that sides should be prepared to alter their tactical approach in order to best challenge whoever they are facing. Horses for courses as they say. But this is not a universally held opinion and in Rafa Benitez and Arsene Wenger we have two managers who – on this issue – would appear to stand at opposite ends of the tactical spectrum. They are, if you like, chalk and cheese, although art and science would be a more appropriate analogy.

Like all Wenger’s previous teams, the present Arsenal side is indeed a work of art, and we, the spectators, are allowed to feast upon her beauty. Touched by her simplicity and graceful elegance, even rival fans are compelled to admire her from afar.

In turn, the artist, Monsieur Wenger - in awe of his creation - refuses to entertain any alteration to his work that may detract from her stunning grace. No compromise will be considered. His work shall remain intact and how it was intended.

If his creation is deemed unsatisfactory by the rules of competition then so be it. Not as long as the artist is allowed to preside over his chef d’oeuvres will any thought be entertained of ‘winning ugly’. It just wouldn’t be right. This is, after all, the beautiful game.

The only downside with this is that Arsenal, like Barcelona, are almost metronomic in their predictability. They only know one way to play and they play it very well. Many teams are simply blown away by the fluency of their movement. But every so often they come up against a side that has set out specifically to nullify their attacking instincts, a team that is prepared to cede much of their own offensive ambition in order to frustrate their opponent’s efforts. And all too often in Europe – it’s usually once a year - Arsenal are beaten by a side that they are expected to overcome.

Now let’s contrast this with Rafa Benitez’s Liverpool. The scientist on Merseyside has created a machine with many settings. And no matter who the opposition, the machine has an appropriate instruction.

His side can sit deep, keep their opponents in front of them and try to hit them hard and fast on the break, whilst being equally capable of playing an attacking, high-tempo possession game, pressing opponents in their own half.

They can play with the solidity of Sissoko and Alonso in the middle with Gerrard on the right or - when Benitez decides to go for the throat - they let their captain loose in the centre of midfield. Depending on the opposition, they sometimes look to dominate possession using Peter Crouch’s hold up play and sometimes look to stretch teams with Bellamy’s pace.

Not even the most partisan Liverpool supporter could ever describe Benitez’s team as beautiful, but they can be ruthlessly efficient. And all too often in Europe, they overcome sides to whom they are expected to fall. Barcelona can now be added to a list that includes Juventus, Chelsea and AC Milan.

The point of this article, however, is not to laud Benitez’s tactical plurality over Wenger’s decorative monism. For a start, the Spaniard’s constant tactical and personnel changes have not been an unreserved success. For every swing, there is a roundabout, and for every cup final triumph there is Liverpool’s less than impressive league form, which has led to accusations of tinkering in extremis on the part of their Spanish manager. Then there’s Arsene Wenger’s three league titles and season-long unbeaten run to consider. Although he habitually falls short in Europe, he has enjoyed almost unparalleled domestic success.

Perhaps the answer to both managers’ difficulties, therefore, lies in some form of compromise between the two polarities. Maybe Benitez should put a little more trust in the quality of a settled eleven rather than taking it upon himself to create a tactical master plan for every game. And, Wenger could perhaps add a little variety to his rather predictable, though certainly not pedestrian side.

But then again, maybe not. Football management is a delicate balancing act and success often comes down to the chance discovery of a winning formula. Who’s to say that Arsenal’s attacking instincts could be successfully curtailed or that Liverpool could thrive without Benitez’s constant tweaks?

If this has come across as an almighty cop-out, then so be it. I don’t believe there is necessarily any concrete or universal approach that either boss could swiftly adopt in order for their teams to become the complete package. And, herein lies part of the attraction to the game. The vagaries and nuances of the sport are what give it the all important narrative quality and this is why we love it.

Wenger’s vanity costs Arsenal precious silverware

2007-03-01T16:07:00.000Z

Arsenal’s defeat to Blackburn in last night’s FA Cup replay saw Arsene Wenger’s side wave goodbye to their most realistic chance of silverware this season. Following defeats to PSV in the Champions’ League and to Chelsea in Sunday’s Carling Cup Final, the FA Cup provided the North London club with arguably their best chance of taking something from an indifferent year. Benni McCarthy’s last minute wonder goal, however, ensured that Arsene Wenger’s latest batch of exciting young talent would probably end the campaign empty handed.

It could well have been different. Had Wenger played a few more players over the age of 21 against Chelsea, they might have won the Carling Cup and had he not left out crucial first teamers in favour the youngsters again last night, they could and should have been in the quarter-finals of the FA Cup too. But such is Wenger’s way: winning trophies seems to be of little concern when it comes to the domestic cup competitions. He has always treated the early stages of the Carling Cup with disdain, and now it seems, the FA Cup gets indulged with a similar dispassion. It would appear that for Wenger winning is less important than showing off his ability to find and develop great young talent.

Perhaps Mourinho’s comment that Wenger could not be considered a great manager, as he has never won Champions' League had a bigger effect on the Arsenal boss than he would ever want to admit. Wenger himself has achieved fantastic domestic success, but he is probably all too aware that - in the eyes of the general public - his claim to greatness lies in the fact that without huge financial resources at his disposal, he has still managed to develop incredibly successful teams that play exciting, free-flowing football. He has, if you like, done a Clough and created his teams rather than bought them. For this he has reason to be proud and is certainly justified in calling himself a ‘great’ manager.

But, so desperate is he to showcase his ability to unearth and develop young players that he has become temporarily distracted from the overriding objective of all truly great managers: winning competitions. His decision to play his young players in the Carling Cup Final and in last night’s FA Cup replay at Ewood Park showed up a manager for whom personal adulation is the primary concern, with winning coming a distant second. How he would have loved to walk away from Cardiff with all and sundry hailing his ability to turn a bunch of talented youngsters into a force capable of beating the mighty Chelsea.

The Arsenal fans have shown remarkable tolerance and trust in their manager's decisions. His tremendous success at the club has ensured that the knives are not out just yet. However, if he continues to show a total lack of sympathy for the common fan, they soon will be. Both sets of supporters travelled down to the Millennium Stadium on Sunday hoping for a victory, but it was the Chelsea fans who left Cardiff celebrating another success. Understandably, they would have been disappointed had Chelsea lost the game following a decision by Jose Mourinho to play the youth team instead of his best eleven. Without wanting to labour the point, this is because fans go to cup finals hoping to see their captain lift the trophy at the end of the match. They don’t go out of curiosity to see how their stars of tomorrow will compete at the highest level. And this is why there is no justification for Wenger’s policy of blooding young players in important cup games. Although the domestic cup competitions provide the young players with invaluable experience, there are no prizes dished out for having a great side in the future, only for winning in the here and now. Chelsea didn’t use the Carling Cup Final to bed in young players and, as a result they have one more trophy in the cabinet under Jose Mourinho.

In fact, it is probably Mourinho’s success at Chelsea, combined with Arsenal’s disappointing performance in the league over recent seasons, which has led Wenger to attempt such a vain stunt. Whereas once he was universally acclaimed as the one true genius in English football, now the gloss has come off his reputation. His effort to reassert himself at the top of the football management tree has backfired and his vanity has cost the club and the fans their best two chances of silverware this season. When future generations come to pass judgement on Arsene Wenger, they will look at what he has won first and other achievements will come second. If he continues to pass up opportunities for success then his greatness will certainly be called into question

Lille bring shame on Europe’s premier sporting competition

2007-02-21T15:19:00.001Z

The Champions League returned last night with a game that almost began in tragedy but ended in pure farce. A largely uninspiring encounter on the pitch between French club Lille and Manchester United was marked by two rather dramatic incidents. Both will require careful attention from UEFA and could result in the French club being expelled from the competition. And such a result would be far from an overreaction given the events that transpired. The first incident saw police - unaware that a potentially fatal crush was developing - fire tear gas into the end where the United supporters had been herded. The second involved Lille players staging a walk off protest after Ryan Giggs scored the only goal of the match (I could add 'in somewhat controversial circumstances' but as quickly taken freekicks are not prohibited by the rules of the game, I shan't!).

The events surrounding the beginning of the tie provided an ugly reminder of the terrible proceedings at Hillsborough 18 years ago. Whilst United fans were pushed against the high perimeter fences, riot police fired tear gas and swung truncheons at those who, in desperation, tried to climb to safety. The French police, not known for their softly-softly approach, swung their batons with such fervour it was as if they were repelling revolutionary hordes intent on seizing power, not desperate fans trying to escape a potential crush. In scenes reminiscent of the early 1980s, it seemed as though the police had travelled to the game in a time machine, hell-bent on crushing a hooligan element that hasn't been witnessed in English football stadiums for almost 20 years. To say that the policing of the situation was merely a little heavy handed would be a complete misrepresentation of what happened. It would not be out of place to suggest that they totally misread events due to an ill-informed and out-dated collective assumption that crowd trouble and pitch invasions were to be expected when the English came to town.

Of course, serious questions need to be asked as to how so many United fans ended up in one particular end of the ground. The French authorities claim the cause was a number of away fans gaining entry to the stadium with forged tickets. Countering this, United supporters are adamant that the root cause was a security blunder that saw many of them who'd bought tickets to sit with the home fans being rounded up and squeezed into one end of the ground. Neither explanation reflects well on the French club's ability to stage a top-level football match, though the latter would suggest a total failure on their part to implement basic safety measures.

Blame for the incident, however, does not sit squarely at the feet of the French club. UEFA, will no doubt, come down hard on Lille, but they themselves must share responsibility for what happened. United claim they had expressed concerns about the basic facilities at the ground long in advance of the match, but the governing body took no action. Although it would seem ludicrous to allow Lille off scot-free, there is an element of injustice in punishing the club after UEFA themselves were made aware of specific safety issues, yet did nothing. Perhaps now they will move to prevent games being played at stadiums that do not come up to their own safety standards. This, however, is unlikely. Given new UEFA president Michel Platini's desire to see more and more smaller teams involved in the competition, they will probably continue turning a blind eye to obvious safety issues, and merely punish clubs retrospectively when incidents occur.

If, somehow, Lille do escape sanction over stadium safety, they must be punished for the ridiculous and childish reaction of their players following Ryan Giggs’ opening goal. Although only short lived, their unprecedented protest demonstrated a total lack of respect for the sport and the spirit of competition. Whilst, as Alex Ferguson was quick to point out, their actions had the unsavoury effect of whipping up the crowd into something of a frenzy. Ferguson, quite correctly, described it as an obvious attempt to intimidate the referee.

In a rather bizarre effort to defend his team’s behaviour, the Lille president has suggested that it was never anyone's intention to walk away from the match, but what we witnessed was actually an example of how the game is played in France. Apparently, when French teams disagree strongly with a decision they stage a protest at the first available stoppage. Now, it is obviously part of French culture to protest at any given opportunity, but to suggest that disrespectful protests of this nature are an integral part of the game in France is an outright lie. And, in any case, this rather flimsy moral relativism provides scant defence of his team's actions. If accused of stealing, a thief will gain little advantage in court by pleading that he comes from a community of thieves!

UEFA are not known for the fair and even distribution of their punishments and disciplinary decisions are often motivated by the political and financial implications of taking action. However, should they fail to administer an appropriate punishment against Lille, then a rather dangerous precedent will have been established. What a ridiculous situation we would have if teams believed that when in disagreement with the referee, they could escape sanction if they left the pitch in protest. Refereeing mistakes are commonplace in football (not that the referee was mistaken on this occasion), but no match would ever be completed if every error by one of the officials were followed by a silly walk-off.

Platini’s campaign to be elected president of UEFA focused almost entirely on how the big European clubs needed to have their power and influence curtailed. In an ironic twist of fate, his first major act as president will be to deal with a small provincial club from his own country who have brought shame on Europe’s premier sporting competition. Will he be brave enough to throw the book at Lille? Failure to do so could well have drastic consequences for the future of European football.

What's in a name?

2007-02-08T17:05:00.001Z

New owners at Liverpool refuse to rule out selling the naming rights to the club’s new stadium.

This week saw the completion of the long and drawn-out takeover of Liverpool Football Club. The new owners, American businessmen George Gillett and Tom Hicks, beamed from ear to ear as they announced how proud they were to have acquired the club (or rather the ‘franchise’ as they put it). The intriguing set of events that led to the takeover - the last-minute rejection of the offer proposed by the DIC group - would have come as something of a shock to the fans of most clubs. Followers of Liverpool, however, have become accustomed to false dawns and collapsed deals and took the sudden developments in their stride. In fact, in stark contrast to the Glazier takeover at Manchester United, Kopites have embraced their new owners with relative warmth and only a little scepticism.

What concern there is, however, centres on a comment made by Gillett in the first press conference given by the new owners. In response to a question regarding the naming rights to Liverpool’s new stadium on Stanley Park, Gillett announced that he would not rule out the possibility of selling the name of the new ground if a good deal could be assured. Putting forward his position in the form of a question, he asked if the Liverpool fans would rather retain the right to name their own stadium or sign a world-class player every season? With financial experts predicting that the club could make anything up to £10 million a year by selling the rights, this proposal has divided opinion among fans. Some are vehemently against any such proposals and see it as a sudden move away from the club’s historic traditions, whilst others see it as a positive step towards driving the club into the harsh economic reality of 21st century sport.

Like most football grounds, Anfield was named after its locality and this provided an unbreakable bond between the community and the football club. The concern, therefore, is that naming rights are a small step towards franchise football, whereby clubs are not part of a community, but a brand that can be taken and exploited wherever the franchise owner desires. The notion of football clubs as franchises provokes anger in any debate among fans and the persistent use of the term by Messrs Gillett and Hicks had many Liverpool supporters cringing with embarrassment. The very word ‘franchise’ immediately conjures up memories of how Wimbledon FC became Milton Keynes Dons.

But such a drastic example of owner involvement should not be a worry for the fans of Liverpool Football Club. The Americans clearly have no desire or motive to detach the club from its roots and it is nigh on impossible to imagine a time or set of circumstances in which it would be economically advantageous to move Liverpool FC away from Merseyside. But, the very fact that this could in theory be done, justifies the debate surrounding franchise football and moves to detach clubs - even if only through the naming of a stadium - from the local communities which gave rise to them.

Liverpool, of course, are not the first club to consider selling the naming rights to their new stadium. Many clubs have already sold these rights either to fund the construction of the new stadium or as means of generating future revenue. Bolton play at The Reebok, Arsenal at the Emirates, Wigan at the JJB to name but a few. In the case of Arsenal, a club of a similar stature to Liverpool, the fans seemed to accept the move to the Emirates with relatively little fuss. Unless, of course, the lack of atmosphere at the stadium could be considered some form of silent protest!

Liverpool fans, however, are a proud lot and strongly associate with the history of the club. During times of severe economic hardship, tremendous success on the field offered fans a means of escape. And tragedies such as Heysel and Hillsborough have provided a connection between the community and the club that goes way beyond events on the pitch. But equally, there are few clubs whose fans are so accustomed to and demanding of success. A dilemma then indeed! Liverpool undoubtedly need revenue in order to compete in the transfer market with the Manchester Uniteds and Chelseas of this world, so what value tradition if it means ceding all hope of success on the field? Nottingham Forest are a club with a fantastic tradition, yet currently reside in the third tier of English football. Would Forest fans happily watch their club play at the Coca-Cola stadium if it meant challenging for the title and a return to the European Cup, a competition they won twice in the late 1970s? The answer is surely 'yes'.

It is often said that when it comes to football, Liverpool fans are an intelligent and rational bunch. Following Gillett’s comments regarding the possible sale of the stadium naming rights, the popular press latched on to his words in the hope of whipping up some sort of a media storm. Of course, this has not materialised. In fact, many Liverpool supporters have actually reasoned in favour of renaming the new stadium. Most are swayed by the argument that naming rights will help fund future transfer purchases to the tune of ‘one world-class player every season’. More poignantly, though, others reason that a new stadium will not be Anfield so why all the fuss about naming it something else. Renaming a new stadium is hardly a break from tradition when compared to having a new stadium in the first place. And as the new stadium will be in Stanley Park, no major detachment of the fans from the club or break from tradition will occur. So what’s in a name? Well, it would seem that to many Liverpool fans, very little indeed.

Platini’s principles have no place in football.

2007-01-26T14:36:00.001Z

Following his election as UEFA president, Michel Platini has pledged to lead something of a red revolution, beginning with an overhaul of the Champion’s League format. Former France captain and midfield maestro Platini, saw off competition from the previous incumbent, Leonart Johanssen by pledging to reduce to three the number of Champions' League places allocated to Italy, Spain, Germany and England.

“These countries should have three clubs each in the Champions League so that teams from other leagues that are not in the same financial bracket can compete with them on the pitch. There are not enough champions taking part in the competition. Yes to an open Champions League, no to a closed pseudo-NBA (America's basketball association).”

In contrast to Johanssen, who refused to consider change to a competition that has brought huge prosperity to the game, Platini appears to be advocating good egalitarian principles: equality of opportunity, fair competition and a redistribution of wealth away from the G14. And when couched in these terms, I find myself instinctively sympathizing with his proposals. Saying ‘we’ll take one team from each eastern European country, and 4 from England, Spain, Italy and Germany is a bit like a university with five places to fill saying ‘we’ll take one comprehensive kid and 4 privately educated ones.’ The argument that the privately educated children are simply better at the point of arrival merely perpetuates the inequality. Sometimes a little positive discrimination is, therefore, required to make things fairer.

These are good principles, which when applied to societies improve the lives of the individuals within them. But let’s not get carried away with our philanthropic ideals. My socialism does not compel me to agree with Platini. Careful reflection leads me to the conclusion that Football competitions are very, very different to the societies in which we live.

Notions like ‘equality’ are loaded moral terms, in that we often accept without consideration that equality is preferable to inequality. Our reasoned recognition that racial or social equality is preferable to its alternative can cloud our judgement on other issues. Equality is no moral absolute. Our belief in social or racial equality stems from considerations such as causing hurt or suffering to others is wrong. And we’d do well to remember this when analyzing Platini’s position.

We are dealing here with football clubs and not individuals. Football clubs do not stand in dole queues or have their credit cards rejected in supermarkets. They don’t experience the humiliation and frustration that poverty or discrimination brings about.
But, of course, football clubs are nothing without their fans and fans do surely feel the pain of inequality, when their club is denied their ‘fair share’. This, I grant you, is true. That football competitions should be more egalitarian as a result, however, is a truly ridiculous notion. Sport, by definition, produces winners and losers. If it didn’t, we simply wouldn’t watch it. The Champions’ League is not like sports day at a politically correct primary school, where every child must win a prize. It’s competitive. And we as fans want to watch the very best teams and the very best players. Perhaps, on reflection, Platini would also like to introduce a rule that says when any team goes 3 – nil up, the game must be immediately stopped with the winning team giving the losers a hug to say sorry. Not so ridiculous if the goal is ensuring greater equality between teams.

Perhaps Platini should reflect a little on his motivation for meddling with the format of the Champions’ league. I can’t help but wonder whether he’d be so keen to interfere if the French league had parity with England, Spain, Italy and Germany. With tongue firmly in cheek, I suggest that Platini’s prime motivation requires a contextual explanation. French history is characterized by a paranoid inferiority complex, a deep-rooted fear that they are not as powerful or important as their European neighbours. Throughout history, among those French who have attained positions of power, this fear has manifested itself in thinly disguised attempts to diminish the influence of others whilst claiming justice and equality as their prime motivation. Platini is merely a symptom of an ingrained national characteristic. His attempts to reduce the English, Spanish, German and Italian Champions' League contingent is no more instructed by a desire to protect the good of the game, than the cheese-mongers of Paris who stubbornly refuse to stock good-quality cheddar are motivated by a distaste for the finest cheese on God’s Earth. To understand Platini, we’ll do well to consider Thucydides’ analysis of the Peloponnesian War. ‘Fear, was the principal motive, though honour and self-interest afterwards came in.’

Shevchenko cottons on as Mourinho goes on the offensive.

2007-01-25T16:52:00.001Z

According to Jose Mourinho, Shevchenko has finally ‘got the message’ following Chelsea’s Carling Cup victory over Wycombe last night. Apparently, his two goals against the league two outfit provided the Chelsea boss with evidence that his £30 million pound striker had at last understood what was expected of him as a Chelsea player.

"I was happy with Andriy's performance - he gave me more than I demanded. He will now play in Sunday's FA Cup tie against Nottingham Forest.
"His attitude was good. He is learning and he showed he gets the message."

Given the circumstances, we cannot be 100% certain of what it is the Ukrainian is supposed to have understood. With only 3 league goals to his name this season, it’s presumably something to do with a need to score more goals. However, having scored over 150 league goals in Italy, one would have thought that this requirement was not something that he grasped for the first time last night. And, two goals against a side struggling to escape the lowest tier of the football league, is hardly an achievement to keep the doubters at bay. Although Shevchenko is without question a world-class player, being told this by the manager of Wycombe will not be enough to rebuild his shattered confidence.

It is far more probable, therefore, that Mourinho was alluding to Shevchenko’s need to fall in line, embrace the Special One’s team ethic and distance himself from his Russian employer. Newspaper reports that the Ukrainian striker was a mole in the Chelsea camp had clearly affected their close-knit squad and had almost certainly distanced the player from his teammates. The chilly atmosphere came to a head at Anfield this weekend, as Mourinho’s dissatisfaction turned into outward disaffection when he refused to shake the Ukrainian’s hand following Chelsea’s defeat to Liverpool. Mourinho’s anger certainly had nothing to do with the player’s performance on the pitch. He had come on as a late substitute and could not be deemed responsible for Chelsea’s lacklustre display.

Mourinho’s warm response last night was perhaps indicative that the manager himself has had a change of heart regarding his future at Chelsea Football Club. Over the last few weeks he has cut a forlorn figure, sniping at his employers and dropping unsubtle hints that he feels his position has been undermined. Last night, however, he came out fighting, issuing a clear sack-me-if-you-dare message to Abramovich. Recounting an earlier conversation with John Terry, Mourinho let it be known that should he be shown the exist door at Stamford Bridge, irreplaceable members of the squad may well follow him through it.

"When JT tells me, before he signs his new contract, because he has almost signed it, when he tells me it would be very difficult for him to play for another manager in his career, it is because he accepts my philosophy and it is the way he feels. He feels comfortable," Mourinho said.

Nothing the Special One says is without prior calculation, even if he sometimes gives the impression of opening his mouth before his brain has clicked into gear. This was nothing short of a thinly veiled warning to the powers that be at Stamford Bridge and leads to the conclusion that despite reports suggesting that Mourinho has already made up his mind to leave the club this summer, he has decided himself that his best opportunities for future success - especially in the Champion’s League – lie with Chelsea. And if he has to play arguably the world’s most acclaimed striker in order to keep his job, then this is a sacrifice he is prepared to make!

Filthy Lucre Lucas

2007-01-24T12:56:00.000Z

So Lucas Neill has finally completed his £1.5 million move to West Ham. Yes, that’s right, West Ham who currently sit second from bottom in the table. Of course, Neill claims, he made the move for purely footballing reasons and a PR offensive to match that used in the defence of Jade Goody has kicked in to put forward this slightly unbelievable standpoint.

Following last summer’s World Cup, it had seemed inevitable that, at some point, Neill would leave Blackburn to ‘further his career’. Rafa Benitez expressed an interest last August and pursued the player right up until midnight on deadline day. Only his reluctance to part with Stephen Warnock prevented the deal going through. However, a consistent start to the season ensured that Rafa would return to the negotiating table when the transfer window reopened in January and everyone fully expected a deal to be swiftly concluded.

West Ham, however, desperate to escape the relegation mire, fancied trying their luck and dangled a very tempting carrot in front of Neill. £60 thousand a week is quite a carrot! In fact, it’s somewhere between two and three times what Liverpool were reportedly offering. According to Neill however, his love of carrots had nothing to do with his decision to choose the East London outfit over Champions League football and a late push for the title at Anfield. ‘Anyone who thinks I joined West Ham simply for money is way off the mark’. Apparently, it was West Ham’s determination to sign him, and Rafa Benitez’s perceived reluctance that pushed him towards Alan Curbishley’s side. That combined with guaranteed first team football and West Ham’s fantastic history, which on planet Neill is comparable to Liverpool’s 18 league titles and 5 European Cups.

I won’t be the first and nor shall I be the last person to suggest that there is something in Neill’s claim - that his decision was neither motivated by money nor symptomatic of a lack of footballing ambition - that defies belief. Neill was guaranteed first team football at Blackburn who lie eight places above West Ham in the table and are well within reach of a UEFA cup place. Mark Hughes had made Neill his captain. He was the team’s talisman and would have been adored by the fans had he only considered extending his contract at Ewood Park. Arguably, Hughes wanted Neill to stay as much, if not more than West Ham desired him to come.

As for the claim that Rafa had not pursued Neill with sufficient fervour: he fought for his signature right up until midnight on deadline day, came back in for him in January, negotiated a deal with Blackburn and discussed personal terms with Neill’s representatives. All this, however, lacked the personal touch that Neill was looking for, as he claimed last night that he might have signed for Liverpool, if only Rafa Benitez had bothered to pick up the phone. Even if we accept Neill’s version of Liverpool’s perceived rejection, (something that Liverpool Chief Executive Rick Parry was quick to refute), it beggars belief that he joined West Ham for footballing reasons alone and that money had nothing to do with it.

"People have questioned why I signed for West Ham and not Liverpool but I don't understand that.
"Yes, Liverpool is a great club with a fantastic history but, equally, West Ham have produced people like Bobby Moore, Geoff Hurst, Martin Peters, Trevor Brooking and Billy Bonds over the years. If West Ham was good enough for those guys, then it's good enough for me.
"If people want to insult my decision to play for West Ham, then they are insulting some of the greatest players the game has produced, including the three men who led England to the World Cup in 1966."

So West Ham’s glorious past is comparable to Liverpool’s because they produced one truly great player and four very good ones. They didn’t win a lot, but they had some good players! And apparently, it’s an insult to these players to question Neill’s decision to join their club. Had he decided to go and play for Blackpool for 60 grand a week, presumably it would be an insult to the great Stanley Matthews to suggest that he went there purely for the money!

But of course, this is a slightly unfair comparison. Blackpool aren’t about to embark on a gargantuan shopping spree to rival that of Abramovich’s Chelsea. According to Neill, West Ham’s shopping list ‘blew him away’. Well, of course we’re not privy to this information, but we can speculate as to who might be on this list by looking at who West Ham have been linked with since the transfer window opened three weeks ago. There’s Mathew Upson, the rock at the heart of Birmingham’s relegated defence. And there’s Ashley Young, the gifted forward whose goals haven’t quite managed to lift Watford off the foot of the table. Young has since rejected West Ham in favour of Aston Villa. Insert old head on Young shoulders pun here! We can only speculate as to who else may have been on this list. One thing’s for certain. Having seen this list of players, Neill was so confident in West Ham’s ability to avoid relegation that he had a clause inserted into his contract releasing him should the unthinkable happen and West Ham go down.

Like most fans, I can’t quite bring myself to believe that money was not the prime motivating factor behind Neill’s decision to snub Champions’ League football in favour of a relegation struggle with West Ham. Maybe, he did feel rejected by Liverpool when they refused to come close to matching West Ham’s offer. It’s a safe bet however, that had West Ham offered 30 grand, instead of 60, Lucas Neill would be a Liverpool player now, challenging Steve Finnan for a first team place. As it is, he’ll probably be playing for Newcastle next season!