In the 19th-century fairy tale “The Emperor's New Clothes,” Danish author Hans Christian Andersen tells the story of an emperor who is duped by two weavers into wearing clothes that are “invisible to any one who was unfit for the office he held, or was incorrigibly stupid.” Afraid to be labeled incompetent, none of the emperor's ministers or servants will admit they cannot see the clothes. The emperor's own pride and vanity send him parading naked down the street until he comes upon a boy who speaks up about the invisible suit.
The tumultuous couple of days at Manchester United’s camp weren't a fairy tale, but it has all the connotations of one. The abject effrontery shown to the management, owners, players and fans was one chapter in the club's history that every fan would like to forget in a hurry. Long before Wayne Rooney, the club, under the ethically inclined Scot, Sir Alex Ferguson, has recorded analogous trends of star players leaving under acrimonious circumstances.
Paul Ince had set the stage in 1995, when, after a fall-out with Ferguson, he demanded an exit. The gaffer famously laughed off Incey’s departure, asserting that he has more than competent replacement in the holding midfield role in Nicky Butt and Roy Keane. The latter went on to establish himself as one of the finest midfielders in the history of the English Premier League and led the club to that momentous treble in 1999.
Wayne Rooney was taken under the wings of Ferguson at a tender age of 18; he was on the verge of joining Newcastle from Everton in 2004 when United swooped a coup, a payback to the Magpies, vis-à-vis the Alan Shearer situation eight years earlier. The lad quickly won over the fans, especially after his vibrant debut, scoring a remarkable hat trick against Galatasaray, and formed a formidable partnership with Ruud van Nistelrooy.
Even by his standards, he could not instantaneously change the club’s last period of relative decline after 2004. Ferguson recounted that ‘a player (Roy Keane I would like to presume) said to me Wayne Rooney and Cristiano Ronaldo were not good enough and he wasn't prepared to wait. Ferguson went on to articulate ‘that is the problem with potential, people don't identify potential. If Ferguson has failed to identify the potential in Cristiano and Rooney, the duo won't have excelled, and the club would have been the loser.
Under the tutelage of Ferguson, Rooney has gone on to mature into one of the best strikers in Europe. He had a fabulous season in 2009/2010 marred only by the unfortunate injury picked against Bayern Munich in March; to this day he is yet to recover from the traumatic and psychological effect of that injury.
Just like they got his maelstromic private life spot on, the English press began to spread troubling rumours of a row between Rooney and Ferguson, suggesting that the striker is poised to move on. Rooney chose Wednesday, the very day United were to host Bursaspor, to affirm he really wish to leave. As a professional player he has all the right to choose where to ply his trade, but the reason he gave was what rocked the club and the fans. His claim that the club is no more ambitious or attracting world-class players that will guarantee winning silverware is preposterous to say the least.
The torrent of backlash that unfounded tittle-tattle attracted has seemingly played a huge part in Rooney’s subsequent retraction of his stance. The entirety of United fans all over the world dispelled Rooney’s baloney and believed that with or without him the team will go on, just as it went on even with the departure of Paul Ince, Eric Cantona, Jaap Stam, David Beckham, Ruud van Nistelrooy and Roy Keane. As Ferguson made his entrance on Wednesday night, he received a rapturous standing ovation, a clear testimony that the fans are solidly behind him, no matter what. After the slim but comfortable victory over the Turkish team, Ferguson told reporters the team would be intact even without Rooney: ‘the structure of the club is good. We have the right staff, the right manager, a brilliant chief executive. There is not a thing wrong with Manchester United’.
The most luscious criticism of Rooney’ cataclysmic statement came from Blackpool’s witty manager, Ian Holloway. He condemned his ingratitude in the strongest of terms: ‘Manchester United have helped Wayne Rooney’s career massively on and off the field. The manager, the club itself, has invested in him. They bought him for massive amounts of money as a young man and they have helped him blossom into a player he is’.
Former United skipper, Roy Keane, who himself left Old Trafford after falling out with Ferguson, believes any player should jump at the chance to play for Manchester United. ‘Players have opinions and if they want to leave then good luck to them, Man United will more than survive’.
Keane went on to say ‘if any player ever asked me, and one or two have, if they had a chance of signing for Man United I would tell them to do it and they won’t regret it. I was there for twelve and half years. I love every minute of every day playing for that club, every minute of every day’.
The very suggestion of Rooney leaving United was surprising, I can recollect him telling BBC’s Dan Walker in November 2009 ‘I love the club and I am really happy…the very thought of leaving the club has never entered my mind’. Almost a year to the day, a combination of Manchester City’s reckless spending spree, Glazer’s financial plumage, youthful exuberance, and the brinkmanship of avaricious silver-haired agent, Paul Stretford, led to Rooney’s first change of mind. His second change of mind came on Friday afternoon after the announcement of the turn-around of events, after all of us have written Rooney off and have started to anticipate for his replacement, that Rooney has agreed to sign a new 5-year contract worth a basic £160,000/week, plus inceptives that could see him earn in excess of £200,000/week should United win another Premier League or Champions’ League title.
Alex Ferguson did confirm Rooney has apologise to him and the players, but to get back any semblance of admiration, he has to apologise to the fans who had revered him all through. The fans were incensed by the proposition that he might join the ‘noisy neighbours’ Man City. The very prospect of that calamity happening apparently made 40 irate balaclava-clad rabble to descend on Rooney’s Cheshire mansion only to be chased away by the police. A banner hoisted at Old Trafford on Wednesday night perfectly depicted the fans’ anger and planned retribution: ‘Collen has forgiven you. We won’t’. Also, graffiti outside a supermarket in Manchester dared Rooney to join City: ‘Join City and you’re death’. Hmm.
The prospectus saga has now been put to bed, but the wound it created will take sometime to heal. While blaming Rooney for taking that bold stance, for condemning his teammate's ability to deliver, we should take a moment to lament on Glazer’s handling of the club. The Glazer family has done more harm than good to the club; they have helped turn the club's £100 million operating profit into an £80 million loss. This financial meltdown, if left unchecked, is very likely to plunge the once-burgeoning club into downward spiral.
When Wayne Rooney celebrates his 25th birthday this Sunday at a marquee party in the grounds of his £4.5 million Cheshire mansion, the champagne will taste sweeter than ever. But his adoration by the fans will remain tainted, if not forever, for a very long time to come.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Thursday, September 23, 2010
FEMINISM: BEYOND THE SEXIST CHAUVINISM
Women the world over are earnestly trying to stamp their authority so as to prove the equality between the two genders. They have succeeded in rewriting the lexicon with the introduction of such words as Chairperson and Humankind (in direct rebellion to gender-specific words Chairman and Mankind).
In Nigeria there is today a proliferation of female-oriented societies. A roll-call of such associations gives a harvest of sexist channels like the National Council of Women Societies (NCWS), Women in Nigeria (WIN), Association of Professional Women Engineers (APWEN), National Association of Women Journalists (NAWOJ), Medical Women Association of Nigeria (MWAN), Association of Lady Pharmacists (ALPS), Nigerian Army Wives’ Association (NAOWA), Police Officers Wives Association (POWA), Naval Officers Wives Association (NOWA), National Association of Media Women (NAMW), Federation of Muslim Women Association of Nigeria (FOMWAN), to mention but a few. Perhaps in some years to come we will begin to witness the birth of some female-oriented societies in the university campuses: Women Mass Communication Students Association (WMCOSA), Women Law Students Association (WLAWSA), etc, are most likely in the pipeline.
The rather pixelated trend is undoubtedly likely to prove intellectual fertile because it suggests new insights and new lines of inquiry into the phenomenon of feminism. The feminist mission has obviously created awareness in women to their domination by men, but this has gone beyond the pages of books and fringes of pulling down pristine values.
From stereotype to outright preaching of matriarchy it is also evident that both parties and the government are fanatically identifying with the cause of women. Hence we have people advocating with great enthusiasm that women should be given a chance.
The Federal Government on its own had not bothered to examine its profligate sponsorship of the Better Life for Rural Women and the National Commission for Women. An avalanche of questions arises here: What is the reason for these sexist channels? Why is it an all-female phenomenon? Why, in spite of the female rampage, is nobody talking of female chauvinism? What explanation has the society that bandied our values for being pro-patriarchy, for being not only placid, but gratified at feral gusto with which women are becoming irresponsible?
If the reason for the women’s guilds is to furnish women with a forum to address things from the women point of view, then either we do not have issues to be addressed from men’s point of view or the parent bodies of some of these societies are male chauvinists. Otherwise, they are not suited to address feminine issues. The essay is a question that has implicitly been assumed to be settled, when in fact, it has not been addressed at all. The question is: Are men and women equal?
In response to the question, we must remember that by equality we mean the same (in size, amount, number, degree, value, etc). Sameness here means identical, not different. It follows then that the question of equality need not to be raised at all, when we talk of men and women.
Biologically, each sex offers particular and unique mode of human personality. The attributes and feelings of a man as a human being cannot be the attributes and feelings of women as human beings and vice-versa. Their mode of human ‘beingness’ is not the same; as such they are not identical.
The question of equality is therefore ill-framed and ill-informed. No one of the mode exhausts the possibilities or the qualities of human beings. This means that each mode serves a criterion of identification of human personality.
Each sex is different and an independent and unique dimension of the human personality. It is therefore a misunderstanding of the principle of equality between men and women. Men cannot be equal to women. Equality is entirely beyond the tomboy attitude in the name of liberation or feminism. The sexist rampage does not only betray the sedulous penchant for equality, but also is informed by a defective understanding of equality.
The role and place of women would rather prove fertile by new insights and new line of inquiry into their individual potentials and endowments. This cannot be achieved by megalomaniac formation of sexist societies, for their roles in a refined and changing society are superfluous.
There is always a parallel between the role and the dimension of human personality which a sex represents. The difference in a way which men participate in the human personality and a way women do try to stamp their authority shows that the niceties of equality is beyond the sexist rampage.
The culture, society and tradition that prescribed certain roles for men and others for women were guided not by masculinist fiat, but by the dimension of human personality which each sex represents. It recognises that equality has anthological attachment; that equality is not merely a matter of linguistic style. The paradox of the present day is thus at best an advertisement of society’s anthological properties of sexes difference.
Our intellectual bewitchment, euphoria or excitement does not becloud our knowledge that equality is not a function of mass; it is unique in the physio-neurological properties of being. It is also not without qualification.
It is worthy of notice that there is nothing good about a woman until she is dignified by being put under the control of a man. Going by almost all religions, God present each sex as a different dimension of the human personality and went a step further to implore women to submit to men in the same way they submit to God.
God’s stance on this question makes it such that to be a feminist, sincerely committed to the goals of feminism, one must either be an atheist or an apostate. Otherwise the Almighty is a creation of men or a misogynist whose purpose of creation is only comparable to Sigmund Freud’s analysis at the finite level. Only an agnostic will hold this sacrilegious view.
-NB: This article was written on 6th December 1991 for a Univesity of Maiduguri campus magazine, Flame for which I was an editor.
In Nigeria there is today a proliferation of female-oriented societies. A roll-call of such associations gives a harvest of sexist channels like the National Council of Women Societies (NCWS), Women in Nigeria (WIN), Association of Professional Women Engineers (APWEN), National Association of Women Journalists (NAWOJ), Medical Women Association of Nigeria (MWAN), Association of Lady Pharmacists (ALPS), Nigerian Army Wives’ Association (NAOWA), Police Officers Wives Association (POWA), Naval Officers Wives Association (NOWA), National Association of Media Women (NAMW), Federation of Muslim Women Association of Nigeria (FOMWAN), to mention but a few. Perhaps in some years to come we will begin to witness the birth of some female-oriented societies in the university campuses: Women Mass Communication Students Association (WMCOSA), Women Law Students Association (WLAWSA), etc, are most likely in the pipeline.
The rather pixelated trend is undoubtedly likely to prove intellectual fertile because it suggests new insights and new lines of inquiry into the phenomenon of feminism. The feminist mission has obviously created awareness in women to their domination by men, but this has gone beyond the pages of books and fringes of pulling down pristine values.
From stereotype to outright preaching of matriarchy it is also evident that both parties and the government are fanatically identifying with the cause of women. Hence we have people advocating with great enthusiasm that women should be given a chance.
The Federal Government on its own had not bothered to examine its profligate sponsorship of the Better Life for Rural Women and the National Commission for Women. An avalanche of questions arises here: What is the reason for these sexist channels? Why is it an all-female phenomenon? Why, in spite of the female rampage, is nobody talking of female chauvinism? What explanation has the society that bandied our values for being pro-patriarchy, for being not only placid, but gratified at feral gusto with which women are becoming irresponsible?
If the reason for the women’s guilds is to furnish women with a forum to address things from the women point of view, then either we do not have issues to be addressed from men’s point of view or the parent bodies of some of these societies are male chauvinists. Otherwise, they are not suited to address feminine issues. The essay is a question that has implicitly been assumed to be settled, when in fact, it has not been addressed at all. The question is: Are men and women equal?
In response to the question, we must remember that by equality we mean the same (in size, amount, number, degree, value, etc). Sameness here means identical, not different. It follows then that the question of equality need not to be raised at all, when we talk of men and women.
Biologically, each sex offers particular and unique mode of human personality. The attributes and feelings of a man as a human being cannot be the attributes and feelings of women as human beings and vice-versa. Their mode of human ‘beingness’ is not the same; as such they are not identical.
The question of equality is therefore ill-framed and ill-informed. No one of the mode exhausts the possibilities or the qualities of human beings. This means that each mode serves a criterion of identification of human personality.
Each sex is different and an independent and unique dimension of the human personality. It is therefore a misunderstanding of the principle of equality between men and women. Men cannot be equal to women. Equality is entirely beyond the tomboy attitude in the name of liberation or feminism. The sexist rampage does not only betray the sedulous penchant for equality, but also is informed by a defective understanding of equality.
The role and place of women would rather prove fertile by new insights and new line of inquiry into their individual potentials and endowments. This cannot be achieved by megalomaniac formation of sexist societies, for their roles in a refined and changing society are superfluous.
There is always a parallel between the role and the dimension of human personality which a sex represents. The difference in a way which men participate in the human personality and a way women do try to stamp their authority shows that the niceties of equality is beyond the sexist rampage.
The culture, society and tradition that prescribed certain roles for men and others for women were guided not by masculinist fiat, but by the dimension of human personality which each sex represents. It recognises that equality has anthological attachment; that equality is not merely a matter of linguistic style. The paradox of the present day is thus at best an advertisement of society’s anthological properties of sexes difference.
Our intellectual bewitchment, euphoria or excitement does not becloud our knowledge that equality is not a function of mass; it is unique in the physio-neurological properties of being. It is also not without qualification.
It is worthy of notice that there is nothing good about a woman until she is dignified by being put under the control of a man. Going by almost all religions, God present each sex as a different dimension of the human personality and went a step further to implore women to submit to men in the same way they submit to God.
God’s stance on this question makes it such that to be a feminist, sincerely committed to the goals of feminism, one must either be an atheist or an apostate. Otherwise the Almighty is a creation of men or a misogynist whose purpose of creation is only comparable to Sigmund Freud’s analysis at the finite level. Only an agnostic will hold this sacrilegious view.
-NB: This article was written on 6th December 1991 for a Univesity of Maiduguri campus magazine, Flame for which I was an editor.
Friday, August 27, 2010
QUINTESSENTIAL SCHOLES
When Sir Alex Ferguson was asked to describe the most amazing piece of skill he has ever seen in United's training ground, the Scot went on to recall how Paul Scholes once landed a ball on the head of Gary Neville who was taking a pee at the other end of the pitch, following an argument with team mates that he couldn't do that. Scholes has mastered the art of 'pot pass' to perfection, more that any other English player of his generation. But that is certainly not his only attribute going into his 17th season in Manchester United's senior squad. He is as a complete midfielder as you can get.
When the ginger-headed midfield whiz missed the second half of the 2005/06 season with a nagging eye ailment, it was feared his glittering career could be drawing to a premature end. But he got over that and went on to establish himself as the best central midfielder in the Premier League. Amazingly this is a player that began his career as an attacker.
Scholesy, as he is fondly called by his team mates and fans, has shown a remarkable run of form in recent seasons. This prompted Fabio Capello to make a bold attempt at persuading him to recant his international retirement in order to play for England in the 2010 World Cup. True to his principle, Scholes rejected that overture, and after England's dismal show in South Africa, Capello confessed that the absence of a ball winner and passer in the mold of Paul Scholes has hampered their performance at the World Cup.
Recently one of the most decorated players of this generation, Zinedine Zidane, described Scholes as "the greatest midfielder of his generation" and said he regretted not ever playing in tandem alongside him. Zidane is one of many to have extolled the virtues of a player who in May 2009 hinted he may quit the following year. United legend, Sir Bobby Charlton described his as "an embodiment of all that I think is best about football".
His form at the beginning of the 2010/11 season-less that three weeks to his 36th birthday-would probably rubbish that suggestion. He seems to have ample more to give in subsequent years to come; as the proverbial wine, he gets better with age.
Following his masterful display in the Community Shield victory over Chelsea on August 8, Sir Alex eulogized him as "incredible footballer", noting that "it's a phenomenon that he goes out there and becomes man of the match approaching his 36th birthday".
Eight days after the Community Shield triumph, Scholes went on to inspire United to saw off Newcastle in their opening Premier League game, prompting more expressions of admiration from a manager normally economical with praises on one individual: "He proved again he is a master of his trade", said the gaffer. "Everyone who goes to that age and retains that appetite is blessed with something special".
The postponement of Schole's retirement appears to have yielded dividends. A day after extending his contract last April, Scholes headed a 93rd-minutes winner to stun the mega-rich noisy neighbours, Manchester City at Eastlands-and he has not looked back since. He finished last season with 1,497 attempted passes of which 89.7% were completed-making him the Premier League most accurate passer. In the match against Newcastle, he hit 104 passes.
Paul Scholes has been in the books of United since 1991, winning nine Premier League titles, three FA Cups, two League Cups, two Champions' League titles and has won 66 England caps.
England skipper, Rio Ferdinand once confessed that Sir Alex has one time or the other unleashed his hair-dryer temper on all United's players except Paul Scholes. When asked why, Rio's answer was: "Scholesy is too good". Paul Scholes has an impressive down-to-earth persona. Despite playing a pivotal role in the successes of one of the greatest football clubs in the world, and unlike his old buddy David Beckham, he make sure he removes himself from public glare. He has been married to his childhood sweetheart, Claire, for 16 years, with whom he has three children, and chooses to stay at home with his family, after training or match, than mingle with the media conducting interviews, or with fans signing autographs.
Such is the United legend in the making. Born and bred in Salford, Greater Manchester, he is Manchester United personified. Right from his initial recruitment as a 16-year old trainee, he bowed to play for no other club but United. His greatest praise to date came from ex team mate, Norwegian Hening Berg (winner of two Premier Leage titles, one FA Cup and the 1999 Champions' League title with United): "He has a fantastic football brain-he reads the game, reads the opponents, knows which space to drop into to get the ball and has an amazing touch".
The former United defender went on to say: "He knows where to pass (the ball), if he should use one touch or two, he can camouflage his passes, make through-ball and, of course score goals. He sets the pace of the midfield and makes sure the rhythm of the passing and play is what United want it to be".
How England could have benefited from such elusive qualities during the World Cup in South Africa. He did confessed, after the World Cup, that he could have considered Capello's invitation has it been made earlier.
After seeing him score a back-breaking goal in the league against Fulham on August 22 to wrap up his 150th senior goal for United in 646 games (4th in the all-time appearance list) for United, Ferguson conceded that replacing Scholes would probably be "impossible". In my own opinion, ludicrous as it might sound, and as I have earlier written in my twitter page, United has to clone Scholesy to get a replica. Finding the like of him is improbable.
When the ginger-headed midfield whiz missed the second half of the 2005/06 season with a nagging eye ailment, it was feared his glittering career could be drawing to a premature end. But he got over that and went on to establish himself as the best central midfielder in the Premier League. Amazingly this is a player that began his career as an attacker.
Scholesy, as he is fondly called by his team mates and fans, has shown a remarkable run of form in recent seasons. This prompted Fabio Capello to make a bold attempt at persuading him to recant his international retirement in order to play for England in the 2010 World Cup. True to his principle, Scholes rejected that overture, and after England's dismal show in South Africa, Capello confessed that the absence of a ball winner and passer in the mold of Paul Scholes has hampered their performance at the World Cup.
Recently one of the most decorated players of this generation, Zinedine Zidane, described Scholes as "the greatest midfielder of his generation" and said he regretted not ever playing in tandem alongside him. Zidane is one of many to have extolled the virtues of a player who in May 2009 hinted he may quit the following year. United legend, Sir Bobby Charlton described his as "an embodiment of all that I think is best about football".
His form at the beginning of the 2010/11 season-less that three weeks to his 36th birthday-would probably rubbish that suggestion. He seems to have ample more to give in subsequent years to come; as the proverbial wine, he gets better with age.
Following his masterful display in the Community Shield victory over Chelsea on August 8, Sir Alex eulogized him as "incredible footballer", noting that "it's a phenomenon that he goes out there and becomes man of the match approaching his 36th birthday".
Eight days after the Community Shield triumph, Scholes went on to inspire United to saw off Newcastle in their opening Premier League game, prompting more expressions of admiration from a manager normally economical with praises on one individual: "He proved again he is a master of his trade", said the gaffer. "Everyone who goes to that age and retains that appetite is blessed with something special".
The postponement of Schole's retirement appears to have yielded dividends. A day after extending his contract last April, Scholes headed a 93rd-minutes winner to stun the mega-rich noisy neighbours, Manchester City at Eastlands-and he has not looked back since. He finished last season with 1,497 attempted passes of which 89.7% were completed-making him the Premier League most accurate passer. In the match against Newcastle, he hit 104 passes.
Paul Scholes has been in the books of United since 1991, winning nine Premier League titles, three FA Cups, two League Cups, two Champions' League titles and has won 66 England caps.
England skipper, Rio Ferdinand once confessed that Sir Alex has one time or the other unleashed his hair-dryer temper on all United's players except Paul Scholes. When asked why, Rio's answer was: "Scholesy is too good". Paul Scholes has an impressive down-to-earth persona. Despite playing a pivotal role in the successes of one of the greatest football clubs in the world, and unlike his old buddy David Beckham, he make sure he removes himself from public glare. He has been married to his childhood sweetheart, Claire, for 16 years, with whom he has three children, and chooses to stay at home with his family, after training or match, than mingle with the media conducting interviews, or with fans signing autographs.
Such is the United legend in the making. Born and bred in Salford, Greater Manchester, he is Manchester United personified. Right from his initial recruitment as a 16-year old trainee, he bowed to play for no other club but United. His greatest praise to date came from ex team mate, Norwegian Hening Berg (winner of two Premier Leage titles, one FA Cup and the 1999 Champions' League title with United): "He has a fantastic football brain-he reads the game, reads the opponents, knows which space to drop into to get the ball and has an amazing touch".
The former United defender went on to say: "He knows where to pass (the ball), if he should use one touch or two, he can camouflage his passes, make through-ball and, of course score goals. He sets the pace of the midfield and makes sure the rhythm of the passing and play is what United want it to be".
How England could have benefited from such elusive qualities during the World Cup in South Africa. He did confessed, after the World Cup, that he could have considered Capello's invitation has it been made earlier.
After seeing him score a back-breaking goal in the league against Fulham on August 22 to wrap up his 150th senior goal for United in 646 games (4th in the all-time appearance list) for United, Ferguson conceded that replacing Scholes would probably be "impossible". In my own opinion, ludicrous as it might sound, and as I have earlier written in my twitter page, United has to clone Scholesy to get a replica. Finding the like of him is improbable.
Friday, March 19, 2010
The Curious Case of Chelsea’s European Credentials
After another failure in Europe, Chelsea’s wherewithal to win the European club football’s major prize came under the spotlight yet again. Over the last four seasons they were beaten out by Liverpool at the semi final stage on two successive occasions, lost the final against Manchester United and lost the semi final to Barcelona last season. Two of those defeats were on controversial circumstances; with Liverpool’s winner in 2005 not crossing the line and in last season’s debacle they had three seemingly genuine penalty claims against a Barcelona team that went on to beat Manchester Unite to lift the trophy.
But there was no iota of controversy on Tuesday night when Jose Mourinho came back to his old stumping ground, outclassed and outwitted Carlo Ancelotti to dump his old club out of Europe for the umpteenth time. In the build up to the second leg round of 16 clash, Mourinho insisted he would still be ‘The Special One’ whether Internazionale emerges victorious or not. Mourinho’s tactical savoir-faire left his counterpart Ancelotti looking like a high school coach. He spooked Ancelotti’s plan by fielding an attacking line-up, he shed the cloak of conservatism to use a three-pronged attack-Diego MIlito, Samuel Eto’o and Goran Pandev were supported by the reinvigorated Real Madrid reject, Wesley Sneijder.
In direct contrast, Ancelotti’s abysmal decision to use the pair of Didier Drogba and Nicholas Anelka upfront proved to be Chelsea’s Achilles’ heel. I don’t see Alex Ferguson or Arsene Wenger making that strategic blunder against a team like Inter Milan, they could have used Drogba as a lone striker while deploying two flying wingers, like Joe Cole and Florent malouda, to support him. Drogba, destite his recent form, was handled well; he is used to pummeling relatively inferior defenders in the Premier League. But he was shackled with ease by the pair of Lucio and Walter Samuel, who showed themselves as one of the most effective double acts since Laurel and Hardy, leaving Drogba and Anelka to feed on scrap.
Poor reaction to refereeing decisions afflicted Chelsea last season against Barcelona, as Tom Henning Ovrebo’s reluctance to award penalties they felt they deserved riled them up and distracted them from the task at hand. The same scenario occurred again this season, as Drogba found himself snarling at the referee during the first half at Stamford Bridge, and John Terry once again left the pitch at the end of the game fuming at the perceived slights against his side. Chelsea are certainly at the verge of developing a refereeing complex on big European nights, and rather than channel that into an improved performance it appears to deplete them of all quality and make defeat almost inevitable.
Champions’ League success is Roman Abromavich’s long-held dream, but how much longer can this familiar and time-served expensively-assembled Chelsea team keep on going to the well and coming back empty-handed? How many more blows of this sort can they take? They still have the Premier League and FA Cup to aspire at, but this, as in other seasons, has been an unfulfilling and ultimately chastening European campaign.
But there was no iota of controversy on Tuesday night when Jose Mourinho came back to his old stumping ground, outclassed and outwitted Carlo Ancelotti to dump his old club out of Europe for the umpteenth time. In the build up to the second leg round of 16 clash, Mourinho insisted he would still be ‘The Special One’ whether Internazionale emerges victorious or not. Mourinho’s tactical savoir-faire left his counterpart Ancelotti looking like a high school coach. He spooked Ancelotti’s plan by fielding an attacking line-up, he shed the cloak of conservatism to use a three-pronged attack-Diego MIlito, Samuel Eto’o and Goran Pandev were supported by the reinvigorated Real Madrid reject, Wesley Sneijder.
In direct contrast, Ancelotti’s abysmal decision to use the pair of Didier Drogba and Nicholas Anelka upfront proved to be Chelsea’s Achilles’ heel. I don’t see Alex Ferguson or Arsene Wenger making that strategic blunder against a team like Inter Milan, they could have used Drogba as a lone striker while deploying two flying wingers, like Joe Cole and Florent malouda, to support him. Drogba, destite his recent form, was handled well; he is used to pummeling relatively inferior defenders in the Premier League. But he was shackled with ease by the pair of Lucio and Walter Samuel, who showed themselves as one of the most effective double acts since Laurel and Hardy, leaving Drogba and Anelka to feed on scrap.
Poor reaction to refereeing decisions afflicted Chelsea last season against Barcelona, as Tom Henning Ovrebo’s reluctance to award penalties they felt they deserved riled them up and distracted them from the task at hand. The same scenario occurred again this season, as Drogba found himself snarling at the referee during the first half at Stamford Bridge, and John Terry once again left the pitch at the end of the game fuming at the perceived slights against his side. Chelsea are certainly at the verge of developing a refereeing complex on big European nights, and rather than channel that into an improved performance it appears to deplete them of all quality and make defeat almost inevitable.
Champions’ League success is Roman Abromavich’s long-held dream, but how much longer can this familiar and time-served expensively-assembled Chelsea team keep on going to the well and coming back empty-handed? How many more blows of this sort can they take? They still have the Premier League and FA Cup to aspire at, but this, as in other seasons, has been an unfulfilling and ultimately chastening European campaign.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
ARSENAL MEANS BUSINESS
Whether we like it or not Arsenal are hotly in pursuit of two title-The Premier and the European Champions' Leagues. Ironically this is a team we all wrote-off midway into the season, but the rather erratic run of form by Chelsea and man United has given Arsenal the leeway to have a strong claim at the Premier League title. The walloping of Porto in the 2nd leg round of 16 play-off at the Emirates, even without the influence of Cesc Fabregas, has gone a long way to substatially prove Arsenal, if they can keep on the consistency, are in the verge of ending their 5-year trophy drought.
I must admit, however, that the Porto team that got mesmerised on that overcast London night are poor and highly ineffective. Certainly not in the mold of the team which out of the blues won the European Cup in 2004 under a certain Jose Mourinho, and of course they were a shadow of the team that were narrowly beaten by Man United last season. The highly-rated central defensive pair of Rolando and Bruno Alves played like characters in Last Man Standing and allowed the much-criticised Nicklas Bendtner to have a rump and claimed his first ever hat trick. Whether Arsenal can beat all-comers to reach the final, as they did in 2005, and whether they can go on the clinch their very first European Cup, is entirely a different ball game. It still bedevils Arsene Wenger that upon all his is pedigree he has never led a team, or Arsenal for that matter, to a Europen Cup glory.
Wenger's braggadoccio is well known since taking over the London team in 1997, he now boast that Arsenal can win this season's Premier League title due to the fact that thier remaining fixtures is devoid of any of the so-called Big Four. He has all the moral right to make that boast, and we live to see if the team can roll over the likes of Hull City, West Ham, Man City and Spurs to leapfrog Man United and Chelsea in May to win the title. Whatever the outcome of such encounters, my submission is they CAN do it.
The triumph of Arsenal and Man United in the round of 16 of the Champions' League has sent more signals to the footballing world that the predicted supremacy of English teams in European competitions is becoming real by the day. Who could imagined that giant of European football, AC Milan can be pummelled 7-2 on aggregate by Man United? That night at Old Trafford, marred only by protestations directed at Glazer family by United fans, was one to remember. Prior to this season United have never beaten Milan in any competition over two legs. Revenge was the key word as Rooney went on to score 4 goals over the two legs, they got their revenge and await, together with Arsenal, Bayern Munich and Lyon, the draws for the quarter finals.
I must admit, however, that the Porto team that got mesmerised on that overcast London night are poor and highly ineffective. Certainly not in the mold of the team which out of the blues won the European Cup in 2004 under a certain Jose Mourinho, and of course they were a shadow of the team that were narrowly beaten by Man United last season. The highly-rated central defensive pair of Rolando and Bruno Alves played like characters in Last Man Standing and allowed the much-criticised Nicklas Bendtner to have a rump and claimed his first ever hat trick. Whether Arsenal can beat all-comers to reach the final, as they did in 2005, and whether they can go on the clinch their very first European Cup, is entirely a different ball game. It still bedevils Arsene Wenger that upon all his is pedigree he has never led a team, or Arsenal for that matter, to a Europen Cup glory.
Wenger's braggadoccio is well known since taking over the London team in 1997, he now boast that Arsenal can win this season's Premier League title due to the fact that thier remaining fixtures is devoid of any of the so-called Big Four. He has all the moral right to make that boast, and we live to see if the team can roll over the likes of Hull City, West Ham, Man City and Spurs to leapfrog Man United and Chelsea in May to win the title. Whatever the outcome of such encounters, my submission is they CAN do it.
The triumph of Arsenal and Man United in the round of 16 of the Champions' League has sent more signals to the footballing world that the predicted supremacy of English teams in European competitions is becoming real by the day. Who could imagined that giant of European football, AC Milan can be pummelled 7-2 on aggregate by Man United? That night at Old Trafford, marred only by protestations directed at Glazer family by United fans, was one to remember. Prior to this season United have never beaten Milan in any competition over two legs. Revenge was the key word as Rooney went on to score 4 goals over the two legs, they got their revenge and await, together with Arsenal, Bayern Munich and Lyon, the draws for the quarter finals.
Friday, March 5, 2010
Owen's Jeopardy
Micheal Owen is back to the treatment room, where I must say he has been more than the field of play. Latest reports has it that he will missed the rest of the season, as would Anderson.
The debate currently going on is whether he will form Sir Alex Ferguson's plan for next season when he is expected to be back. My own submission is that he will not, and that the Gaffer will begin to look for a replacement.
On the other hand, I feel his long lay off will give Mame Biram Diouf the chance to show the stuff he is made of. With Macheda about to begin training, Diouf will also have another competitor for the 3rd berth in the United striker pecking order, behind Dimitar Berbatov and of course Wayne Rooney
The debate currently going on is whether he will form Sir Alex Ferguson's plan for next season when he is expected to be back. My own submission is that he will not, and that the Gaffer will begin to look for a replacement.
On the other hand, I feel his long lay off will give Mame Biram Diouf the chance to show the stuff he is made of. With Macheda about to begin training, Diouf will also have another competitor for the 3rd berth in the United striker pecking order, behind Dimitar Berbatov and of course Wayne Rooney
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
