Posts tagged football

I haven’t been too prolific on here recently (surprise surprise), but I have at least been writing in some capacity, for a terrific Manchester United blog that you can find here. I’ve been doing a weekly column with some friends, talking about United, the Premier League and football in general. I’ll link to a few of our pieces here.

• Wrote about Man United’s away record and pissed off some Arsenal fans here.
   
• Did a bit about Ryan Giggs and made predictions about the EPL title race here. Math geeks might like the piece on Giggs and the 80/20 rule.
   
• Talked about Danny Welbeck, the African Cup of Nations final, and most importantly made fun of Andy Carroll here. The dancing baby from Ally McBeal also features in this one.
   
• Did a statistical look at Emmanuel Adebayor, looked at Ashley Young’s season,  highlighted Javi Martinez, and made up a bunch of rumours about Andre-Villas Boas here. My AVB bit features Stephen Hawking, Japanese pods and Jimmy Saville, so you should read it.
  
  
• Finally, I previewed tomorrow’s United-West Brom game by chatting with one of my favourite Twitter buddies, who happens to support WBA. You can find that here. Excitingly, we also did an exclusive 1990s hip-hop version of the interview, to be found exclusively on Tumblr later today.
   
• [EXCLUSIVE] The hip-hop footy interview is now out. Find it here, you saw it first.

I know not all of my followers are interested in football, but if you are, I’d be delighted if you had a read of my work.

All that excitement, wildness and sporadic good football shouldn’t obscure the bigger picture: Steve McManaman called him “Luis Carroll” at the start of the match, and Ian Darke called him “Andy Carrot” coming down to the end. Rafael da Silva (5’8”) also beat him to a header two headers.

Also, Jay Spearing is the Dancing Baby. Ooga Chaka.

Football fans will support any action taken by their club and their club’s players, even at the cost of their moral integrity.

Fan authenticity is increasing in blind loyalty. The more morally egregious a football fan’s support of his* club - whether through defending the indefensible, abusing rival fans and players, or violent action on behalf of the club - the more “die-hard” or “authentic” he will be perceived to be by his fellow fans.

*I say ‘his’ because die-hard football fans of the pathologically abhorrent variety are, in my experience, almost exclusively male. Among most, if not all passionate female football fans, there is a level of ethical squalor that they are intuitively unwilling to plumb.

Michael Carrick is one of my favourite footballers around. I sometimes joke that he’s the Geordie Guardiola, then I realise that Guardiola may have been the Catalan Carrick. I like alliterations. Anyways, he’s come in for a huge amount of stick over the years, and I’ve felt the need to defend him on numerous occasions, not least to my fellow Manchester United supporters. Despite the bags of success that have coincided with his arrival at Old Trafford, and the immense praise he’s earned from teammates, rivals and coaches, “he never does anything” is a common complaint I’ve heard from mates, especially during his annus horribilis of 2009/10. At Spurs, he was an ever-present as the club rose up the table, culminating in a 5th-place Premier League finish in 2005-06. Yet similar doubts about the Wallsend man were expressed - many of which were addressed in this comprehensive blog post by The Boys from White Hart Lane. Even in the good times, many football fans have wondered whether he was worth the £18.6m that United shelled out for him in the summer of 2006. This post is an attempt to get things right about Carrick’s tenure at United: what he does in the side and why he deserves the praise he gets from some quarters; how he’s played over time; why he struggled for form last season; and finally, some optimistic conclusions based on his form in the present term - 2010/11.

What Carrick does, and why he’s a good player

In Italy, the strolling, elegant regista, such as Pirlo or Pizarro, is given great praise for his style and intelligence.  In Spain, the cultured talents of Guardiola and Redondo were given free expression with little regard for their relative physical weakness. In England, it seems that the economy of movement shown by deep-lying midfielders - Veron, Xabi Alonso, Mikel - is a sign of inactivity, as though the best barometer of midfield performance were the amount of stud marks left in the turf. The aggression expected of midfielders in this country is, to my mind, best captured by the phrase “taking the game by the scruff of the neck.” It’s difficult to argue that any of the above players have ever possessed such scruff-grabbing ability, but no serious football fan can dispute that they are all excellent midfielders, with individual and club successes to back it up. This is not to deny that energetic performances are important. My intention is merely to point out that midfield is a zone in which mind can count for as much as might - Juan Roman Riquelme’s entire career has been based on this very fact.

Zonal Marking has noted that the role of a central midfielder has evolved substantially over the past decade - his article on this is essential reading. To crudely summarise it, the modern central midfielder is primarily concerned with possession of the football - get it, and keep it. As a result, the main stats I will be using to assess the central midfielder’s performance are successful passes, pass completion ratios, and interceptions.

As even his critics would concede, Carrick is one of the finest passers England possesses. On form, his distribution is as good as anyone in the Premier League, and can match anyone in world football, bar a few Spanish geniuses. But what about winning possession? We’ll get to that, but first, a bit more background. For a variety of reasons, box-to-box midfielders in the Roy Keane/Patrick Vieira mould are becoming very rare in the modern game, as Jonathan Wilson has observed. Even those with the physical capabilities to play the position, such as Steven Gerrard and Michael Essien, have been more recently deployed in specialised positions, with Gerrard playing mainly as a supporting attacker for Fernando Torres since 2008, and Essien’s versatility seeing him used - among other things - as a right back, attacking midfielder and holding midfielder in his time at Chelsea. Indeed, when Gerrard has been used as a central midfielder, as against Manchester City earlier this season, his blatant lack of positional sense has been exposed by less talented but more disciplined middle men. 

That same positional discipline is one of Carrick’s strongest and most under-appreciated features, having developed tremendously in his time at Old Trafford. Both by direct observation and looking at the stats, Carrick’s ball-winning ability has come on significantly since his arrival in 2006. Though tall, he has never been a terribly imposing presence, and he either can’t or doesn’t do the lung-bursting running of Fletcher, Essien, Cambiasso, Schweinsteiger or Gerrard. Yet he now wins the ball about as much on average as any of them. He is an underrated tackler, usually winning more than 50% of his duels, and he makes far more interceptions than most midfielders in the league: 22 in 8 EPL games this season. The main difference between himself and the more noted ball-winning midfielders is that his good defensive play comes despite, not because of his physical attributes. Instead, itis based on good timing, an understanding of space on the pitch, and that same energy conservation which makes him an easy target for some critics. One aspect of his defensive play that isn’t picked up by the stats and Chalkboards is how often he presses players into giveaways - ‘forced turnovers,’ to borrow a phrase from basketball. This was especially pronounced in the second half at City this season, where on four consecutive occasions he forced his direct opponent into hitting passes either straight out of play, or straight to a United player.

The Chronicles of Carrick

In his first year at United (2006-07), Michael Carrick took time to get settled in, starting few games early in the season. As we came to learn, starting a season slowly would become the norm for him. But on one of his first starts, a 1-1 draw with Reading, Carrick played a blinder, completing 87/96 passes and making 5/6 successful tackles. His performance against Aston Villa at Old Trafford was also noteworthy, as he completed 82/92 passes, dropping a goal and an assist into the bargain. 

The prodigious student to Paul Scholes’ passing maestro, he was usually less ambitious with his distribution, content to keep the ball moving, while leaving the more progressive passing to the Ginger Prince. As we can see from the following Chalkboard, the Carrick-Scholes axis was well greased in that game against Villa (Scholes made 114 of 124 passes that day).

The two midfielders dovetailed immediately, showing excellent coordination, with Carrick’s tidy work making up for Scholes’ understandably reduced mobility. In games where Scholes didn’t play, however, Carrick’s passing became more expansive, as he assumed more of the creative duties with Darren Fletcher (and occasionally John O’Shea) doing more of the ‘dirty work’ for him. With the addition of Owen Hargreaves and Anderson in summer 2007, there were even more bustling midfield runners at Old Trafford, the better that Carrick and Scholes could get on with their quarterback artistry. By the end of his triumphant second year, 2007-08, Carrick had developed his game to a significant extent, finishing with one of the highest passing totals and the fourth highest pass-completion ratio in the league (1585, 83.22%). He finished third, behind Scholes and Fabregas, in terms of minutes-per-pass (1.39), a reliable measure of influence for a central midfielder. Not bad for an “overrated” player. His measured, precise performances continued well through 2008, as he was influential in United’s excellent defensive record in the latter half of that year.

I’ve heard some United fans claim that his form dipped markedly from January 2009 onwards but my recollection, coupled with the stats, suggest otherwise. Contrary to some recent revisionism, he was very, very good in the 5 months leading up to the Barça final. Indeed, in February 2009, one football writer audaciously suggested him as a candidate for Footballer of the Year. In the Premier League run-in, he was superb: even in the painful 4-1 defeat to Liverpool he acquitted himself in the midfield battle (7/8 tackles); he passed Sunderland to death (79/82 passes). He played brilliantly in a tense game at Wigan, making 62 from 69 passes, and of course scoring this late winner, which put the seal on a close title race. Going into the Champions League final in Rome, his form was such that Xavi Hernandez - surely the greatest midfielder of this era - was inclined to describe the Geordie as “a complete player.” Barcelona’s strategy of deliberately and incessantly harrying the United #16 can be interpreted as high praise from Guardiola’s men, though paradoxically the effect of Barça’s show of respect was a complete shattering of Carrick’s confidence. As with many of the United players that night, his performance was diabolical, well short of the standard expected on such a big stage, and of the standard he had set for himself over the previous three seasons.

Unfortunately, 2009-10 saw Carrick pick up where he left off in Rome, with a penalty miss and a giveaway leading to a goal in the 1-0 loss at Burnley. He was quickly dropped. Weirdly, the Chalkboards for 2009-10 don’t show Carrick having a particularly sub-par season, with 45/50 passing at Hull, 73/79 against Wigan, 77/88 from centre-back at Fulham, 77/90 in the 1-0 defeat against Villa, 59/70 against Liverpool, and 63/72 in the 3-1 win at Arsenal. It would serve my interests to claim this as a vindication of my unwavering support, but I honestly think it says more about the limitations of the Chalkboards than about the quality of his performances in particular. For one, it’s noticeable that even though he gave the ball away rarely in most games, his giveaways often led to dangerous counter-attacking opportunities for the opposition. I take this as a sign that his two key attributes, i.e. intelligent passing and defensive positioning, were way below their best. One other observation is that his passing became less and less ambitious as the season wore on, with more sideways passes in his own half, and fewer forward passes in the opposition third. Comparing his Chalkboards from the October 2009 game against Blackburn and the March win over Liverpool illustrates this nicely.

Overall, Carrick’s 2009-10 form was below his usual standard, yet he still produced big performances in the biggest games. In the undeserved 1-0 loss at Stamford Bridge, he was a man-of-the-match contender (44/53 passes, 1 interception, 7/7 tackles) with him, Anderson and Fletcher bossing the midfield as very few teams do against Chelsea. In the 3-1 victory at the Emirates, he switched positions with Scholes after ten minutes, and promptly took over the game - his positioning nullified Arsenal’s build-up play, and his distribution ruthlessly exposed the Gunners’ naive approach to defending.  He bossed the first leg of the Champions League knockout tie against Milan, though he was stupidly sent off at the end. All that good work was quickly forgotten, though, after two appalling performances against Bayern Munich in the Champions League quarterfinals. For the second year running, Carrick’s worst performance of the campaign came with the result that United were out of Europe - the scapegoating was inevitable, and he didn’t start a football match for the rest of the season.

Possible reasons for last year’s struggles

After developing into a top midfielder, Carrick suffered a shocking fall from grace. Could it just have been because of his damaged confidence after the Roman final? That certainly seems plausible, but I think other important factors came into play too.

1. Tactics: It shouldn’t be forgotten that between 2006-09, most Premier League teams were still playing 4-4-2, and as a consequence were being outgunned by the more packed midfields of Chelsea and Manchester United. Of course the solidity of Vidic/Ferdinand and the inexorable rise of Cristiano Ronaldo had massive roles in United’s success over this period, but their consistent midfield dominance shouldn’t be overlooked. In 2006/07, playing a fluid variant of 4-2-3-1, United routinely bossed possession, despite playing with no recognised midfield ‘tackler.’ Carrick and Scholes started most games together, with Ryan Giggs or Wayne Rooney as the side’s trequartista. 
   
   But as several of the lesser EPL sides have become wiser to tactics over time, they have increasingly adopted three-man midfields, with the consequence that Carrick often had less time on the ball than in his first three years at United. As we’ve seen earlier, a combination of a congested midfield and high pressing from the opposition can unsettle Carrick - and he is not alone in this. Even the greatest central midfielders such as Xavi and Pirlo can be put off their rhythm by consistent pressure, soundly applied. What Carrick arguably lacked last season, relative to those two, was the confidence to continue attempting forward passes even under pressure. As we’ve seen before, this led him last season into a proliferation of high-percentage, low-impact backwards and sideways passes, of the type so loathed by English fans and journalists who would prefer a “boot it up there” approach.
   
   
2. Harsh treatment: After his costly mistakes against Burnley (September 2009) he was consigned to the bench for a few games. After his poor performances against Bayern the following spring, he played a grand total of 65 combined minutes in the final 7 games of the season. To me, both punishments seemed to be needlessly harsh, the latter possibly contributing to United’s narrow loss in the title race. A further disruption to his rhythm came from the defensive injury crisis which hit the club in late 2009. After his post-Burnley exile, his re-introduction to the team was as a covering centre-back - not the best way to regain one’s form and confidence as a midfielder. All in all, he can have legitimate claims that external forces - unjustly lengthy spells on the bench, injury-enforced games at CB - contributed to his bad season.
   
   
3. Pressing: His poorest performances have come against teams which press intensely and high up the pitch, employing the equivalent of the ‘full-court press’ in basketball. In Rome against Barça (2009), and away at Liverpool (September 2008), Birmingham (2010), Bayern (2010) and Aston Villa (November 2010), Carrick routinely gave the ball away, usually under pressure from younger, fitter or stronger central midfielders operating in a staggered band of three. The exception to the ‘rule of threes’ was in the Bayern first leg, where United operated with three in midfield, and Bayern with only two - van Bommel and Altintop. While Bayern pressed hard, Carrick often found himself as the spare man in the middle. Yet his passing was dire that evening - an indication of how low his confidence had sunk by that point.

Conclusions and Reasons for Optimism

Conversely, his best performances have come against big teams which tend to employ a more patient, stereotypically ‘European’ approach. In the Champions League his performances in the 7-1 over Roma (2007), 2-0 at Roma, both legs against Riijkard’s Barça, the first half of the Champions League final (2008), 0-0 at Inter - La Repubblica hailed “un magnifico Carrick” - and 1-0 at Porto (2009) all spring readily to mind. In the Premier League, his finest games have been in the 3-0 against Liverpool (2008),  3-1 at the Emirates and 0-0 at City (2010). When teams don’t press, Carrick has time on the ball. And when a passer of his quality has time on the ball, more often than not, he’ll do lots of damage. In addition, the slow, intricate build-up play of most of these teams allows Carrick to position himself well, shielding the backline, and allowing only harmless passes in front of the United rearguard. This was especially true in the 2008 Barça tie and the 2010 Arsenal win.

After a month-long injury layout, Carrick has returned to the squad in 2010/11, and looks like being back to his best. With a few games under his belt since his comeback, he’s rekindled productive midfield partnerships with Fletcher and Anderson - and when Scholes returns in the New Year, they’ll have the chance to dominate as they did against City a few weeks ago. One so-so game against Aston Villa apart (46/57, 4 interceptions, 2/4 tackles), he’s been brilliant in games against Spurs (62/70, 5 interceptions, 3/5 tackles), City (68/73, 7 interceptions, 2/2 tackles), Wigan (58/63, 1 interception, 4/6 tackles), Blackburn (88/95, 2 interceptions, 6/6 tackles) and Rangers (a Xavi-like 107/117 passes).

Although his worst passing performance this season (37/52, 2 interceptions, 3/5 tackles)  came in the recent win against Arsenal, it was significant that he continued to play forward passes despite an insistent physical approach from the Gunners.

In a scrappy game, both sides forced each other into mistakes, and all the usually silky passers had poor numbers. Under midfield pressure last season, he often shrivelled; it seems like he’s emerging from that now.

With a relatively kind fixture list ahead - the postponed game against Chelsea notwithstanding - this is an excellent opportunity for Michael Carrick to re-assert his place in the Manchester United midfield, get a consistent run in the side, and display the football intelligence that for 3 years made him a bellwether for this club’s success.

Maybe the Iron Lady wasn’t for turning. But the White Pele has quickly learnt the political arts of spin and triangulation, with help from The Man Who Should Change His Surname*. Here’s a few of my not-so-humble observations on this week’s events - expanded from recent tweets, with a bit of new stuff thrown in.

In his statement on Wednesday, Wayne Rooney said some true things. United can’t attract the best players anymore - either that, or Sir Alex knows something about Özil, Sneijder, Robben and van der Vaart that makes them really terrible, even though most of us think they’re fantastic footballers who’ve been recently signed on the cheap. For a player of Rooney’s ability and reputation, it’s fair that he would expect a certain level of proven quality from the club’s acquisitions - this isn’t meant to disparage the recent young signings, but it’s an issue that’s come up time and again among United fans. But even though his professed grievances about the club’s lack of investment are valid, and resonate with many of us who are fed up of the Glazernomics business model, only the most naïve United fanboys** would accept that those were his (and Mr. S*******d’s) true reasons for manufacturing this impasse.

Given that negotiations had been going on since the World Cup ended, that the original offer maxed out at £150,000 per week, and that this deal was done so quickly after each side’s public statements, it seems like Wayne’s chats with the MUFC executive could’ve gone two ways. It could be that David Gill has promised some new marquee signings very soon. Or it could be that the club is now “matching his ambitions,” by which I mean: £180,000 per week.***  This week, Wayne Rooney has given us a very valuable epistemology lesson: Just because someone’s telling the truth, that doesn’t mean they’re being honest.

Let me be clear: I have zero moral qualms with rich footballers being motivated by financial concerns. We, the fans, are the ones who indirectly pay their wages, by buying the jerseys, going to the matches, signing up for the club credit cards, and making use of the club’s Thai escort serv… or maybe that’s just me. Anyways, players have every right to ask for higher wages, just as workers do in all professions. If you’re against footballers and agents bidding up salaries, I think you should also be against trade unions doing the same for their members - the two situations are more similar than is comfortable to think about.

But just as players are entitled to be money-minded, fans have every right to prefer players who exhibit loyalty to their clubs, and to shun the mercenaries who use their clubs as rungs on their golden ladders. For club fans, the most admired players are usually those who combine talent and fidelity: Zanetti for Inter, Xavi for Barcelona, Buffon and del Piero for Juventus, Raúl for Madrid, Gerrard for Liverpool. Contrast that with the great cash-nomads of our time: Adebayor, Zlatan, Ravanelli, Winston Bogarde, Robbie Keane, and the true master: “It’s always been my dream to manage Notts County/Leicester City/Joe Public.” In the schema I’ve outlined above, Wayne clearly doesn’t belong in the ranks of the loyalists; and while he’s nowhere near their hilarious levels of transparent greed, his behaviour this week has been characteristic of the dollar-sniffers.

I’ve no problem with him going after the money. My problem is that he did so in a way that has weakened our football club as an institution. Essentially, a player and his agent have held the club to ransom over an extra £30,000 per week (the difference between his new salary and the original August proposal). Embarrassingly, they won.

But anyway… time to talk about football! In footballing terms, keeping Rooney is undoubtedly the best move for Manchester United. With an in-form Rooney, this current United side is a sure title-contender. Without him, or with him out-of-form, it would be hard to class the current side among the European élite. For Rooney, personally and professionally, staying at United is almost certainly the best move for him. In my opinion, only Sir Alex (and maybe José Mourinho) has the authority and the man-management skills to keep Wayne from having a Gazza-style psychological meltdown. Rooney seems to me like the proverbial chess grandmaster who can’t be trusted to sit the right way on a toilet seat. He’s got to be focused on the things he’s good at - kicking footballs, eating low-fat crisps and epistemology - otherwise, chaos ensues. What happens when Fergie goes? Your guess is as good as mine.

So I’m happy that he’s staying, but only for what he’s expected to do on the football pitch. I’m glad that this ludicrously talented but volatile footballer will be playing for us. But for me, personally, his presence will only be that of a (highly-paid) employee, doing what we pay him to do.

After last season, Rooney was starting to earn the genuine affection that I, and all United fans of this generation, have for Ryan Giggs, Paul Scholes, and Gary Neville. Goodbye to all that. So no, I won’t be wearing my Rooney jersey ever again, and I won’t be singing for the “White Pele.” He’s not the messiah, he’s a very naughty boy.

Notes (and Stuff That Makes This Thing Look A Bit More Official)

* Paul S*******d.

** Only fanboys, not fangirls - Even the doziest females can see straight through a man’s words. It’s a skill they’ve got, to compensate for menstrual cycles.

*** Guess which one I think is true. I’ll give you a hint: don’t expect any big new signings.

My favourite football player? Easy: Paul Scholes.

Is he the greatest player of the last 15 years? No. Surely Zidane and Messi will contend for that when the histories of this era are written. But no other player has provided me with as much joy in the years I’ve been watching football as Paul Scholes. Of course there’s the wondergoals: the swinging volley off a corner v. Bradford in 2000, the thunderbolt against Boro in that same year, the 40-yard howitzer in ’06 at Villa. And greatest of all: the rocket against Barcelona to take United to the 2008 Champions League final. But the goals are just the icing, and the cake is very sweet indeed.

To me his career has been that of two, maybe three, world-class footballers. The first was a lively attacking midfielder, comfortable both in and out of the box, creating so many goals for others and guaranteed to grab 10+ goals a season for himself – he was Lampard before Lampard. Providing the shimmer to Roy Keane’s steel, he was half of the last great central-midfield duo in the 4-4-2* era (unless you count Arsenal’s fluid 2002-04 team as a 4-4-2). Then from mid-2001 to 2004, he played almost as a support striker behind a certain Rutgerus van Nistelrooij, netting 43 goals over the period. To the extent that this was a different position, it emphasised his goalscoring prowess, but (in my opinion) to the detriment of his general play. Sir Alex’s first experiment in post-Treble European tactics - a response to the Real Madrid evisceration in 2000 - was a failure, yet Scholes’ reputation was unblemished, and to some, enhanced.

2004-2006 were difficult years for Scholes and United, as Mourinho-led Chelsea became a Premier League force, and European disappointment became the norm. During United’s reshuffle, done to repel Chelsea’s creeping dominance, some questioned what place there would be for the Salford man. After his mysterious eye injury in early 2006, and with the passage of time limiting his mobility, he had to adjust his game to suit new physical conditions and a new tactical system. And how he did! Late-career Scholes has been a joy to watch. Whether accompanied by the cultured talents of Michael Carrick (especially in 06/07), the lung-bursting style of Darren Fletcher, or both, he has been a supreme dictator of a football match, with an ability to control the tempo of a game only bettered by Xavi Hernandez. With younger legs making the attacking runs ahead of him, he’s showed time and again that you don’t need the engine of a Michael Essien or the drive of an Edgar Davids to boss the middle of the park.

Notice how, even when he tries a raking 70-yard ball to the wing, Scholes is not flashy. Every touch, every run into space, is calculated three moves in advance. In the Youtube era, where kids prioritise seal-dribbles and elasticos before they can control a ball or sidefoot a pass, he never takes a meaningless touch, never overelaborates, never beats his man for its own sake. Why does he always seem to receive the ball in space? Instant control and awareness. How could he always pick out wide players, from the one-paced Beckham to the speed-demon Valencia? His every pass accounts for the attributes of his teammates. Classic example: Cristiano Ronaldo’s Superman header v. Roma (2008).  No matter what angle you replay the goal from, when Scholes lofts that ball across, Ronaldo isn’t even in the picture. I remember when this goal was scored, my friends wondered: “did Scholes make that cross knowing Ronaldo would get to it?” It being my 10th year of seeing him do such things, I knew the answer immediately.

Creativity, awareness, unselfishness, eye for goal, dedication, tactical flexibility. A football brain to overcome all physical limitations. His humility and shyness are a wonderful bonus, giving lie to the nonsense that “great players must be a bit arrogant.” When I was new to football, I started supporting United because of David Beckham (and a year later, my fellow countryman Dwight Yorke). But I love football because of Paul Scholes.

Still can’t tackle though. Nabokov couldn’t drive, Jesus had a club foot, yada yada yada.

See some of his best moments (up to 2007) here.

*Although, according to Jonathan Wilson’s superb Inverting the Pyramid, Ferguson “maintains, with some justification, that he has never played 4-4-2, but has always used split forwards.” (p.345)