Shallow Squad or an Injury Crisis?

Posted at Red Rants on 15 August 2008.

The team we pick to start the first “competitive” game of the season (if you can call the Charity Shield competitive) is going to be pretty threadbare. Prospects aren’t so hot for the Newcastle game either. This has caused a lot of debate here recently about whether our squad leaves us too vulnerable to injury or whether it is an unfortunate run of injuries which we could not have foreseen or provided against.

By the way, I’m going to try out numbering and lettering my paragraphs to make commenting and debating easier. I’m going to touch on a lot of themes here, and so it may help facilitate debate if you can refer simply to paragraph 3a. It may not work, but hey.

1. The squad

First of all, I’m going to set out all the options we have in each position, so that we start this debate by looking objectively at the resources at our disposal.

GK: EVDS, Kuszczak, Foster
RB: Brown, G Neville, O’Shea, Hargreaves, R da Silva, Evans [Simpson is now out on loan, in case you missed that]
CB: Rio, Vidic, Brown, O’Shea, Evans, Silvestre
LB: Evra, Silvestre, O’Shea, Evans, F da Silva
RM / RW: Ronaldo, Nani, Park, Giggs, Hargreaves, Fletcher, Rooney
CM: Scholes, Carrick, Hargreaves, Anderson, Fletcher, Possebon, O’Shea, Giggs
LM / LW: Ronaldo, Nani, Giggs, Park, Evra, Rooney
CF: Rooney, Ronaldo, Tevez, Campbell, Giggs [Manucho is still awaiting a work permit; Welbeck has been mysteriously absent from pre-season games - anyone with info why please post it below]

In short, we have at least 5 genuine options in each position. Yes, you read it right - five. Not two, as Mourinho once advocated, five. Some better than others, but none would disgrace the shirt. Some overlapping, too, but there are thirty distinct players there, not counting Manucho, Welbeck or any other youngsters like Gibson.

2. The striker

a) Let’s also get the striker issue out of the way right here. Yes, we need another one - it is the only area where we have inadequate cover. Yes, it would have been nice to have wrapped up Berbatov already. But should we have gone out and splurged on a striker, any striker, just so we have someone for the start of the season? Definitely not. And yes, a fast start is desirable and a huge advantage, but we hardly got one last year and we coped.

b) It takes a rare combination of skill, temperament and potential to become a United signing. Being good isn’t good enough - you have to be good in the right ways for the team, just ask Seba Veron. Should we have signed Robbie Keane for £20m, just because we could probably have sewn it up by now? Dean Ashton for £17m? Peter Crouch for £12m? Or should we wait for the right guy at the right price?

c) My answers to those questions are please no, good god no, not for that price and yes, in that order. Also, just because we’re not reading stories in the press doesn’t mean that progress isn’t being made. If you’d just been reported for comments made in the media about Berbatov, you’d be pretty stupid to antagonise the selling club by continuing to make comments in the media about Berbatov. This is how we do business these days - quietly, behind the scenes, and not like Real Madrid.

d) I will admit, though, that our lack of interest in Huntelaar is surprising. But then there are a lot of top clubs on the hunt (sorry) for strikers, and none of them have put a concrete offer in for him - so what do they know that we don’t?

3. The injury list

a) Here’s the list, first up:

Ronaldo (ankle, 2 months)
Rooney (virus, first two games)
Nani (suspension, first two PL games)
Anderson (Olympics, August)
Carrick (virus, probably CS only)
Hargreaves (tendinitis, possibly fit from start)
Park (knee, possibly fit from start)
Saha (sniffly nose, the rest of his life)

That’s a pretty brutal spate of injuries - particularly so because it has focused entirely on our midfield and attack. We would happily trade, for example, Evra for Rooney and Brown for Nani, since we could easily absorb those injuries in the defence but would keep some of our attacking potency.

b) To illustrate further, this is what a comparable injury list would be for our rivals:

Chelsea: Drogba, Anelka, Joe Cole, Mikel, Deco, Essien, Malouda, Shevchenko
Liverpool: Torres, Keane, Babel, Mascherano, Alonso, Benayoun, Kuyt, Voronin
Arsenal: van Persie, Adebayor, Nasri, Rosicky, Fabregas, Diaby, Walcott, Bendtner

c) So to criticise United for not being able to absorb the injuries we have suffered without a drop in performance is to criticise the whole league, and probably every other top club in Europe (I don’t know the Barca, Real, AC Milan or Bayern squads quite well enough to do a similar comparison with them - if you do, please do so in the comments). Those teams would be lucky to put eleven players on the field who could beat Hull, let alone who have every chance of keeping us afloat for a few weeks if needed. We should instead be saying how lucky we are to have a few golden oldies and Tevez to reliably fill the void.

4. Should we have more cover?

However, to take our own squad in isolation and knowing Ronaldo was out for the first two months, would it be optimal for us to have signed more players? The answer to this remains no. There is a roadblock practical reason for this, and an objection in principle.

a) The problem is that you are trying to attract players when they know full well they have no chance of playing if the squad is anywhere near fully fit. This immediately rules out players who are really good right now or likely to become really good in the next year, leaving us with two types of player: youngsters for the future and oldies who might have an Indian summer. We already have the oldies, thanks, barring a miracle loan signing akin to Larsson. Equally, youngsters who are over a season away from being good are probably no better than what we can cobble together internally.

Therefore, the pool of players who will sign for us knowing that they will only get regular first team football if we have an horrific injury crisis and who are good enough to play for us even on a part-time basis is pretty small. The only name I came up with was Eidur Gudjohnsen, but there we go.

There is a third category of players, those who are in it for the money and a quiet life. Step forward, Carlo Cudicini (the best keeper in the Premiership when Cech was bought) and Wayne Bridge (only Evra and Clichy are better). But then is greed and lack of ambition a combination of qualities you want in a United player, even if we could afford them?

b) Whilst I’m here, I want to touch on Aaron Ramsey, who has attracted a lot of inches on this blog. A commonly-held belief is that the reason he went to Arsenal is because Fergie couldn’t be bothered to go and meet him. Whilst this doesn’t look very good (particularly set against fireside games of snooker with a young David Beckham, etc), it is wrong to say that this cost us Ramsey’s signature.

What cost us Ramsey’s signature was that we wanted to buy him and loan him back to Cardiff for a season. Arsenal, on the other hand, wanted to take him straight into the first team squad and offered him a shot at Premier League football. He (understandably, in my view), preferred the latter option. This isn’t speculation or my interpretation of things - this is what Cardiff chairman Peter Ridsdale said in an interview with the BBC.

So to use this as a stick to beat United and Fergie over the head with seems a bit silly. We didn’t need him for this season, but tried to secure him in the long term - he’s not so wonderfully amazing that he had to be signed immediately like we did with Nani and Anderson. Ramsey was thinking short term - end of.

c) The objection on principle is that I don’t want to return to the era of utility players. You all remember it - Djemba-Djemba, Kleberson, Phil Neville, Quinton Fortune, Diego Forlan all as integral members of the first team squad. Good enough to be in the squad, but not good enough for the first team. Fergie splintered our transfer budget, signing lots of bit part players rather than one big name. Would you have him spend £10-15m of our summer transfer budget on a fourth reserve player, or save it and secure the player we have identified as The One? I’ll leave that one as rhetorical.

5. I’d like to say one more thing before I throw this open for what I imagine and hope will be a fairly heated debate. I’m not a “loyalist”, I’m not supporting United for the sake of it, and I don’t believe the sun shines out of Fergie’s arse. Everything I’ve offered above is, in my opinion, closely reasoned and supported by facts. So if and when you disagree with me in the comments, please try to make your responses the same.

In summary - our team is going to be badly under strength for the first two games of the season. That does not make our squad defective and does not mean we should spend millions of pounds willy nilly on squad players to compensate.

Read More...

Ten Indicators For United’s 08/09 Season

Posted at Red Rants on 1 August 2008.

Apologies for the extended period of quiet from my side (note, please, that I am not RR, who has done an admirable job of keeping the site going and everyone interested during what has the most boring, repetitive, inconclusive and tedious close season in living memory). When I say that the cricket has been far more interesting than anything to do with football recently, I think I have said all.

In the continuing absence of any concrete developments from the summer, I want to look back on our staggeringly successful last season and draw out some of the reasons why we were so damn good. These apply both to why we’ve gone from being written off in the summer of ‘06 to the best team in Europe, and also what we did even better in 07/08 to achieve such heights. Then I’m going to darken the tone slightly by picking up three things which could scupper our chances.

THE POSITIVES

1. Squad depth

Last season, with the exception of centre forward, we had high class cover right across the board. Not only high class cover, in fact, but a lot more than 11 players who deserved and were fighting for a first team spot. This allowed us to cope with all the injuries thrown our way; but more importantly, to have genuine flexibility to mix and match our team to suit the exact circumstances.

2. Weakness of our rivals

Arsenal had a great first XI, but as soon as form, fitness and fatigue scratched that surface they were gone. So, this summer they have sold two first team regulars…as much as we now (patronisingly) applaud Wenger, he really is a masochist.

Liverpool had two great players (Torres and Gerrard), one fouling centre back who the press often call great (Carragher), an amusingly foul-mouthed midfielder (Mascherano - thanks again for that red card), a few has-beens (Finnan, Hyppia, Riise), a few might-yet-bes (Babel, that kid they play at right back), and some journeymen / donkeys (Crouch, Kuyt, Pennant, Kewell)….sorry, did I get carried away there? What I meant was that they were entirely reliant (as opposed to over-reliant) on two players.

Chelski were unlucky with injuries, but that said the African Nations was a fairly predictable drain on their resources and Mourinho bought badly last summer (Malouda, Alex, Ben Haim & Pizarro, none of whom were good enough for their first team). And the upheaval of Mourinho’s departure was entirely caused by their owner.

The good thing is that what little activity there has been so far this summer has made Arsenal’s plight worse, kept Liverpool broadly the same (although Keane could be a good signing) and left Chelsea up in the air (what if Drogba and Lampard leave next week, just before the season starts?)

3. The fear factor’s back

In the depths of our three-year slump, the most damaging development was that we had lost the fear factor. Teams used to turn up not shaking in fear and hoping to keep it down to 2-0, but genuinely thinking they could win. So they had a go, and against our weakened team came away with points far too often. Last season they were 1-0 down in the coach on the way to the game again, and it showed.

4. Everyone taking responsibility

In previous times, when we have had to bring in John O’Shea, Darren Fletcher, Ji-Sung Park and co they have played like second stringers. Like good, old-fashioned triers, but ones who know they’re not quite cut out to be in the exalted company they are in. But last season, they were. Anderson and Nani played like present day stars, not ones for the future. Wes Brown was an integral part of our stingiest ever defence, including a quite sensational performance in the second leg against Barcelona. Hargreaves rose above his disappointments to be our most consistent player in the last month of the season. Park, too, played like a man possessed for that month. Even Silvestre came back into the first team against Chelski and gave a good impression of a regular left back.

Not only did we have squad depth, but the quality, maturity and attitude was spot on right through the squad.

5. Confidence in the tough games

Often the difference between a good season and a great season is performance in the so-called “six-pointers”. But since that doesn’t extend to the Champions League, let’s just use the less snappy phrase “games against other elite clubs”. Whereas in some previous seasons this has been our weakness, this time round we were superb, with only the last minute penalty against Chelski blotting our copybook (even that in a game where we played a below-par team):

Chelski: W 2, L 1
Arsenal: W 1, D 1
Liverpool: W 2
Barca: W 1, D 1
Roma: W 3, D 1
Overall: P 13, W 9, D 3, L 1.

6. Suitability for Europe

Our squad and style of play is now much more suited to success in Europe. With the very honourable exception of 1999, it doesn’t often wash in Europe to have a flimsy defence and rely on scoring heavily. Most of the top sides, particularly in Italy, are too good to be overwhelmed defensively, so keeping clean sheets is much more important. Equally, we had the players to make the 4-3-2-1 system work properly against better teams, with plenty of players all over the pitch who could provide solid defence and then switch effortlessly into fluent attack (Evra, Carrick, Rooney and Tevez to name but four).

7. Prospects for the future

Well, with the exception of Ronaldo, this squad has the potential to grow together for the next five or so years. In fact, last year’s squad had a somewhat raw feel to it in midfield and attack at times. Tevez took a while to settle in, Anderson stepped up magnificently but failed to score a single goal, Nani’s decision-making looks like Ronaldo’s did four years ago and Hargreaves was out of sorts until April. We can expect a lot more from these players and others this coming season.

THE NEGATIVES

1. No standout assistant manager

It’s no great secret that we’ve always struggled when Fergie hasn’t had a first class coach working with him. Brian Kidd, Steve McClaren and Carlos Queiroz have all been integral parts of our best sides; their ability to devise cutting-edge training routines and support the squad in a complementary was to Fergie were essential. It doesn’t look like we’re going to start the season with a “specialist” assistant, with various of Fergie’s underlings helping out. That makes me nervous.

2. Reduced return from Ronaldo

No secrets here. With Ronaldo out for the start of the season, and questionably motivated thereafter, we need others to stand up and be counted. Big season for Wayne Rooney, and whichever striker we buy (I’m still confident of Berbatov) needs to hit the ground running. We can’t afford another start like last season.

3. We were lucky with injuries last time round

I mean, I know Vidic was injured for most of the last two months, Scholes missed a lot of games before Christmas and Gary Neville didn’t play at all. But we had most of our key players fit most of the time, and we can’t rely on that again. If Rooney missed injures himself on the first day again, for example, we could be in serious trouble by the time he and Ronaldo return. Equally, our defence wasn’t quite the same without Rio and Vidic at its heart. We have a great squad, but injuries could still screw us.

That’s my lot. Any themes you would draw attention to?

Read More...

Is Manchester United’s Youth System Redundant?

Posted at Red Rants on 23 June 2008.

[Warning - this is a longer than usual post, since this is too big a topic to cover in a few snappy paragraphs. Still, I think it's an important area, so if you have a few minutes then settle in for a read and a think.]

There’s no doubt that we have been spoilt in the past. In the nineties, our youth system produced a quite extraordinary series of top class players. I don’t need to list them, but I will anyway because of the memories they bring back: Sharpe, Giggs, Scholes, Beckham, Gary Neville, Phil Neville and Nicky Butt. All effectively “free”, and all of whom played their best years for United.

But the next generation we all prayed for has never arrived. The only graduates of the youth system since the Golden Generation are Wes Brown, John O’Shea and Darren Fletcher. All have been loyal servants, but hardly the stellar talents we were blessed with before. These days, we hear good things spoken of a young player, maybe glimpse him once or twice in the first team, and then hear he has been sold off to a lesser Premiership side or a Championship team.

I want to look at why that has happened, and whether it means our youth system is now effectively redundant as far as the first team is concerned.

Why are so few youth players making the first team?

There are two main reasons for this:

1. Lack of opportunity
Quite simply, the Premiership is much more competitive than it used to be, and so there are very few chances to blood young players.

Back in the nineties, there was a far larger gap between the top four or five teams and the rest. It was very plausible to play five or six second string players against any team in the bottom half of the table and come away with an easy 2-0 win. We had an easy way of trying out youngsters and seeing if they made the grade. Not only that, but the number of points required to win the league allowed for a bit more margin for error, for a few off days when the rotation didn’t work.

Contrast to the present day. Access to cheap foreign (mainly African and Eastern European) talent and plentiful loans has allowed almost every team in the league to be competitive on their day. Fielding a weakened team, for example, at home to Middlesbrough would be a risky undertaking. Similarly, increasingly high standards are expected at the top of the league - witness Arsenal’s Invincibles and Chelski’s extraordinary unbeaten home record. Each season, records are broken for the standard at the top.

Off days aren’t an acceptable risk any more, they are too high a price to pay for learning about a couple of promising youngsters. You need a big, battle-hardened squad, with two players who could play all season in each position. Playing Wes Brown in the centre of defence instead of Pique in March and April was a classic example of safe not sorry. How will Danny Simpson ever get a run in the right back position when Brown, Neville, O’Shea and Hargreaves can all do a job there?

These days, the best we can hope to do is loan our young players to lesser teams, and see what we can tell from their performances from their loan clubs. This is pretty unreliable, though - what we need to know is not whether a player can nail down a place is a worse team, but whether they have the pedigree to live with the big boys. There’s only one way of finding that out, and that is the baptism of fire.

[The only light at the end of the tunnel here is substitutes. From next season, teams will be allowed to name seven subs - that would allow for a mixture of impact players and youngsters. If we're 2-0 up with twenty mins to go, we can bring on Welbeck and Simpson for some experience. If it's 1-1, call on Nani and Tevez to get a goal. O'Shea, Hargreaves and Foster can shore things up and cover injuries. Previously with only 5 spots available, obviously Welbeck and Simpson are the ones sent to sit in the stands.]

2. The new system
If you want chapter and verse on this, you need to read this fascinating interview with Brian McClair which RR linked to a while back. I really can’t recommend highly enough that you read the whole thing, but for the purposes of this article (and since I can’t improve the journalism there) I’m going to quote three passages from it:

The basic principle of the academy system – that clubs can only recruit boys up to the age of 11 who live within an hour’s travel of their academy base – is one for which Ferguson has a long-standing antipathy.

If the current academy system had been in place in the late 1980s United would not have signed Beckham, who grew up in Essex. McClair does not believe they would have signed the Nevilles either, as they would have been snapped up by Bury at an early age and a prohibitive price put upon them. Scholes, he says, would have been at Oldham Athletic’s academy. Giggs would not have had the chance to leave Manchester City for the club he supported. United might have got Butt; they might not.

McClair: “If you look at that group of players who won the 1992 FA Youth Cup for United, nearly every single one of them played at the highest level because they were the best from Northern Ireland, they were the best from Wales, the best from England, the best from Scotland. You can’t compare anything to the Beckham, Butt, Scholes generation with what happens now. It’s impossible to do that now.”

So is our youth system redundant?

To me, it is not redundant, but it has a very different role. It will never be a regular direct source of first team squad players, never mind first team players. However, it has a number of important functions in the modern era:

1. Panning for gold - What we must now hope for from our youth system is to find one big player every five years, one absolute superstar. A Wayne Rooney, a Cesc Fabregas. Those players are out there somewhere, and we need to give ourselves every chance of being the ones to sign them on. We must keep dipping our sieve in the river for the one time that we find a nugget of gold in our hand.

2. A source of income - selling off unwanted youth team players is a valuable income stream. I’ve gone over all our transfers since the Treble season, and come up with the following stats:

Total revenue from selling youth team players*: £66.7m (£35.7m**)
Total revenue adjusted for inflation***: £85.16m (£42.71m)

* Includes players bought at a young age to be developed for first team, eg Rossi
** Not including revenue from sale of Beckham, Butt and P Neville, who arguably fall outside the scope of this article
*** Assuming transfer price inflation of 10% per season

So from selling players who came through our youth system, if you accept my inflation adjustment, we have paid for Rio, Rooney, Ronaldo, Vidic and Evra. Even if you choose to discount the revenue from Beckham, Butt and Phil Neville (on the basis that they played their best years for us, so we had already had value for them by the time they left), we have paid for Rooney, Ronaldo and Vidic. So what we are effectively operating is a glorified part-exchange system, where we trade in five or six players who are good enough for the Premiership but not good enough for us for one first team regular. Note: I have included full details of how I got to those numbers at the end of the article for those of you who are interested - I thought it would disrupt the flow unnecessarily to include the full list here

By the way, a flipside of the loan system is that it is making it easier than ever for us to get value for our not-quite-good-enough players. For example, Sunderland would pay several million for Jonny Evans, and Stoke would like to pay us a couple of million for Frazier Campbell - before we’d have had to sell them into the Championship for much less. The indirect benefit of developing decent young players is increasing.

3. A finishing school - a major part of our transfer strategy now consists of buying up talented foreign players in their mid-teens and bringing them to Old Trafford to develop. Rossi and Pique were part of that system, and now we have players like the Brazilian twins and the young Italian striker we have just signed. A strong, competitive youth team set-up is obviously very valuable for helping those young signings realise their potential.

I don’t feel our youth system is redundant — far from it — but it’s role has changed significantly since the days of the Golden Generation. What are your views?

Youth team transfers since 1999
07-08
Richardson - £5.5m
Rossi - £6.7m
Pique - £5m
Bardsley - £2m
Shawcross - £1m
Total - £20.2m

06-07
McShane & Steele - exchange for Kuszczak, est £5m
David Jones - £1m
Spector - £0.5m
Total - £6m, adjusted for inflation £6.6m

05-06
P Neville - £3.5m
Total - £3.5m, adjusted for inflation £4.2m

04-05
Butt - £2.5m
Total - £2.5m, adjusted for inflation £3.25m

03-04
Beckham - £25m
Total - £25m, adjusted for inflation £35m

02-03
Rachubka - £0.2
Total - £0.2m, adjusted for inflation £0.3m

01-02
Healy - £1.8m
Greening - £2m
Total - £3.8m, adjusted for inflation £6.08m

00-01
Curtis - £1.5m
Higginbotham - £2m
Notman - £0.25m
Total - £3.75m, adjusted for inflation £6.38m

99-00
Mulryne - £0.5m
Cook - £1m
Nevland - £0.25m
Total - £1.75m, adjusted for inflation £3.15m

Read More...

The Wayne Rooney Debate

Posted at Red Rants on 18 June 2008.

In an attempt to move on from the Ronaldo saga, I want to go back to the topic that was getting most “blog inches” (if that’s a phrase) before we descended into the current quagmire. What’s the deal with Wayne Rooney?

I’ve tried to phrase that as openly as possible, because the spectrum of opinion is broad. To some, Rooney is a maestro who had a bad season. To others, he’s a good player who hasn’t quite lived up to his billing or his potential. I know that after a sub-par performance in the CL final, most of you were leaning towards the latter — decent player, great to have him in the side, but not as stand-out amazing as we had hoped. I disagree, and here’s my take on things.

The ultimate team player

Rooney, to me, is team spirit embodied. There are two things that make him enjoy his football — playing in the team, and the team winning. Contrast to Ronaldo, who (whatever he said in post-match interviews) is all about his own performance first, and the team second. He will play wherever he is asked to, for as long as he is asked to, without sulking or whining. The only time you’ll find him sulking is if he is substituted when he still feels he has something to offer the team.

This stat doesn’t show up in any tables. It’s not quantifiable in assists, tackles, metres run, shots on target, or any other stat. It just is — he is prepared to subjugate his own desires and achievements for the good of the team, and has done so from the moment he walked in the door.

That’s why he’ll be at United for life, driving the team forward long after any of our continental imports have moved on. And if you don’t appreciate him for that, especially after the hullaballoo of the last few weeks, then you should damn well start.

Out of position

This is a subset of the above, but the most important one. Let there be no doubt, Rooney’s best position is just off the front man, with a roaming brief. He should be allowed to drop off into midfield to pick up the ball, or move out onto either wing when he sees space, or to push past the front man when he sees an opportunity. Teams should (Fabio Capello take note) be built around him.

But at Old Trafford, for one reason and another, they haven’t been. Last season’s team was as close as I’ve ever seen Fergie go to building the team around a single player — admittedly it was around one of the best players we’ve ever seen playing at the peak of his powers — but it usually doesn’t work like that. Prior to that, Ruud was the key man, and Rooney had to play second fiddle.

Set against that, look at where Rooney played last season:

1. up top, as a lone striker — he’s not tall enough for that role, and does his best work facing goal. Still, he worked hard and made life as tough a possible for defences, in turn creating spaces and gaps for a certain other player.

2. on the left — often he and Tevez alternated, but it was clear that they should be where Ronaldo was not, thereby stretching defences as much as possible.

3. as a wing back — remember the first Barcelona game? I don’t know of many other players of Rooney’s status and talent who would not only accept that role but really take to it.

There was only a short period where he played as part of a traditional front two, and if you buy a season review DVD (which I am currently glorying in) you will remember some of the sublime interplay between Rooney and Tevez through the centre.

Finishing

Another criticism levelled against Rooney is that he doesn’t score enough goals. Well, I agree that his finishing isn’t as lethal as it could be — certainly not good enough to be our main striker. But then who said he was our main striker? He certainly hasn’t been very often yet. Nor does he loiter around the six yard box for tap ins, and he isn’t even in the area for corners.

Rooney should be compared, in the grand scheme of things, to the likes of Cantona and Sheringham. That’s the sort of player he is. Le God never banged in 40 goals in a season, but he scored crucial goals in crucial games, went on hot streaks, and had that aura which generally improved the performance of everyone around him. Sheringham was the ultimate dictator-from-deep, gaining a yard with his brain rather than his pace, and chipping in with occasional but important goals. There are even shades of the strength and combative nature of Mark Hughes, with the same ability to score stunning goals from distance.

I am honestly not exaggerating when I say that Rooney has the best bits of all these legends rolled into one, and so to judge him on the number of goals he has scored alone is laughable. How dare anyone condense the contribution of one of our best team players into an analysis of the most crude stat? Most people here know more about football than that, and should know better.

Loyalty

I’ll keep this short, because I’ve covered it in a previous article. Rooney is even more valuable to us because he will be with us for the rest of his career, unless we choose to sell him. There’s a good reason why British players come at a premium (Carrick for £18m, Rooney for £25m, Rio for £30m) — that’s because if you’re United, you’re buying that guy with a view to keeping him until he retires. I was variously called narrow-minded and a racist back then, but I reckon a few more people see my point now.

Nowhere in the various Ronaldo threads have I seen the comment “don’t worry, we have Rooney”. Well, I’m making it now. Build a team around Rooney, and we won’t regret it.

Read More...

Playing Devil’s Advocate on Ronaldo

Posted at Red Rants on 11 Jun 2008.

By that, I mean Ronaldo’s advocate. I don’t view him as the Devil, but some of you do so I thought you’d like the connection.

A lot has been written on this blog alone over the last couple of weeks about the Ronaldo situation, culminating in Red Ranter’s superbly passionate piece. I have stayed out of it in the comments, firstly because of the lack of hard news on the subject and secondly because of the level of emotion running through. In the midst of it all, I don’t think anyone was prepared to step back and think it through more fully.

Maybe you’re still not, and I expect, if not flaming, then some strong contradictory opinions to this post. But what I’m going to do is explain why the Real move is good for Ronaldo, and point out some silver linings for us. Then, just to maximise the controversy, I’m going to give a super-long-term view of the situation that most of you will hate but which I think we should hope for despite ourselves.

The Case for the Move

We have established, I think, that Ronaldo’s first priority is Ronaldo. I also think we always knew that was the case, even if we tried to ignore it. So here are the arguments for why Ronaldo should join Madrid:

1. Last season was the peak. Last season, as we all know, CR scored 42 goals, won every award going, and we won the PL and the CL. Hard to see how it can get much better than that. Say next season Ronaldo scored 25 goals and we win the Premier League but lose in the semis of the CL. Good season, not great. But a huge comedown for CR - and you all know how much the English media love to tear down someone they have built up. Start a line of questions with “was 07/08 a flash in the pan”, and you’ll get the idea.

2. The referees. Referees in England have a permanent downer on Ronaldo. There’s no two ways about that - there will always be four or five blatant free-kicks or penalties a game which are not given to him because of his reputation. Massively frustrating for the fans to watch, but even more so for the player himself. In England, more than in any other league in the world, diving is hated and physicality is applauded and encouraged. It is quite the reverse in Spain, where diving is seen as “cleverness” and players are protected by officials from roughhousing tactics.

3. The playing conditions. Similar to the point above, but in Spain Ronaldo will rarely find a man up his arse whenever he receives the ball. Nor will that many wingers track back to double up on CR with their full back. Far more often than in England, he will have time to take a touch and turn, and when he does that he doesn’t often need support. Also, no winter away games at Blackburn on a mudbath pitch - weather/pitch conditions will favour CR’s game far more often than here.

4. The hero worship. We love (or loved) Ronaldo. We thought he was superb, and adored having him play for us. But nobody at United is bigger than the team - nobody has been allowed to be whilst Fergie is around. You can tell that CR wants the hero worship, the iconic status, the unreconstructed worship from everyone. He will never get that at United, because the adoration has to be spread round a lot of players. Madrid are buying him to be bigger than the team, to be their brand leader - and nobody’s going to be allowed to say a bad word about the most expensive player ever in the world.

5. The money. Say no more. It’s a factor, and love for United (I don’t doubt that he has lots of this, by the way), when balanced against his desire to play for Real, isn’t worth £100k a week after tax to him plus increased endorsements to him.

[End Devil's Advocate mode.] Don’t get me wrong, I don’t like the situation any more than the rest of you. The thought of the team running out in August without our number 7 leaves me feeling empty inside. But I understand why it makes sense to him, and that makes me not hate him.

Yep, sorry - I don’t hate him. Can’t - I love watching wingers more than any other type of player (Giggs, Sharpe and Kanchelskis all rate at the top of my list of players I enjoyed watching), and in Ronaldo I’ve had the chance to watch possibly the best there’s ever been in my team’s colours for five years. I loved watching him even when he was mind-blowingly frustrating. I’m just unspeakably disappointed about the situation.

The chasing pack

I’m not going to try to pretend that it can be a good thing if Ronaldo goes. It can’t, and it isn’t. One big factor in damage limitation is getting another year out of Ronaldo to give our youngsters a chance to come through and the management a genuine chance to plan for life without him.

But even if he goes straight away, I don’t think it’s as bad as all that in terms of winning things. Not because we’re going to have £x million to spend on great players, but because you have to look at where the chasing pack is.

Arsenal — have already lost Flamini, will almost certainly lose Hleb and may lose Adebayor. Will not sign any proven, top class talent.

Chelski — will almost certainly lose Drogba, will probably lose Anelka and are going to have all their best players (other than Ballack) relentlessly linked to Mourinho at Inter, probably with good reason. Will bring in expensive and high profile replacements, but you need a coach as good as Mourinho to bind them into a top class side, and given Abramovich’s shoddy treatment of JM and then Grant, they’re not going to get anyone good enough.

Liverpool — may not lose any big players, but they only have two to start with. Clearly have to sell to buy big (especially with their owners in crisis), and are overvaluing their players as a result. £10m for Scott Carson? £15m for Peter Crouch? Don’t be silly. Most high profile signing could be…Gareth Barry.

Barca — likely to have another season in transition with a new coach and some big players leaving.

AC Milan — didn’t qualify for the Champions League.

Inter Milan — who knows what Jose can do? Dark horse for the CL.

Real Madrid — could only be strengthened by Ronaldo, but still likely to underachieve in Europe.

Bayern Munich — wouldn’t dare comment with some knowledgeable Bayern fans around, perhaps they could give us a short assessment of Bayern’s chances next year in Europe.

I could go on. But we have some great players who are likely to get better next year, and as the best side in Europe we can attract exceptional players for whatever money we have to spend. We will go backwards with Ronaldo gone, but no further backwards than anyone else we are competing with.

I want him back again

Here, just to give you one last thing to chew on, is something I haven’t seen anywhere in the comments but I really believe. If he goes to Real, there’s a good chance it will go wrong for him for all the reasons RR mentioned on Saturday. And if that happens, I want him to come straight back to us, having fulfilled his boyhood dream and realised it’s not all it’s cracked up to be. Reach back into your memories, and remember Mark Hughes - it can be like that.

By mixing hope and reality, I would like CR to play one more season for us, then go to Real whilst he’s still worth gigabucks, underachieve there for 2 seasons and then come back to aid the post-Fergie rebuilding process. As I said, I can’t hate him, and I don’t want to. We can fall out with Madrid, but let’s not fall out with Cristiano too.

Read More...

Nani and Anderson — Managed

Posted at Red Rants on 31 May 2008.

Roy Keane wrote in his autobiography (or at least said to the Ronaldo-hating Eamon Dunphy) that even though Sir Alex Ferguson is not the best coach, he is an incredible manager of men. And he’s proved it again this season with his exceptional handling of Nani and Anderson.

On the face of it, this was a really difficult ask. Both came to us out of the blue, with big price tags and big things to live up to. The press were totally blindsided by the speed of our moves, but when they recovered our new signings were hailed as the “next Ronaldo” and the “next Ronaldinho” respectively. Everyone dug up YouTube videos proving that these guys were the best thing since sliced bread, and some even put them straight into the first XI on general principle. To make matters worse, neither had lived in England before, and neither spoke the language.

Despite all this, Fergie ensured a smooth transition which leaves us now with two genuine stars in our squad, rather than two pissed-off, burned out and frustrated starlets.

Lowered expectations

The first part of this process was to ensure that both the press and the fans expected nothing. Whenever anyone at United was asked about them over the summer and at the start of the season, the response always came back that they were still learning, and only going to be used sparingly off the bench. It was difficult to adjust to English football, the party line went, so give these boys a season to settle in.

They did better than that. Nani was a key part of our attack in the injury-hit goal drought that was the first few matches of the season — without his screamer against Spurs, the wheels might have been off our title bid before we got started. Anderson didn’t impress on his first couple of appearances, but then came on as a sub against Wigan and dominated the game. Before we knew it, he was winning midfield battles against Gerrard and Fabregas.

But the key was that each good performance was seen as a bonus, and treated as such. There was no talk of “he’ll need a few more games like that to justify his transfer fee” or “only what you’d expect from a £17m winger”. Just good stuff, both from the fans and the media.

Quitting whilst ahead

OK, so far so good. We were impressed by most of what we’d seen, and were filing these guys in the list headed “Evra, Vidic, Ronaldo” rather than “Kleberson, Djemba-Djemba, Poborsky”. But with Giggsy underperforming, Carrick sulking and Hargreaves injured, a lot of managers (Wenger included, I think) would have decided to make them first choice starters until further notice.

Instead, Fergie held both back. Nani started only 26 games in all competitions, and Anderson only 25. Compare this to Giggs (33) and Scholes (30), supposedly fading; Carrick (39) and Tevez (39), who had patches of not starting; Rio (51) and Brown (48), the near-ever presents.

He did so differently for each player, as well. Nani was used sporadically throughout the season, whereas Anderson was allowed to play and play through the middle of the season while his confidence was high and his form was good. We saw the best of each — Nani’s trickery, shot from distance and delivery from set-pieces; Anderson’s strength, drive and (frankly) ability to run games — without having their flaws shown up by the continued glare of the spotlight.

We all know how much the English press loves to bring down the people it has just built up, and if either had been forced to play through a patch of bad form in public, you can imagine the mud that would have been slung. Instead, both can look back on the season with a warm glow, knowing they were a real part of, and positive influence on, a great side.

The velvet glove…

You may not read the tabloids (in which case, good for you), but you’re probably aware of the stories surrounding Ronaldo, Anderson and the ladies of the night. You probably do read the sports papers, and you may have noticed the lack of interviews given by Nani and Anderson.

Whilst I’m not saying that Fergie lined up prozzies to make his youngsters feel at home, it is obvious that he has allowed them to settle into Manchester in their own way. He has not sought to keep them under lock and key, something that would almost certainly have provoked discontent, but has done his best to protect them from the glare of the media off the pitch as well as on.

The final cameo

The last second CL final substitution of Anderson for Wes Brown, and the decision to allow both him and Nani to take penalties in the shoot-out, spoke volumes for both the self-confidence that they had developed over the season (not to mention the trust the gaffer was prepared to put in them). It would have been so easy to get the experienced heads to step up (I expected to see Giggsy before then), but what a sensational boost for the two lads to take into next season.

I know this post is unremittingly positive, which can be a bit boring. I’m not sure I’m even being that controversial. Far more fun to nit-pick over Rooney’s performance or Carrick’s value for money. But this superbly thought out, flexible management of two players who will now be an integral part of our team and squad for the next five years must be recognised for the achievement it is.

Read More...

Some Sober Reflections

Posted at Red Rants on 23 May 2008.

It’s hard to step back and look at the whole final without being tainted by the result. The temptation is to exult the good bits and ignore the bad bits, on the basis that it was all part of a masterplan. It’s also hard to give any new perspective, given the pages and pages of journalism on the subject. But I’m going to try - I’m going to give you two bits of hype that you should believe, and also four hard truths that we need to learn if we are to improve on what seems like perfection.

1. Believe the hype - 4-4-2

There weren’t many pundits who genuinely thought that we’d go in with a 4-4-2. “All about the midfield battle”, they pontificated, talking fluent cliche; “Chelsea are very physical and United will need numbers to combat that”. Having suffered through the Barca games and the loss at the Bridge, plenty of us also expected a 4-3-3 cum 4-5-1 to take the field.

There can be no doubt that we played an orthodox 4-4-2 for the whole first half, and that it worked superbly. Not least because it was a total tactical wrong ‘un, which it took Grant until half time to figure out. Carrick and Scholes were 15 yards deeper than Lampard and Ballack expected, so they had an extra touch or two to dictate the play. Our strongest player homed in on their most vulnerable. Makalele had no floating players to track, and so was comparatively ineffective. Cashley’s incursions were limited by Hargreaves, helping Brown to tuck and and deal with the central threat.

But the extra stroke of genius, what turned it from an interesting ploy into a potentially match-winning gambit, was the use of Hargreaves. When the teams were announced, literally everybody took it as proof that we were playing 4-3-3. Hargo’s been better going forward recently, but nobody has him down as a right winger. He was to be the screen - after all, that’s what he was bought for. So Chelsea would have focussed their last minute team talks on re-inforcing their strategy against 4-3-3, and a slight surprise was turned into a brutal curveball. It took them fully 45 minutes to recover; by that time, we should have had the match wrapped up.

2. Hard truth - Rooney and Tevez aren’t ruthless enough

This doesn’t matter in many matches, but it does in the really huge games. You don’t get many chances, and you have to be able to take a very high percentage of them against the very best teams to stand a chance. Ronaldo, nominally a winger, had one chance and put it away - that’s been the story of his season, what has turned 25 into 42.

I’m afraid Rooney and, in particular, Tevez aren’t doing that. They have each scored a decent number of goals, but not as many as they should have done in a team of this creative potential. In the final, Rooney didn’t have a single shot on goal - extraordinary for your centre-forward, however selfless. Tevez did - he should have scored twice in the first half, and in the second half he wasted a couple of decent positions by trying to beat the best most orange keeper in the world at his near post.

We need that Huntelaar type of figure - the predator who converts the great moves - to maximise our chances of retaining the European Cup.

3. Hard truth - Edwin van der Saar

Just as for Jerzy Dudek, the last penalty hero in a CL final, so it must be for EVDS. He has been struggling of late, with dodgy kicks and the odd flap at a high ball. It was extraordinary to see Fergie instruct his team at Stamford Bridge not to pass back to EVDS, and there were a couple of examples of that in the final where Vida tamely put balls out for throw-ins rather than trying to re-cycle the ball through his keeper. Nor is this fading towards the end of the season a first - it was the same last time round.

I don’t blame him for the slip for the first goal, since he was going for the first deflection and had to change again for the second. But when he slipped in the second half as Essien approached, that could have cost us the game - if Essien’s shot had been on target at all, it would have gone in.

We have a ready-made replacement in Ben Foster, and this is the ideal time to blood him. He has one of the most experienced keepers in the world on the training pitch, and the most secure back four in recent history in front of him.

4. Believe the hype - Nemanja Vidic

People have talked about the contribution of our stingy defence, but Vida was truly massive in this game. I don’t think there’s anyone better (and I’m including England’s Bottling John Terry, or England’s Bawling John Terry*, as you prefer) at dealing with a physical centre-forward. He had Drogba in his pocket for almost the whole night, so that Drogba’s only contributions came when he dropped out into midfield territory (the shot which hit the post) or out wide onto Evra in the air.

Bear in mind that Rio struggled through half of the game with mystery cramp, and you see the true achievement in containing Chelsea’s attacking threat. It’s no accident that Drogba targeted Vida for that girlie-slap - he was taking out his frustrations on the man who had shut him out of the final.

* For those not familiar with the Fiver, Terry is sarcastically nicknamed England’s Brave John Terry (EBJT) for his tedious self-portrayal as the indestructible, tough but ultimately good bloke.

5. Hard truth - substitutions

It’s been a long time since we’ve had such a strong bench, and Fergie needs to remember how to use it. One of the things that Mourinho was best at for Chelsea was recognising before anyone else did that things weren’t working, and acting decisively to change it.

It is only recently that we have had a full bench of geniune first team players to choose from. We were in serious danger of being over-run in the second half, when the 4-4-2 gambit had been recognised and dealt with. If Fergie had really been on top of his game, Scholes would have come off after 60 minutes and been replaced by Anderson, whose energy and combative spirit would have been very welcome as Chelsea began to move through the gears. At the same time, we should have reverted to the more logical 4-3-3, and freed Ronaldo from the responsibility of tracking the marauding Essien. The sentimental use of Ryan Giggs could have been saved for later.

If you want an example of the benefits of decisive subsitutions, look at the Arsenal game where Tevez and Anderson replaced Park and Scholes after 55 mins, and changed the game - we came from behind to win 2-1. More of this, please, Fergie, and less dithering.

6. Hard truth - Ronaldo as penalty-taker

That penalty miss must mark the end of Ronaldo’s stint as United’s first choice penalty taker. Whilst he has scored some high-pressure penalties (again, at Arsenal, for example), he missed three last season. Three is way too many - one is about the acceptable limit.

And think which penalties they were. First, to put the away game at West Ham out of sight - we went on to lose, and those three points would have been invaluable at end of the season. Second, in the first few minutes of the epic Barca tie - the whole tone of the tie would have been different if we had effectively started with a lead. Last, but not least, the one in the final.

Each could have cost us dear, none did. Let’s not push our luck, and give someone else the honour.

Right, that’s it. I’m going back to glorious celebrations, random chanting and myopic idolisation now. If you can step back from the hype, though, let’s hear your thoughts in the comment.

Read More...

What if Fergie walks away? (Part II)

Posted at Red Rants on 13 May 2008.

Thanks for all the comments on the first part of this topic. Very interesting and, in a couple of instances, really informative.

As you know, Fergie has made it quite clear that he won’t be retiring at the end of this season, come what may. I’m therefore going to curtail this slightly - I’ll give you my order of preference as it stands today, but my main focus is going to be why CQ shouldn’t get the job, now or any other time.

Cutting to the chase, here’s my list in order of priority:

1. Martin O’Neill
2. Mark Hughes
3. Jose Mourinho
4. Carlos Quieroz

Given the overwhelming view in the comments on part I, the main thing I’m going to do is make the case against Queiroz. I take all your points about him inspiring the loyalty of the Portuguese contingent, having been Ferguson’s mentee for years, ensuring continuity and so forth. But I believe they are outweighed by the following factors:

1. Good assistants don’t make necessarily good managers — I don’t have all day, so I won’t quote you all the examples I can think of. But let’s try Brian Kidd, Steve McClaren, Graeme Souness/Roy Evans and Sammy Lee to start with. And include CQ himself in that list, whose season at Real was a disaster.

Suddenly you’re not the good cop who puts your arm round a young player who has just been screamed at by the boss — you need to do the screaming. You’re not the guy who works with the raw materials on the training ground, you’re the guy watching dispassionately and writing 11 names on the teamsheet. You’re not the guy who reads the papers and thinks “I wish they’d leave the gaffer alone”, you’re the one who the rabid pack of journalists doubting and probing and insulting and mocking every day. You’re the one going to the board meetings, the charity lunches, the mandatory press conferences and the photo ops. You’re the face of Manchester United.

That’s tough. It’s a different job, and he might not be good at it. Indeed, in my view, probably won’t be good at it.

2. You need a certain stature to make the biggest signings — We know what type of players CQ can sign — the up-and-coming Portuguese speaking type. But one thing you will never hear from the mouth of any player we sign if he became manager is the line spouted by almost all of Fergie’s signings, “I couldn’t turn down the chance to come and work with one of the greatest managers in the game”. You would see us losing a lot more of the races for the really top players with CQ as the gaffer.

3. A wide-ranging scouting network is essential — If you’re looking for a player from Portugal or South America, CQ is your man. But what about up-and-coming British/Irish players, or players who are making their mark at English clubs? Fergie knows everyone in the British/Irish game, and gets a lot of phone calls to alert him about a particular talent from guys he’s given guidance and advice to in his time. What about France, Italy and Holland? Someone like Evra is gold dust, and United had been able to build up links with Ruud for a couple of years before we first tried to sign him. What about Eastern Europe? A lot of talented, physical players are coming up through the increasingly competitive leagues over there, and we’d like the next Vidic, please.

4. The next manager needs to manage the whole club — CQ’s current role is first team coach. No doubt in the position he finds out a lot about what’s going on with the younger players and has contact with people. But Fergie runs the whole footballing operation. He employs the U-9 scouts, he hires the under-15 team coach, he interviews the replacement physio, everything. Whoever takes over needs experience of doing that.

So I contend that whilst on the face of it CQ is the safe choice, he is actually a big gamble. And one I don’t think we should take.

To justify the guys I would prefer to CQ:

Martin O’Neill certainly doesn’t fall down on 1, 3 or 4, which combined with the qualifications I set out in part I makes him my first choice. For his first season, the stature of the club should help him out with making the signings, and then he’ll have his own record to be judged on.

Mark Hughes falls down on 2 as well, but has less experience in Europe than O’Neill so comes in second for me. He’s also a much bigger gamble, since it will be his first experience of managing a club where success is expected — a different atmosphere. (Note O’Neill faced that at Celtic).

Mourinho struggles most on number 4. Yes, he may have been Porto-centric in his first phase at Chelsea, but that changed as he went on, and now he has a pretty cosmopolitan network of contacts. And no, his football isn’t as negative as you all think. You forget his first season when, as was pointed out in the comments last time round, Drogba with Cole and Duff supporting from wide, Lampard arriving from midfield and the full-backs bombing on was remarkably effective. Notice any similarities to our current formation?

But for now, thank God, this is all academic. Long may it remain so.

Read More...

What if Fergie walks away? (Part I)

Posted at Red Rants on 8 May 2008.

There is a mischievous rumour doing the rounds that Fergie will leave on a high if we win the double. I thought it was worthy of an article, because the “who’s next” guessing game is always fun and hasn’t been played for a while and because I (as usual) have some fairly particular opinions on the point which I want to hear your thoughts on.

First off, let me say that I don’t think it will happen. Anyone who saw Fergie in the centre circle after the West Ham game will be clear that he was in no way saying goodbye to the fans. He has built a great young squad that can only get better — he ain’t walking away now and letting someone else reap the rewards. He’s going to make up for those three years of pain by living with this team as well.

If you want to read more debate on this subject (and you should, because it involves the opinions of Martin Samuel, who is the best football columnist around by a long chalk), have a look at the Times website here.

The ground rules

But football’s a funny old game, and you never know. So let’s look at the possible contenders and the qualifications they would need to take over.

Here’s a list, in no particular order, of the names that spring to mind. I’ll put them in my order of preference at the end of the article.

- Carlos Queiroz
- Martin O’Neill
- Jose Mourinho
- Roy Keane
- Mark Hughes
- generic successful foreign manager (Ancellotti, Scolari, Capello, Hitzfeld, Klinsmann, etc etc)
- Sven

Here also are the things I think the next manager should have:

- experience with a variety of teams, preferably including the Premier League
- experience of winning trophies, preferably as manager
- proven ability to motivate players, both individually and as a unit
- prospective loyalty to Manchester United (in other words not viewing United as a stepping stone to another job, or one job in a shopping list of things to do in a career)
- record of commitment to a club as a whole, including youth team set up and other back room staff

I’m also going to think about possible assistants to each manager, because I think that will be a very important aspect in the success of the transition. If you want any evidence of the importance of the assistant manager, just compare our record in seasons where we have had a genuine assistant (Kidd, McClaren, Queiroz) to the seasons where Fergie has been operating on his own with help from the rest of the back room staff. ‘Nuff said.

The contenders

Carlos Queiroz

Experience and Success - good coaching experience prior to joining United, but disastrous season as manager of Real Madrid.
Motivation - undoubtedly responsible for our Portuguese / Brazilian contingent settling so well and performing to their ability. Failed to gain respect of high-profile Madrid players.
Loyalty - good, as far as we know. Came back to us after Real, which is a good sign. Risky, though — if he became manager and continued to recruit Portuguese / South American players and then left, most of them would be severely unsettled.
Clubman - certainly has a vision for United, and has taken responsibility for bringing in many of the next generation. Also has a strong network of scouts and contacts in “his” areas.

Ideal assistant - needs an English speaker who is United to the core. Bryan Robson would be perfect, since he finally seems to have accepted that the top jobs are not for him. Other less experienced possibilities are Gary Neville (if his injury gets the better of him), Ryan Giggs and Ole Solskjaer.

Martin O’Neill

Experience and Success - wide-ranging. Did a sterling job with Leicester in the Premiership, making them a top ten club with almost no resources; domestically successful with Celtic, and lost a UEFA Cup final to Mourinho’s cheating Porto; has turned Villa around with good prospects for next season.
Motivation - forged a fantastic team spirit at Leicester and Villa, making them punch above their weight both in terms of resources and squad size. Kept his team together well at Celtic.
Loyalty - O’Neill is never going to manage outside these shores, and so United is likely to be his last stop if he does well. No history with us, though.
Clubman - unquestionably looks after the whole club and is capable of building a team over time to a vision. Plays good football when his resources allow.

Ideal assistant - well, if he’ll stay as coach, CQ. That will be the case for all the other contenders. But it wouldn’t surprise anyone if CQ left if he was passed over, so failing him someone young, energetic and United to the core. I’m thinking Giggsy…

Jose Mourinho

Experience and Success - we’ve all had it rammed down our throats — Porto & Chelsea, etc. Impressive trophy cabinet. Guaranteed success, almost, which is important both to the fans and the owners.
Motivation - based on evidence at Chelsea, every bit as good as Fergie — players would run through brick walls for him. On the plus side, if CQ left we have another Portuguese to replace him, which would reduce the risk of an exodus.
Loyalty - Looks like he’s set for a tour of the big European clubs, with a stop off in the Portugal national squad — no way we’re keeping him until he retires.
Clubman - Was never allowed to do anything other than first team affairs at Chelsea, so undecided. Plays dire football, though — remember that comment he made to his players before last season’s FA Cup final? “Do you want to enjoy the game, or enjoy after the game?”. Sorry for being trite, but both please.

Ideal assistant - irrelevant. He’ll bring his own back room staff, although again it would be good to see him retain a United presence, like Steve Clarke at Chelsea.

Roy Keane

Experience and Success - has done as well as anyone could have expected with Sunderland, getting them promoted and then keeping them up despite a rough start. Seen and done it all as a player.
Motivation - unproven with big enough names and egos to rival his own, but everyone at Sunderland seems in awe of him. At least as ruthless as Fergie.
Loyalty - if he was successful enough, you could see him being United manager for ever.
Clubman - again, doing well based on limited evidence.

Ideal assistant - CQ. Needs a first class coach and someone with lots of experience alongside him. I honestly don’t think it would work with anyone else, but I also don’t think CQ would let Keano be brought in over his head, and there would be a risk of the lines of authority being blurred.

Mark Hughes

Experience and Success - Wales and Blackburn. He has made both better than the sum of their parts, which is high praise for any manager - in particular Wales, with a limited player pool and a tough group. If only they hadn’t lost to Azerbaijan, they would have qualified for the Euros despire being in Italy’s group. Short of club European experience as a manager, though.
Motivation - unarguable with both teams. Managed difficult personalities like Robbie Savage, and has subdued big egos like Benni McCarthy and Roque Santa Cruz.
Loyalty - like Keano, this would be the peak of his managerial career.
Clubman - has done a good job bringing young players into the Blackburn team. After a rocky start with earned them the name Blackeye Rovers, he seems to be committed to good, attacking football.

Ideal assistant - again CQ would be ideal — see Keano. Otherwise, someone with extensive experience. I’m thinking Brian Kidd…

Sven

This was more in here as a joke, but nobody can question his experience and he did a very good job at City. Still, I’m an England fan and the scars run deep…

Miscellaneous European manager

There will inevitably be some big foreign names linked, but it’s impossible to know who. And this post is long enough without going into detail on all the possible contenders. If someone else wants to in the comments, then be my guest.

In fact, this post has become too long to be continued, so I’m going to stop here and let you debate the contenders as I have presented them. I will then write part 2 of this article in a couple of days, which will give my preferences, try to address any comments made, and talk about how the process is likely to work in practice. Happy ranting.

Read More...

The British Element

Posted at Red Rants on 1 May 2008.

This post could create a lot of controversy, so I want to make it clear that I don’t have anything against foreign players per se. Many of the United greats have been from beyond these shores, and I revere them as much as anyone else.

That said, I have always been proud that United has had a core of players from the British Isles (note that’s worded carefully enough to include the Republic of Ireland). United are an English team, who have always placed high value on local talent and team spirit. I need scarcely draw the comparisons with the other big sides:

- Arsenal - are and have been for many years (since the likes of Adams, Dixon, Keown etc began retiring) made up almost exclusively of foreigners.

- Chelsea - bought in a load of players, some English and some not, with a trend towards foreigners (particularly Portuguese, like Carvalho, Ferreira and flops such as Tiago) under Mourinho.

- Liverpool - still value their “local lads” like Carragher and $tevie Mbe, but Benitez has brought in a load of Spanish and Spanish-speaking players (Torres, Alonso, Mascherano, a few random Brazilians, Luis Garcia and others who have now left).

An all-British Isles team

To illustrate, let’s look at the best all-British Isles teams that each of the top 4 can put out. In fact, let’s not bother with Arsenal, because it’s not realistic. And actually, scrap Liverpool too because the only players there are Carragher, Finnan, Gerrard, Pennant and Crouch.

United

Foster; G Neville-Brown-Ferdinand-O’Shea; Fletcher-Carrick-Hargreaves-Giggs; Scholes; Rooney; subs: Simpson, Eagles, Cathcart, Welbeck, Heaton

Now that’s a pretty strong side, and we can even find some subs to put on the bench. I’m actively proud that we can put that team out.

Chelsea

[no keeper]; Bridge-Terry-[no CB]-A Cole; J Cole-Lampard-Sidwell-Wright-Phillips
[none]-Sinclair

Not much cop - even ignoring the gaps, where are the goals coming from?

So, on the one hand, the core of our team is still British Isles-based at present (Neville, Rio, Scholes, Carrick, Rooney). On the other hand, the majority of our recent signings have been Portuguese / Portuguese-speaking, which is Queiroz’s influence. I’m talking here about Nani, Anderson, the twin full backs and Manucho, together with all the links to any decent Porto or Sporting Lisbon player.

I would really like to to carry on trying to buy the best of British where possible alongside the top class foreigners (think Rooney, Rio, Carrick, Foster and Hargreaves), whilst at the same time bringing through our youth players (current alumni Scholes, O’Shea, Brown, Fletcher, Giggs and Neville). Bring in top drawer foreign players, but don’t look overseas for the sake of it, or just because Queiroz finds it easier to coach those who identify with him.

Apart from the “British players for a British league” point, on a practical note we’re likely to get better value in the long run for British Isles players. Players like Ronaldo and Tevez are going to want to go and play in the continent and in their homeland eventually, whereas Rooney and Rio will commit their entire remaining career to United. Think about Keane, Giggs, Scholes, Neville and others who played either all or the vast majority of their careers for us. To anyone who wants to accuse me of being prejudiced against foreigners, bear this in mind. Do you think we’d have been so good for so long without this unbelievable loyalty from our core squad?

The other impact of this view is that I firmly believe that our next manager should be from the British Isles - one who is going to view United as the pinnacle of their managerial career and (if all goes well) be with us for 25 years, not someone who might, for example, be tempted away by the Portugal national side in three years time. United are the top team in the top league in the British Isles, and I think we should always act like it.

End uncharacteristic rant. Try not to flame me too hard.

Read More...

United’s Midfield Dilemma

Posted at Red Rants on 26 February 2008.

Pick up a piece of paper, and write down United’s best XI. Picks itself, mostly, doesn’t it? You might be in the Giggs or the Nani camp for the left wing, but I’d bet my bottom dollar that 8 of the names down will appear on everyone’s list. The remaining two? Only the small matter of our central midfield partnership.

This is something that has elicited a lot of discussion in the comment sections recently. I don’t pretend to have the answer or anything approaching it, but what I’d like to do is present my take on the conflicting views and then give you my opinion. Which you can then rip apart (or try to!) in the comments.

As I see it, there are four players (despite Fletcher’s valiant performances recently, he’s never going to be a regular first choice), two general approaches and one big complicating factor. Let’s look at each in turn, and then try to draw the strands together.

The four contenders

All ranked in what I think are the key aspects: Tackling, Ball Retention (I’m thinking here about how well he keeps the ball under pressure, and also pass completion rate), Creativity (what he’s adding to the team going forward), Goal-scoring. I’ve also noted some other relevant points at the end of each.

Paul Scholes
Tackling - 3/10 - has always been dreadful, and is too old to improve now!
Ball Rentention - 10/10 - always seems to have time and space, regardless of pressure, and rarely misplaces a pass.
Creativity - 7/10 - prompts constantly by using the ball quickly and intelligently, but doesn’t crop up in as advanced positions as he used to. Still capable of finding a magic through ball (Milan first leg for Rooney last season, anyone?)
Goal-scoring - 6/10 - again, doesn’t get forward as much as he used to but remains a big threat from range.
Other - getting older now, and you can see the difference in his pitch coverage (and consequently his goal return). Despite everything Fergie says, I can’t see him featuring regularly beyond next season. On his day, though, in a league of his own.

Owen Hargreaves
Tackling - 9/10 - what he was bought for, and what he’s best at.
Ball Rentention - 7/10 - doesn’t try the spectacular, just gives it to his more talented team mates.
Creativity - 4/10 - rarely gets far enough forward to make a difference, and his stock pass goes sideways.
Goal-scoring - 0/10 - not as yet, and with Ronaldo around he’s not going to get many free kicks either.
Other - one word: injuries; we’re not going to see what he’s capable of until he’s fit enough to play 10 games in a row.

Michael Carrick
Tackling - 7/10 - you don’t often see him go to ground, but his positional sense is good and he screens intelligently.
Ball Rentention - 8/10 - has learned a lot from Scholes, but isn’t up there with the master yet.
Creativity - 9/10 - he always looks to pass the ball forward first, and can pick those eye-of-the-needle passes which undo tight defences.
Goal-scoring - 4/10 - picked up the message last season that he needs to contribute, and can score from distance.
Other - a confidence player, who lapsed badly at the start of this season when he found himself dropped for a spell.

Anderson
Tackling - 7/10 - very aggressive hustler, never gives opponents a moment’s peace
Ball Rentention - 6/10 - more inclined to try flicks or dribbles which don’t come off, but not bad.
Creativity - 8/10 - the only one who can beat a series of players and who will play down the channels as well; very good support for the front players.
Goal-scoring - 2/10 - the floodgates must open soon…the potential’s certainly there.
Other - he’s good this season, so god knows what he could be eventually.

The two approaches

I can see arguments for each of these, but they are broadly:

1. Have a first choice pair, who play 75% of the games together, with others providing ability to rotate and cover for injury.

Pros - first choice pair develop instinctive understanding (Carrick and Scholes had this going on last year, as did our whole Treble-winning midfield - they didn’t even need to look up to know where their mate was going to be)
- consistency also benefits the rest of the team, who know exactly what’s coming from the centre of the park.

Cons - Doesn’t make full use of the talent pool and may cause players to leave
- injuries etc have a more disruptive effect
- see the reasons for option 2 below

2. Pick a partnership based on the match you’re going into.

Pros - can tailor the strengths of the individuals to the requirements of the game (eg Hargreaves for big games to shackle dangerous midfielders, Scholes in games where experience is judged key, etc)
- retains freshness

Cons - just look at Liverpool for the downsides of constant tinkering
- players play as individuals rather than a partnership

As I said at the beginning, I can see arguments for both…I’ll discuss further in my conclusion section.

The complicating factor

Is, of course, injury. Scholes has been out for most of the season so far (which has proved to be a blessing in disguise, since it has allowed Anderson to emerge), and Hargreaves has yet to start more than 2 games in a row. Even if Fergie had decided on a first choice pair, this sort of thing makes it very difficult to implement.

Conclusion

I wrote the above without having a strong idea of where I was going - I was as much musing to myself as anything. But I am going to stick my neck out and say that Carrick and Anderson should be our first choice pair for the majority of matches. My reasoning is as follows:

- They both add a huge amount going forward. I absolutely adore Carrick’s instinct to find a piercing ball forwards to feet - Rooney, Ronaldo and Tevez are all good enough to receive this sort of ball with a man at their back and do something with it, and are equally likely to be making runs in behind. I think we will get a lot of goals from Carrick’s passing. Equally, Anderson is a good passer of the ball and a potentially superb dribbler (great upper body strength, a la Rooney) who can support the front players.

- They both do enough defensively. Most teams set up very tight against us, and we’re happy to go man-for-man at the back if needs be, so the attacking penetration is crucial (this is the key argument against Hargreaves, other than injury). Which is not to say they can’t come out on top in a midfield scrap, or hold their own in a physical game.

- Carrick - who is the more controversial choice - is a confidence player. Give him responsibility and a long run in the side and he seems to grow into it. He is also a big game player (witness the two Roma games last season, where he was superb in each leg - a defensive midfield masterclass in the first, and a game-bossing, two-goal performance in the second). What he is not going to be is a useful squad player like Fletcher.

- Both are young and not injury-prone - you really can see them playing 30 games a season with each other without disruption, and doing this for the next 5 seasons. Continuity really makes a difference.

I think the nod to flexibility is that in big games against teams with dangerous midfields, we can lose Giggs/Nani and include Hargreaves as a screen, with Anderson detailed to get up and support the Holy Trinity up front when we have the ball.

But what of Scholes? Well, he has a role to play, but he is past his best and seems to be increasingly injury-prone. He doesn’t make those runs into the box as much anymore, either. As an impact player, an experienced head in some big games and a great alternative he will be unbeatable…but I think his star is waning along with Giggsy’s.

So, here’s my plea to Fergie - start Carrick and Anderson in every game possible, and don’t let the embarrassment of riches at your disposal lead you into tinkering.

Read More...

The Doomsday Scenario

Posted at Red Rants on 5 February 2008.

If I can start off by clarifying one thing from my previous column. In no way did I mean to suggest that we should never sign young, unproven players - I’ve seen Anderson play this season, and I’ve seen how Ronaldo developed. If our opposing bidders are top-flight European clubs, there is no second bite of the cherry so you have to take the first. But when our competition is a lesser club…that’s when we can stand back and play the long game. Aaaaaanyway, onwards to today’s article.

You might say that this is a great season to be a United fan, and that we have a strong chance of winning either the League, the Champions League or both. You might also reflect that we have a young squad, with plenty of strength in depth and room for improvement, and that the squad is better than last year’s equivalent. You might then add, as the icing on the cake, that we have two once-in-a-generation talents playing for us. And I would agree with everything you said.

But. But I’m a pessimist, and so there’s always a but. But, there is a very conceivable scenario which could turn our season from very promising to very worrying. You’ve all dreamt it, in your nightmares, but I’ll start with some stats.

Each stat below is in twostages: end of last season,to date this season.

Total goals: 123, 68

Total goalscorers: 20,10

Individual goalscorers:

Ronaldo - 23,27
Rooney - 23, 10
Saha - 13, 4
Tevez - 0, 14
Solskjaer - 11, 0
Scholes - 7,1
Giggs - 6, 3
Park - 5, 0
O’Shea - 5, 0
Vidic - 4, 1
Fletcher - 3, 0
Larsson - 3, 0
Nani - 0, 2
Richardson - 2, 0
Evra - 2, 0
Ferdinand - 1, 3
Pique - 0, 2
Others - Eagles, Silvestre, Eagles, Lee, Smith - all 1, none

Did you read that table, or did you gloss over it? Read it properly, because it’s really important, and concentrate on the lines from Scholes to Fletcher. Here are the conclusions:

1. 75% of all our goals have been scored by Rooney, Ronaldo and Tevez.

2. Our midfield has only contributed 6 goals this season. That includes none for Hargreaves, Anderson, Carrick, Fletcher or O’Shea (ie 5 out of the 6 possible central midfielders). And no, I don’t count Ronaldo as a midfielder. As the ultimate contrast, look back to the Treble campaign - our first-choice midfield four alone contributed 34 goals.

3. We have under half the number of players contributing to the scoresheet, partly because we have increased our squad depth everywhere apart from up front.

This should lead you to have sleepless nights about two possibilities:

The “It’ll Be A Struggle But We Might Make It” Doomsday Scenario - Ronaldo gets a long term injury. We need Rooney and Tevez to score more, and we need the midfield to step up when those two are having off days.

The “We’re Totally Screwed” Doomsday Scenario - Ronaldo and either Rooney or Tevez gets a long term injury. It’ll take a total turnaround from the midfield to get us the number of goals we need to win anything other than the FA Cup.

Remember those dark days at the start of the season where it took everything we had to win easy games 1-0? Guess which two players were absent from those games, and try to remember who we brought on as a substitute striker. Thankfully it was only a short-term nightmare, but we’re one cruciate ligament and one broken ankle away from being there again.

And some of you mocked me when I said in my last column that we should have signed Jermaine Defoe (or another striker). Let’s drink a toast, then, in your half-full pint glasses to the fitness of our forwards.

Sweet dreams.

Read More...

Fergie Happy to Take Second Bite

Posted at Red Rants on 3 February 2008.

It was so uneventful that it may have passed you by (it nearly did me), but the transfer window closed on Thursday night. And totally underwhelming it was for a United fan, too. We signed Manucho, and then loaned him out.

That’s it.

The arguments about the merits of the January transfer window are well rehearsed, and its dangers illustrated vividly by the lukewarm reception given to (and worse performances given by) Evra and Vidic when they arrived this time two years ago. But I read the rumours, and the quotes, and I’d like to divine some meaning out of events and put them into context.

Second bite

The first case in point is Hutton, the Rangers right-back. Anyone who watched any of Scotland’s qualifiers (particularly against Italy) can be in no doubt as to his talents, and it seems Fergie’s admiration is well-known. But we made no bid, and were happy to let him go to Spurs. Why, when a right-back is pretty high up our shopping list, and we had a rare chance to buy British?

To answer my rhetorical question, I’m going to throw some names at you, and you can see if you make the link. Carrick, Tevez, Bale, Mascherano, Rio. OK, so it’s not difficult (although Rio may have thrown a few of you). They are players who we could have gone in for when they first became available from their original club, but didn’t. Instead, we waited to see how they developed at a lesser club before deciding whether to act.

Carrick became available from West Ham when they went down (indeed Arsenal were strongly linked). He had shown some flashes for West Ham, but not consistency or maturity. He developed both at Spurs, and we moved in and reaped the benefit.

Tevez was on offer 18 months ago on a dodgy deal after a good World Cup. It would have been a total punt, even if the business side wasn’t so shady. He went to West Ham, took half a season to adapt, was awesome in the last few months of last season, and in we went.

Mascherano was part of the same deal, and I would have loved to have signed him more than anyone. He seemed to be exactly what we needed (we now have Hargreaves). But again, he took a long time to settle, and is only just started to show his true form. OK, so it was Liverpool who benefit this time, having taken a punt in last January’s transfer window, but Fergie avoided wasting time and money by looking before he leapt.

Bale was very strongly linked with us, but was largely unproven at any level (another Southampton wunderkind, like, you know, that one at Arsenal… Walcott, that’s it, isn’t he great?). Fergie chose not to get into a bidding war, knowing that if Bale turned out to be a success, he could move in.

Rio - I threw this one in to show it’s not a new strategy, albeit one that took a break for 2-3 years. Rio was on offer from West Ham, but went to Leeds, where he proved he was capable of playing at the highest level.

The break from this policy was caused by a drop in our attractiveness as a club for the very best to move to. During our years in the wilderness, and with Chelsea at the height of their spending powers, we couldn’t afford to wait and see, safe in the knowledge that we could always lure the player later. We had to be the one taking the punt, and it resulted in the signing of a lot of mediocre players. There was an amusing Guardian article which described Fergie as “an old man stumbling round the dance floor of a club at 2am, trying to pull anything within reach but without much success”. Now our status as one of the most attractive clubs in the world is restored, we can take a more circumspect approach.

No divas, please

We were relentlessly linked to Nicolas Anelka, but ultimately we didn’t even fight Chelsea for him. We all know Fergie’s attitude to people who view themselves as being “above the team” or as having “a right to start” - his half-hearted pursuit of one of the most talented strikers in the country confirms that this consideration is still paramount. For my part, I’d rather Anelka was still at some second tier club, since he and Drogba could form a sensational striking partnership — Chelsea (lucky bastards) are still too close for comfort.

The one that got away

The only genuinely interesting transfer on deadline day was Jermain Defoe. And I’m disappointed he didn’t come to us. We’re short of striking cover, and Defoe has shown that (a) he is a very good player on his day, and (b) that he’s happy being a reserve for long periods. I reckon he would have been a really good addition to the squad, even if not to the first team. I know the main reason he moved was to get more first team football, but surely we could have swayed him with the prospect of lots of medals over the next few seasons. In any case, I think we could have done with a reserve striker, to guard against the Doomsday Scenario - but more of that in my next column.

Read More...

Fergie’s Super-Galactico Dream

Posted at Red Rants on 1 February 2008.

I don’t know how many of you watched our FA Cup game against Spurs on the BBC. I did, and in between the usual inane banter in the studio and the consistently good commentary of Jonathan Pearce (please retire, Motty, and take Lawrenson with you), was a strong theme. The excellence of Dimitar Berbatov was constantly referred to, with all the usual cliches, and with many a mention of how he is United’s “number one target for the summer”.

This is not the place to debate that move. It’s been done lots, and I don’t have a lot new to say on him at the moment. However, it put me back in mind of a long term strategy which has been in place at United for some time now. It is simultaneously the reason why we will look to buy someone like Berbatov, and the way we will fit that player into our side. It is the Super-Galactico strategy, and its importance is underestimated by nearly all the journalists, pundits and fans who give their views on our beloved club.

A history lesson

Let your mind drift back through the mists of time to 2003. We meet Real Madrid in the quarter finals of the Champions League, when they are at the height of their powers. Their team, to refresh your memory was:

Casillas; Salgado, Hierro, Helguera, Roberto Carlos; Makalele, Conceicao; Zidane, Ronaldo, Figo; Raul.

A reliable keeper. Two full backs who were potent attackers. A solid centre back pairing, but who could play the ball and were a threat at set plays. Two deep lying midfield players, one a tackler who could pass, one a passer who could tackle. Three unbelievably talented free spirits who could play from anywhere, both scoring and creating goals. And a leader of the line, not as spectacular as the others but capable of brilliance, whose job was to score as many as possible from within the 18 yard box.

Sound familiar? See where I’m going? Well, let’s continue our history lesson.

We went to the Bernabeu on 8 April 2003, and were on the receiving end of one of the finest halves of football I have ever witnessed. Madrid were so good it was unfair, such levels of quality should be banned. We couldn’t get the ball, couldn’t even get close. We got out with a 3-1 defeat, and were delighted to still be mathematically in the tie. That’s the only time I can remember a United team being genuinely happy with a 2 goal loss.

Two weeks later, Real came to Old Trafford, and we came from 3-1 down to win an absolutely pulsating game 4-3. It was a stunning game of football, for fans of both sides and for neutrals. We went out of Europe, of course, but the over-riding emotion for Fergie, to judge from interviews he gave after the game in in following weeks, that night was “I want more of this”.

Crystallisation of the dream

And so it began. Strong defensive unit, fullbacks who could be wingers, two complementary central midfielders, three cascading attackers, and a focal point. The blueprint was there…4-2-3-1 is born - and haven’t we all hated it. Queiroz’s corruption; a betrayal of beautiful football; an admission we’re not good enough; over-sophistication…the list of criticisms is endless, and I agreed with most from time to time.

But born it was, and all we needed now was the players. Trouble is, that’s not so easy. I’m not going to go into a lot of detail about Fergie’s Houllier / Benitez phase of buying lots of substandard players. And I’m going to pretend that he never saw Djemba-Djemba and Kleberson as the destructive/creative deep midfield pair, or Forlan as part of the free-roaming attacking trio. It’s been building for a while, now, though.

Two years ago, we had Ruud, complemented by Giggs, Rooney and Ronaldo - not quite good enough, Ronaldo was immature and nothing like the player we see today, Giggs still struggles to operate centrally and Rooney dislikes operating anywhere else. Saha (a perfect fluid forward, at his best), was then and is still injured. Solskjaer (lest anyone forget, the player who was supposed to take over from Becks on the right) - injured, never to be the same again. Keane retired, and his replacements substandard. Bring back 4-4-2, we cried.

And last year, ground down by failure, 4-4-2 came back, and we loved it. At last, Quieroz has been subdued, we laughed. Not so - Fergie had subdued himself. Ruud, seemingly the ideal focal point, had gone, and to replace his goals we needed a more innately attacking system. Two up top, two wingers, attacking central midfielders…we needed our goals back, and Fergie was going to fix it.

At the gates…

But now he can begin to dream again, and I for one finally dream with him, rather than wanting the high-flying fantasies to be tinged with reality. The final piece of his 5-year puzzle is the focal point - but this time someone who has to fit in with our existing excellence, rather than rail against it as Ruud did. Allow me to present Fergie’s dream team:

EVDS (or Foster going forward) - solid keeper capable of match-turning saves.

Neville (or one of our various transfer targets) and Evra - great defenders who offer a lot going forward

Rio and Vidic - superb defensive pairing, capable of marshalling / dealing with an occasional lack of cover from the front 4 (watch how often we go man-for-man at the back compared with most teams).

Hargreaves and Anderson - deep lying midfielders, one more destructive, one more creative.

Rooney, Tevez, Ronaldo - unbelievable attackers capable of creating chances and goals from anywhere on the pitch, all willing to drop deep and swap positions.

The Focal Point (Berbatov, Huntelaar, etc) - aerial threat in the box, good enough on the ground to link in with the passing movements, another 20 goals a season.

One big and one medium signing, and he’s there, in footballing heaven. And, without a ludicrous celebrity culture, an interfering president, managerial instability, so are we.

Read More...