Americans Revel in England's Failure

(this should be on soccerlens today or tomorrow with a better picture/graphic)

Without being one of England’s historic sporting rivals like Scotland or Germany, it’s a bit strange that there were some Americans pleased with England’s failure to qualify for Euro 2008.

No one doubts that the Americans and the English have a somewhat tenuous history, but as far as recent politics go, things have generally been going the American way.

Sporting rivals are fairly non-existent as the mainstream American sports aren’t even played that heavily outside of the good old 50. But that seems to have taken a turn in the last couple of years as soccer gains in popularity, and Americans seek to both gain England’s approval and also become better competitors.

Usually its America’s lack of history and tradition that makes up the bread and butter of England’s arguments as to why American soccer is always “just so bad.” While America clearly doesn’t have the history that England does, that isn’t always an impediment. Much of the England style of play and coaching seems to be in a slump deeply rooted in a history that they can’t shape for the future. Americans really don’t have that problem, (minus the whole NASL debacle and so far so good in terms of the MLS), which provides less of a struggle as nearly everything Americans do in soccer is innovative and worth a chance (at least to Americans). England’s history just doesn’t allow for that novelty which creates scrutiny for whatever they do, and makes the expectations, especially those of American fans, much higher.

Yank fans continually suffer from shots taken because of the MLS (a.k.a the Mickey Mouse league), which can get tiring and cause some resentment. Yes, England birthed the world’s game, but lately the England national team seemed to limp from one major competition to another. While some Americans may take slow pleasure in the suffering that has struck the big brother of American soccer, many yanks began to feel that England was overrated. England may have failed to qualify for Euro 2008, but that failure has also put an end to the moral hazards that were impeding their growth. Now England might be more able to live up to the esteem that American soccer fans hold England to, a certain standard that England have been disappointing.

Maybe Americans just feel satisfied that, for once, they’re not on the spot as the only nation with a troubled soccer program. Maybe they just feel spite that the mighty England giants have fallen. While England might not have to worry about America producing any truly dangerous competition for a few more years, England’s failure has given Americans a strange sense of hope for their own league and national program. Americans are used to being on top, and suffering under England’s superiority in soccer seems to finally given way to some genuine animosity towards the English game. Never mind these are the same people that root for English league teams, because there, it isn’t the country but the club on the pitch. American fans will continue to justify their disdain for the national team, but continue being fans of the league, despite that most of the English players are current figureheads for EPL clubs. But since its pretty well decided that those figurehead players don’t play up to form for the national squad, (a theory that Americans have the English to thank) Americans probably won’t see any problem with that.

Sacked: McClaren

Not a huge surprise but seeing as both Big Sam and Mourinho have turned down the opportunity to take the hugely popular job as the England manager, heads are scratching as to who will be the next one to disappoint England.

Farewell Steve McClaren...and here's a list of reasons as to why you had to go.

PLAYER vs. CLUB: CAN A PLAYER EVER BE BIGGER THAN THE CLUB FOR WHICH HE PLAYS?

Pledging Allegiance to Spurs?

Before Berbatov began to sing Juande Ramos’ praises, the speculation surrounding whether he would stay or go swirled with rumor, one of which was that Manchester United were top of Berbatov’s January transfer window wish list. It’s no contest that this season Manchester United is performing much stronger than Tottenham, and because Berbatov is widely known as their marquee player, a rumor surrounding his eventual transfer is, to some degree, to be expected.

The perception generally is that clubs like Manchester United, Arsenal, Liverpool, and Chelsea are the big clubs in the BPL – and selective big club status necessitates rungs of smaller clubs. Because Berbatov’s form seems to be so strong (stronger than this season’s Spurs, in toto), the natural progression seemed to be well on its way: Berbatov was moving from the Spurs and up into the powerhouse of the North where he belongs. Whether this sets itself out of newsprint and into an actual contract has yet to be determined, but it is just the most recent example of what can look like a proverbial chicken or the egg question for football fans. Can a player ever be(come) bigger than their club? Or does the issue just boil down to dollars and cents?

The MLS instituted the designated player rule (DPR), which at its core creates a loophole in the MLS’s strangling salary caps while separating, to some degree, the wheat from the chaff. The internationally acclaimed players (compared to the standard MLS roster) who qualify for this exception are admittedly much bigger names with much bigger clubs behind them than the typical MLS player has. Without judgment, no one would probably dispute that, at least from the way the LA Galaxy has marketed David Beckham, that Brand Beckham is bigger than (t)his club and league. When the announcement was made that Beckham was coming stateside, it was under the inaugural year for the DPR. No one was surprised that Beckham created a rule that allowed him to be paid nearly ten times more than some of the other MLS players because he is “such a huge player” compared to the MLS as a whole, an assumed starter for the Galaxy who was handed the captaincy, seemingly carte blanche, from Landon Donovan early on. During Beckham’s tenure at his past clubs, he never sparked such an exception to league rules, or garnered the captaincy so quickly. Real Madrid and Manchester United typically are filled with super star rosters, and Beckham is a member of that elite class of “luxury players,” which deems the standard MLS player more akin to utility than luxury.

David Villa has also been offered spots at more prestigious clubs but he continues to pledge his allegiance to Valencia despite numerous rumors that bigger clubs want to lure him away (the most recent being Real Madrid). Because apparently it isn’t the money that does it for Villa, even when the club is underperforming. The same might be said about Steven Gerrard. These players are a little surprising because they showcase loyalty, an intimacy that not every player can claim with their club (i.e. Didier Drogba).

Perhaps players that don’t feel the need to move from club to club believe they have reached the end of their professional climb up the league ladder. Maybe it’s getting paid more money to remain big in a small club than they would be paid at a larger one. Maybe their family plays a part. Or there could be some sort of inarticulate loyalty that continues to pull these players back, season after season (the club’s management, head office, etc.). Or it could be that the level of play at their club is the most competitive to them. The opposite of these reasons could be why players choose to move around. Still, loyalty to a club, the kind that the fans have, is absent in most players. Fans may sort of assume that if a player gets too good for a smaller, stepping stone club, sooner or later they’ll be biding farewell to him. This may not make that player bigger than the club, but rather just disproportionate to the club’s (current) success.

Logically a player can never match the history that these clubs have, even though players are indispensable to the clubs; without them, it’s just an empty crest. It’s the players who create those landmark seasons that contribute to the history that fans recount. Current players Ryan Giggs and Paul Scholes exemplify this, collectively treading on approximately 31 years of Manchester’s 129-year existence, but you’d be hard pressed to find any Red Devil that would claim either player is bigger than the club, even if they have been consistent staples of some of the best Man U seasons in history. Because while fans typically support and bleed their clubs, the same isn’t usually true towards the players; in fact a player changing clubs could render him blacklisted for many fans, no matter how much they contributed, because its club first, player second. Indeed, the longer time a player spends at one club could render a move even more insulting – imagine if Gerrard moved to the blue side of Merseyside?

And then there is the West Ham debacle which all started in part because Tevez and Mascherano weren’t getting playing time, despite their talent. So they went elsewhere – but this wasn’t a lateral move: Mascherano and Tevez are fixture players for their bigger, post West Ham clubs. In fact Mascherano admitted that he felt compelled to leave, and while its certainly frustrating to be looked over by the manager, it takes guile to know that you are better than your manager’s decisions. Mascherano’s statements illustrates that player’s play for themselves, above all else, but it doesn’t hurt when other, bigger clubs are sniffing around.

So it seems that some players, upon realizing their full (earning) potential, may begin to play like they are bigger than the club, possibly even believing that they are better than where they are. In forming that belief, the player props himself up in the shop window, so to speak, and turns his attentions away from his current club and towards the next.

But like the running theme of most stories commenting on soccer’s turn toward the dark side, soccer is a business – a global, multi million dollar business – and as the tide continues to turn away from history and tradition and “greater good” mentality, the emphasis on the individual player – with his lucrative collateral contracts, his sky high salary, and even a good degree of paparazzi fan fare (if you’re stylish and naughty enough) – will grow. This could be in part because fans no longer recognize their clubs, or at least the club their elders supported (new foreign owners, a lack of homegrown talent, and bloated salaries, to begin with), so perhaps it’s easier to find that sort of purity or ideal in a player, rather than a club.

This growing development could inevitably chip away at the importance of the club as an entity and more as a vehicle for the players. As the tiers between and within the leagues continue to grow, players will always be looking onward and upward. We wouldn’t respect them if they weren’t hungry for wins or success. But that mobility shouldn’t diminish their commitment to the club they play for at present, no matter where they end up or want to be. Players would be wise to keep in mind that while they may be one of the best of their generation, they are no match to the generations of fans that support the club for which they play.

WE SURE MISSED YOU SCHOLESY

So Man U let it all go in stoppage - a Gallas equalizer (and there is going to be no "was it or wasn't it" argument be/c it cannot change anything at this point and this stuff usually works itself out) and some shoddy defending handed Man U a draw rather than what would have been a great win to take them to the tip top of the table.

But in memory of some good Arsenal - Man U tussels, here's the infamous tunnel scuffle between Viera and Keano. Lol. Is this how he manages nowadays? One can only hope... "SEE YOU OUT THERE."


...and the title to this post is because Anderson, despite being a good player, is not premier league fit yet, at least how he needs to be for Man U or at least to be an adequate option when a player like Scholes, despite reaching his twilight, typically performs. Scholes would have been a welcomed face. Three more months of Scholes-less play. Pass the tissue box.

KAKA + CHRISTIANITY = SOLID GOLD

God Bless.

When FIFA unveiled its nominees for its 2007 World Player of the Year award, there were some grunts and groans. It may seem obvious to reiterate that some of the most influential, important, and talented players were left out for others that failed to achieve similar greatness (Cannavaro and not Totti? Lampard but no Ibrahimovic? Ronaldinho over Fabregas?), making the honesty of the award a little less credible.

While there is dissatisfaction over the nominees, the most frustrating aspect of the list seems to be the automatic assumption that one certain Brazilian would claim the title. While Kaka is a great player, if he was the best player of 2007 is asking a different question.

In terms of the regular Scudetto season, Kaka scored 8 goals. In the Champions League, he was the lead scorer with 10 goals. Kaka won three UEFA Awards: Top Scorer, Best Forward, and Club Footballer of the Year and he was named FIFAPro’s 2007 Player of the Year. He helped lead AC Milan last season’s Champions League victory. He was largely absent in international play (he sat out of the Copa America, needing to take a well-deserved break from what is otherwise 3 full seasons of uninterrupted soccer). These stats are all relevant, as the award is FIFA World Player of the Year, not Champions League MVP (he seems to have already won that award).

Another award winning player from 2007 and presumable runner up for this award is Cristiano Ronaldo, who scored 17 goals towards Man U’s Premier League victory, and 3 for the Champions League. He was a multi-award winner: PFA’s Player of the Year, Young Player of the Year, Fan Player of the Year and the Football Writers Player of the Year. He played for Portugal. He was strong for Manchester United through their run in the Champions League that got them as far as the Semi finals.

While it is more than just awards and goals that go into both Kaka and Ronaldo’s performances last year, good arguments can be made that Kaka may not have been the best player of 2007. Even if he ends up receiving the award, there should be more dialogue as to who the better player was, and not this automatic assumption that Kaka will take the silverware. So in determining why Kaka is the clear favorite, other factors between those two players become unfortunately relevant.

Aesthetically everything about Kaka makes him look, play, and act like an agent’s dream of an ideal player. He grew up in an upper middle class family. He is 25 but could easily pass for 21 in terms of looks. In terms of maturity he acts beyond his age. He has a wife (his teenage sweetheart of course) who doesn’t appear to be tabloid fodder, so it’s assumed she is not a distraction or controlling aspect of Kaka’s career (unlike the way the British WAGS tend to be portrayed). He is good looking (modeling contracts with Armani) and Brazilian (thus the automatic Joga Bonito allure). He is humble. He is also an incredible Evangelical Christian, something that intensified after an unfortunate accident from a swimming pool that could have left him paralyzed. He attributes that healing to God and has the words “God is Faithful” stitched onto his boots. He is the youngest UN World Food Program Ambassador and gives 10% of his wages to his church. And that arm raising to the sky after goals scored is a perpetual thanks to God for allowing his recovery from his accident.

Its no secret that Kaka is a Christian – and not just religious, but close to being a zealot. While players can get penalized for stripping off their jerseys, when Kaka does it, he reveals not a bare chest but a shirt reading “I belong to Jesus.” He follows up these statements with actions though. In an interview with Champions League Magazine for the latest issue, he overtly states that he is very radical with his principles, and that if something goes against those principles, he will always refrain. To that end, he refuses to do any advertising for alcohol or cigarettes. While that seems to be logical as he is an athlete and wants to promote a healthy and active lifestyle, it is actually his devote evangelical faith that dictates that decision. He claims to have never cried over football, and he prefers to stay at home with his family in his spare time. He reads the Bible daily. He is not flashy. He is an ideal, although perhaps not realistic, footballer.

Cristiano Ronaldo, however, doesn’t seem to be such a martyr. He is also good looking but vain (sin!) – a recent injury to his face prompted him to state that he wasn’t worried and that he would soon be beautiful again. He is confident on the verge of cocky. He grew up poor. He is clearly not married. He rather hides who he dates which makes him worthy of tabloid speculation (Gemma Atkinson? Were they or weren’t they?). He pays for sex and shares those prostitutes with his roommates. He is known to be a diver. He has that whole World Cup wink mess haunting him. He cries over football (a lot). He doesn’t seem to be affiliated to any organized religion, and even if he is, he doesn’t appear to showcase that religion very openly. When he takes off his shirt, it’s to show off his abs and not his love of Jesus. He doesn’t have an official United Nations ambassadorship. He can be construed as being flashy in dress and in lifestyle. He is a stereotypical footballer.
So for these two players that were both outstanding last year, it seems that one aspect cements the differences between these two: one is an evangelical Christian and the other is not. Without that faith, what would Kaka’s everyday life be? Nothing about Ronaldo’s choices is really all that bad, but when you compare any footballer – or any average person – against Kaka and his lifestyle a la Jesus, Kaka wins. No contest.

On the pitch, Ronaldo was beyond expectation last season. Off the pitch, he’s acting like a 22 year old, million-dollar paycheck, footballer. Kaka’s performance on the pitch sets him apart from some of the best footballers, but his actions off the pitch are more like an athlete who attends seminary at nights. To be sure, there is absolutely nothing wrong with being a Christian; Kaka is doing amazing things for people in need and he has a lifestyle that doesn’t hurt anyone. But neither player’s personal time should matter in terms of evaluating who was the better footballer.

As FIFA doesn’t seem to punish players for actions like Ronaldo engages, it would be assumed that they would also not reward Kaka for his choices either. FIFA is, after all, not St. Peter, and this award isn’t a morale competition, but an award being given to the best player of 2007. Lifestyle choices, whether agreed with or not, should have absolutely no bearing on how the player performs on the pitch, or how he is evaluated there from. FIFA seem to want to cloud this award with an unspoken hint at what footballers should be doing in their spare time. Is FIFA punishing players that are not pious? Or are they quietly sending a message to footballers that FIFA will no longer just look at those 90 minutes in terms of what makes a Best Player? While it certainly discredits the award, it also unfairly punishes players for making decisions that are possibly not in accord with FIFA’s unofficial code of conduct. But if it’s unofficial, then it shouldn’t count. Especially not for this award.