Spurs/United a preview of what might eventually be

Let’s talk about neurology (again). Specifically, let’s talk about the way the human nervous system deals with learning a new strategy – either a movement strategy or a new way of applying what knowledge you already have.

Technically speaking, learning is a relatively permanent change, a product of a change in the architecture of the body’s nervous systems. Performance is another matter altogether; it is a temporary change in behaviour observed during supervised practice. It depends on many factors including the environment and the level of ambient stress.

Now, let’s talk about football – and more accurately, about this weekend’s past match between Tottenham Hotspur and Manchester United. Both teams are acclimating to new personnel, and thereby learning new tactics, methods and movements.

David Moyes’ arrival means the entire club is adapting to a new way of doing things, while the Whites have replaced a once-in-a-generation player with a wide array of disparate talents like Erik Lamela, Andros Townsend, Paulinho and Roberto Soldado. Each new player is now – and still – adapting to Andre Villas-Boas and the way he thinks about football and demands it played.

To expect instant change, or a team to understand implicitly a new motor learning strategy within months is unrealistic – for someone to retrain a learned behaviour, it takes anywhere as much as 400 repetitions. Add to that the communication barrier – message, language or mode – and suddenly it becomes reasonable to expect any particular situational play to take months to consolidate.

Occasions of exquisite performance, such as Manchester United’s 5-0 triumph over Bayer Leverkusen in the Champions League last week, can occur despite a lack of learning. Sometimes, circumstances transpire to create an atmosphere in which performance can occur despite a lack of learning. The learning will occur as each player’s reps increase, with the most benefit coming from time spent on the field in matches, rather than the training ground.

Mourinho/AVB just the undercard

Originally published on the Montreal Gazette's Goal Posts blog on Saturday morning, 28th September.

Much of the press surrounding this weekend's matchup between Tottenham and Chelsea has been about the fractured friendship of the managers, Andre Villas-Boas and Jose Mourinho.

While it is true that Villas-Boas followed Mourinho around like a puppy heeling to his master, the comparisons are - as usual - overstated.  Mourinho's teams are usually best on the counter-attack, while Villas-Boas tends to favour a little more ball control. The Elder's squads are made up of uncompromising types who start out wanting to kill for their boss, and end up wanting just to kill him; his padawan is far milder and prefers fewer histrionics.

But the clubs' rivalry, based as much around Villas-Boas' ill-fated stint at Chelsea as their personal relationship, isn't the most important battle of wills on display at White Hart Lane today.

Far more integral to the Blues' season is the effect of Jose Mourinho's display of primal chest-puffing affects fallen superstar Juan Mata.  More precisely, Chelsea's season doesn't rest on one clash with Villas-Boas and his new men, but with how well Mata is able to integrate into this newest edition of Chelsea. 

Why the new/old boss left such gifted player sidelined comes down to one of only three reasons: either Mourinho felt Mata would not be benefit the side; his playing would unhelpful to the player himself (and, by extension, Chelsea) or - most headline-grabbingly - it's personal.

Whilie Mourinho has form for playing the man, it's almost inconceivable he'd choose the even-tempered Mata as a sitting target for this kind of vitriol, connections with Rafael Benitez, Iker Casillas and Sergio Ramos notwithstanding.  Thus, it's fair to assume that his reasoning is probably tactical.

This is concerning, as Mourinho has suggested that Mata's game didn't suit his plans.  Even to the most appreciative eye, Jose's clubs tend towards brutally effective football rather than aesthetics, meaning he envisions a future for Chelsea which doesn't exploit the strengths of a willo'-the-wisp like Mata.  While it's true that Mourinho has encouraged great performances from players like Cristiano Ronaldo and Diego Milito, employing his unusual brand of discipline to an utter professional like Mata seems reductive and somewhat counterproductive. Finding someone who can fault Juan Mata for the failed title challenges of 2011-12 and 2012-13 is like trying to find a introvert in the Big Brother house.

Minimalising Juan Mata's football might be the easiest way for Jose Mourinho to get results, but it also counts as a (admittedly petty) crime against the sport.  Managers are paid to get results; this particular manager chooses to do so in the simplest and most straightforward method possible.  With the force of personality Mourinho wields - and the utter professionalism displayed by his player - it appears likely that the requisite changes will be made and Mata will adapt to play Jose-ball.

Chelsea will be richer for it, but the Premiership may be immeasurably worse.

Abramovich, Benitez and Guardiola: bizarre love triangle

In 2007, Michael Voss, a former Brownlow medallist, inspirational club captain and widely-touted Premiership coach in waiting, had announced he wanted a head-coaching gig for the following season.  In quick response, three AFL clubs fired incumbent coaches to obtain the hottest leadership property available in years.  

When fallen league heavyweights Carlton effectively vacated their coaching staff only days after arch-rivals Essendon dispatched their coach of twenty-seven years, Essendon officials were overheard leaving Pagan’s final exit interview saying “They want the same guy we want”.  No-one had to clarify who that guy was.  Perhaps unwittingly – but probably not – Voss had cast a shadow over the entire league landscape that eventually cost three coaches their jobs.

Neither team succeeded in employing Voss, who went on to take over his former club, the Brisbane Lions.  This is perhaps to their benefit, as Voss’ five-year coaching record stands at 32 wins, 53 losses and a tie.

Once in a while, a coaching property so desirable enters the marketplace and every club with delusions of grandeur fall over themselves to acquire him.  Proverbial dead men walking walk no longer.  The spectre of the available coach stalks the landscape until he commits to a contract – usually at the club of his choice.  His resume is so powerful, so compelling that any destination club hedges their personnel bets ... just in case they get a chance to employ that one mystical, alchemical coach.

No, that coach is not Harry Redknapp – no matter how much he’d like it to be.

It’s Pep Guardiola.  Despite currently “on sabbatical” in New York, his avatar haunts the high-paid underperformers.  This week, interim Chelsea boss (come on, admit it – was he really anything else?) Roberto Di Matteo was dismissed only months after leading Chelsea to their first Champions League title.  While his team had underperformed in November, the phenomenon is hardly unusual.  Where Chelsea owner Roman Abramovich was in love with Mourinho, fascinated by Andre Villas-Boas and is infatuated by Guardiola, he barely even liked Di Matteo.

courtesy: mirror.co.uk

The new Chelsea manager is Rafael Benitez, a former Champions League winner himself, who agreed to coach the Blues only until the end of this season; in so doing, he has embraced his destiny as Abramovich’s rebound fling while the oligarch continues his unrequited love affair with the former Barcelona manager.

It’s not just the Blues of London who find themselves sweaty with anticipation of a glance from Pep: Roberto Mancini should probably look upon Txiki Begiristain’s appointment as Man City football director with dismay, Guardiola’s “philosophy” apparently mirrors that of Arsene Wenger, while Sir Alex Ferguson is thought to prefer Guardiola as his successor at Old Trafford.  Quiet overtures have been received from the Milan twins, AC and Inter and reports have emerged today that Brazil kind of fancy a dapper bald guy to succeed Mano Menezes.

Guardiola has unconsciously cast an enormous shadow over the entire coaching landscape that won’t be dismissed until he signs a contract.  And for this reason, the likes of Andre Villas-Boas, Di Matteo, Benitez – or indeed anyone managing a club with money – will find themselves victim to the whims of chairmen everywhere.

Three things: Rooney reinvented

Maybe Sir Alex has found his central midfielder

Experts suggested Sir Alex Ferguson fling his summer spending money at a central midfielder with tenacity and passing range. Instead, he thrust an enormous great wodge of cash at former rival Arsene Wenger and made away with Robin van Persie.

This left the centre of Old Trafford manned by the solid but ultimately-misunderstood Michael Carrick, the Premiership's largest pannus (Anderson), the as-yet unfulfilled promise of Tom Cleverley and Paul Scholes' walking frame. What they wouldn't give for a Yohan Cabaye, a Cheick Tiote or Marek Hamsik. A glut up front and then … a gap.

Perhaps no more: the Red Devils went to Newcastle yesterday with a resurgent Wayne Rooney playing in the middle of the park. This allows Shinji Kagawa – perhaps United's most impressive player so far this season – to play in his preferred no. 10 role and Robin van Persie to do what he does best. Although this goes against Coaching 101, which states a coach should play his best player in his best position, there are now credible questions as to whether Rooney is in fact the best player at Old Trafford.

As Rooney enters his ostensible prime, it seems he should be playing in the position which will allow him to have the most success, and that's his favoured second-striker role. Rooney as central-midfielder doesn't feel right, almost a waste of the best English offensive talent of his generation to play him back from goal so far – but it could well be the best method to allow United to win and win often. It certainly helps that Rooney has more talent in his little finger than Anderson in his entire ample body.

Although still mightily effective, Paul Scholes is ancient. This makes Rooney the best centre midfielder at United's disposal. With a surfeit of options ahead, Wayne Rooney may spend the best part of season 2012-13 creating, rather than finishing chances.

Andre Villas-Boas changes goalkeepers, creates controversy

A week after engineering Spurs' first league win at Old Trafford for 23 years and in the midst of some outstanding goalkeeping from Brad Friedel, Andre Villas-Boas changed tack: he started French no. 1 Hugo Lloris between the sticks. Thus, he ended Friedel's remarkable stretch of 310 consecutive starts in what appeared to be somewhat of a capricious choice. Known as a model professional, Friedel took it well – when arrived at White Hart Lane before last season with Heurelho Gomes and Carlo Cudicini, he can't possibly have expected to play every game.

Spurs got the win against a workmanlike Aston Villa side and Lloris claimed the club's first clean sheet of the season.

The result across the pond was curious. Some US TV commentators, most notably Eric Wynalda, were disgusted with the dapper Villas-Boas, claiming Friedel was disrespected and would subsequently look to leave the club.

Villas-Boas can't win. When Lloris didn't play immediately, France coach Didier Deschamps accused the Spurs manager of disrespect. Now, when Friedel is asked to sit – perhaps only for one game – there are others with vested interests (Wynalda and Friedel have commentated together) who sing the opposing song.

The thing is that Friedel is 41 and can't last forever; Lloris was signed to be Spurs' long-term keeper. He has to play. Perhaps Villas-Boas did misjudge how and when to play Lloris, but to suggest that it automatically constitutes disrespect is an awfully long a bow to draw without intimate access to the Tottenham dressing sheds.

Splitting goalkeepers rarely works – just ask Sir Alex Ferguson how the Lindegaard/De Gea horses-for-courses policy is working. Villas-Boas has a pleasant dilemma in having two starting-quality keepers at his disposal. Can't we just be happy for him?

Second season syndrome

Norwich City impressed last year on their promotion to the Premiership. This year they appear to have lost some of the cohesion that made them so formidable in 2011-12. What's the difference?

Although there wasn't a great changeover of personnel, there most major was when Paul Lambert left Carrow Road for Villa Park. It was an acrimonious split and last week both parties alleged that the other was suing them. Before leaving, Lambert refused to pay Grant Holt what the big striker thought he was worth, resulting in the former tyre-fitter issuing a transfer request. The air of optimism that surrounded Norwich City last season has been replaced with one of distress.

The club keeps shopping goals – four to Chelsea on the weekend – and, at the same time, hasn't exuded the same tenacity and fluidity that exemplified Lambert's Canaries. New boss Chris Hughton is a good manager, but earns his money by empowering players in a similar “keep it simple” system to that employed by Harry Redknapp. It may not be enough.

Players play best when they're happy. Holt definitely isn't, as last week he lashed out at Roy Hodgson for failing to recognise his form with an England call-up. He's also the principal leader for the squad. Hughton has to right the ship – quickly – before this season starts to ape the ill-fated 2004-05 term.

Three things: Where have all the good teams gone?

Are there any great teams in this league?

Table-toppers Chelsea, while capable of sparkling, appear to lack real depth in their midfield. Nonetheless, they remain the team to beat. Manchester City have flattered to deceive so far this season; cross-town nemeses United have struggled mightly, losing at home to Tottenham Hotspur for the first time in Tom Cleverley's lifetime. Arsenal, while appearing more solid than at any time during the past half-dozen years, have only two wins in six.

On results thus far, the league has seven good teams and no great ones. The results may show not so much in English competition – where someone has to win, perhaps even by default – but in Europe.

So far, the most impressive teams in the league have been Everton (see below) and West Bromwich Albion, two clubs who have embraced the possibilities that fiscal conservatism brings.

Six games is a large enough sample size to begin drawing conclusions. The top teams are not performing to their peaks, meaning that a run of good form from a deep team is enough to split the entire competition open.

Everton: no need for Moneyball

David Moyes has long been admired for his ability to conjure great performances from teams which appear as deep as a toddler's wading pool. Over the past half-decade, he's almost exclusively worked on a sell-to-buy program. The team he's assembled over the past year is no different: Mikel Arteta now plays for Arsenal, but begat Nikica Jelavic, while Jack Rodwell's Manchester City jaunt allowed the purchases of Kevin Mirallas and Bryan Oviedo.

Moyes has always been the smartest accumulator of talent in the league and the Toffees now stand at second on the table because of it. Moneyball, thanks to Kenny Dalglish's ill-fated purchases at Liverpool now seems to a verboten concept in the English Premier League: the acquisition of Stewart Downing championed by his oustanding “converted crosses” ratio while at Aston Villa.

Moneyball, the concept, was not about finding statistics which provided the edge but a novel concept of assessing players and their worth in individual situations; finding players that others didn't value. It was about value for money – and Moyes doesn't need it, because his hit rate with acquisitions is so very high. At a reported 19 million pounds, Downing could exemplify little value. Value for money often comes at a lower cost – something Moyes is accustomed to dealing with.

Andre Villas-Boas knows what he's doing

Despite some odd actions, Andre Villas-Boas is a man who knows where his towel is. Despite a vastly different team to the one that Harry Redknapp took into Europe three years straight, there's every possibility that his team is in fact superior to that iteration. Spurs' squad has a leaner, trimmer appearance this season.

Moussa Dembele has justified the interest of Manchesters United and City, Clint Dempsey was perfectly positioned to succeed at a club almost, but not quite, exactly good enough to qualify for the Champions' League and Emmanuel Adebayor is the perfect point man for AVB's offensive schemes. All of this was accomplished while ridding the squad of significant baggage and wages.

Spurs' win at United on Saturday is without question the largest of his English managerial career and shows signs that Spurs can become a viable fifth (or sixth) option in the chase for the Champions League. The squad has depth, balance, youth and experience. They appear to be establishing an identity based upon their smooth midfield. Now all they need is another striker.

Andre Villas-Boas' Tottenham challenge

André Villas-Boas has a problem. His freshly remodelled Tottenham Hotspur squad isn't performing as they should, and Spurs enter this weekend's international break with two points from three matches.

 The team he now helms is very different from the last iteration of the White Hart Lane empire that Harry Redknapp and his SUV presided over. Gone are Modric, Corluka, Kranjcar and van der Vaart, while Louis Saha and Ryan Nelsen added stripes to the white and beat well-worn paths to Wearside and West London. Ledley King, their captain and best defender, limped towards the sunset – and a knee replacement.

 Forty percent of the Spurs squad is changed from last year, the second highest percentage in the league.

 For the second consecutive year, AVB's resume convinced the owner of a top-six EPL team that he was the man to trim a cumbersome top-heavy unit into a sustainable future force – without sacrificing the present. The first attempt ended at the hands of the Cobham senior pros, frustrated at an ill-suited gameplan and seemingly arbitrary decision-making. As I suggested last week, identity is important – and after initial experiments with a high-line, Chelsea were basically faceless until Villas-Boas' dismissal.

 Although it's only early, Villas-Boas' second attempt has not started well. He was denied his priority transfer, Joao Moutinho, but buttered up by signing Lyon goalkeeper Hugo Lloris – who is already reportedly unhappy. This is one example of the Spurs' faithful hushed disquiet - the most obvious feature of Villas-Boas' early reign isn't the results, but the equivocacy radiating from White Hart Lane.

 Football management can be distilled down to three roles: ego administration, reasoned decision-making and inspiring belief in subordinates – the three most public actions of a leader. These were further expanded by award-winning coach Ric Charlesworth, who in his autobiography “The Coach”, laid down five principles that every coach needed: knowledge, diligence, flexibility, consistency and honesty.

 Despite his tactical nous, disarming honesty and unquestioned devotion, André Villas-Boas is yet to prove himself fully as a leader. This is because he is yet to demonstrate flexibility and consistency in dealing with his players. In hindsight, his Chelsea reign can be thought of in two periods: one of inflexibility where he impelled ill-suited tactics on ill-tempered players, and another of inconsistency in which he employed frantic on-the-job problem solving.

 As regards Spurs, Villas-Boas can't afford a repeat of his Michael Dawson corollary. Dawson, amongst the League's better central defenders, was recently thought to be surplus to requirements and offered up for sale only days after captaining the club. Captaincy is a sign of trust from the coach, that a player should display all the attitudes of a coach who (usually) can't take the field. To then suddenly put a price on that captain's head – no matter what the need – is both affrontingly mercantile and painfully inconsistent.

 Indecision and inconsistency is easily picked up by players and a coach's credibility is eroded – slowly at first and then with increasing speed.  Villas-Boas' greatest challenge isn't getting the team to gel, but to prove himself once and for all a leader.

 Hopefully the confusion will settle now the transfer window has closed and squads have been submitted for the first half of the campaign. The new guy deserves, and will be given, time to really create something of value in North London. However, in order for his players to fall in behind him, André Villas-Boas needs the chance to prove himself – first to those players, and then the watching public.

Chelsea find themselves; win Champions League

Chelsea's win over Bayern Munich during Saturday's Champions League final is a triumph that only three months ago was utterly inconceivable.  The club was desperately short of form, many/most/all players had decided unilaterally that Andre Villas-Boas had no business coaching them and the team played with purposelessness rivalling beheaded chickens.

This is certainly due in part to Villas-Boas' methods and the uneasy conflict they created when combined with his remit: beautiful football, better results and a younger, growing team.  That the Portuguese manager attempted a root-and-branch reform in the back rooms of Cobham within months of arriving was certainly ambitious; with hindsight, it appears unfortunate and a little misguided

Chelsea's progress towards a high defensive line and a team composed of rapiers rather than broadswords created a definite schism in the playing staff.  Those players with bucketfuls of personality and credibility - Terry, Drogba, Cole, Cech and Lampard - were still key to this iteration of the team, both on- and off-field; yet the club's future identity was shifted instantly and without consult to a shot-happy Daniel Sturridge, the pitiable Fernando Torres and other youngsters.

This situation wasn't helped by player purchases made by club executives rather than by the man in charge of dictating the squad's sense of collective self, the manager.  Torres, Romelu Lukaku, Kevin de Bruyne, Thibault Courtois, Johnny Kills and Gary Cahill were all young, highly sought-after and supposedly übertalented superstars of the future.  Unfortunately they only exacerbated the personality crisis within the club: were Chelsea a young, fluid, passing team or a team of blunt but supereffective veterans?

Although game tactics were (probably) clear, the entire squad - by dint of confusing statements, puzzling purchases, genuinely odd team selections and an unfamiliar, unsuited gameplan - were a team without an overwhelming sense of purpose or identity.

Courtesy: Telegraph.co.uk

In sport, identity is important.  Not only does it provide a tactical map, but it also generates a sense of certainty in both management and playing staff which helps inherently on a psychological level.   Perhaps one of it's ultimate consequences is with player acquisition.  Rather than plugging in stars from other teams who may not fit the team's  psyche or tactics (a la Liverpool), they can bring in players suited best for their club (say, Blackpool or the latter-day Newcastle United).  A standout example can be taken from this year's promoted teams: after having played the same style in three divisions, Swansea City and Norwich City have succeeded by employing cheap, second- and third-tier players who fit their club's on- and off-field culture.

Since Roberto Di Matteo assumed control, he has created a sense of unity and identity lacking during Villas-Boas' reign.  Even though they finished one position lower in the league than they were when AVB was fired, this too helped: Chelsea became cup-focused and able to coalesce behind an "underdog" persona.  While this worked well against bogey-team Barcelona, it was taken to the n^th degree in Munich: talisman captain suspended, best defender suspended, two centre-backs recovering from injury, backups of questionable quality, key midfielder suspended ...  the pervading instability and queries over the quality of replacement (who'd have though Jose Boswinga and Gary Cahill would start the final only two months ago?) only contributed to a "we'll show 'em" mentality.

Chelsea absorbed tremendous amounts of pressure and then punished both Barca and Bayern when their limited opportunities came.  With some notable exceptions, the Blues have struggled since Mourinho's departure to find a common identity.  Saturday's result came as they found themselves after years of looking.

The EPL run home "analyzed"

As the Premier League season rampages towards the Manchester derby which will (probably) decide the ultimate route and destination of this season's victory parade, we've got enough data from the season in progress to suggest how results for the rest of the season plays out.  The season is now thirty games old for each club, with the last eight enough to determine who raises the cup this season, which of the upstart clubs finishes with a well-earned chance at European football and which clubs will be facing derbies next season with the likes of MK Dons, Watford or Burnley.

So far, the information that may be the most telling as we enter the season's waning weeks is how each of the teams in the battle to play Champions League football next season got to be where they now are.
The table below includes the five teams currently slated to play continental football next season. It indicates what percentage of available points they have secured against opposition in different parts of the table. For example, Manchester City have played four times against teams currently in the relegation zone and won each encounter. Therefore, they have attained 100% of the points available from those four matches. Chelsea, however, have managed only two wins and a draw from their four encounters with current drop-zone residents – a more sickly 58%.

	Available points achieved by club (%):
Versus teams:	Man United	Man City	Arsenal	Tottenham	Chelsea
In relegation zone	100	100	78	87	58
Are relegation threatened	86	100	52	90	76
In table's bottom half	90	88	64	83	56
“Mid-table”	79	65	71	69	52
In table's top half	69	67	56	42	49
League Top 5	76	83	33	21	29
Total	81	78	64	61	56

For the purposes of this illustration, “Mid-table” includes all teams not currently occupying European slots or in danger of relegation. This means all teams from position 6 – 15 are included, no matter how turgid their play or how daunting their final fixtures appear).  Data correct to Thursday, March 29th.

We can automatically surmise that this season's Premier League has more of a Spanish – or Scottish – appearance to it. The lack competition at the top is galling - and even worse in graphical form (click to enlarge the graph).  While it's expected that clubs lose more points against higher opposition, for a league which champions itself as the most even in Europe, the strength of the Manchester clubs is starkly apparent.

Click to enlarge.

This term displays a major duopoly as the twinn'd Manchester clubs have been markedly more adept at taking points from other so-called “elite” opponents.

 This bodes well for City, in particular, as their April 30^th derby approaches – soon after a trip to Arsenal. Given their record, prior games against mid-table Norwich City and West Brom could provide more hurdlese than their matches against the Red Devils and Gunners. 


Once we depart Manchester, the numbers are just as revealing. Third and fourth positions are the subject of another local rivalry, as despite an ugly start to the season, Arsenal have earned their current tabular position, while Spurs appear a team of bullies. Redknapp's men have extracted only a win and two draws from eight encounters with Top 5 opponents (five points from twenty-four). For Chelsea, these numbers show definitively the poor fit between players and former manager Andre Villas-Boas: last year, Carlo Ancelotti was canned after accumulating more points (by percentage) against every category of opposition.

Redknapp's logical successor

Let's just assume, despite apparent misgivings, that Harry Redknapp will manage England at this year's European Championships. The common-sense logic is that England will likely qualify for the second round and then be eliminated. Such things were written in stone, long ago.

Were he to go, however, who would replace him at Spurs? Noises have been made about summoning Jose Mourinho from Real Madrid to helm next season's increasingly-improbable Champions' League push, while other names thrown forth into the vacuum include Fabio Capello, Rafael Benitez and David Moyes.

Interestingly, the Spurs personnel actually quite suit a manager like Andre Villas-Boas, but it's unlikely AVB would get such a high-profile position immediately after his Chelsea flame-out. This should elicit nervous Liverpudlian glances towards Fleet Street's rumour-mongers.

If Jose's not coming – and he's not, there should be little doubt that David Moyes is the best fit for the Spurs job.

Harking back a moment to Villas-Boas, there are myriad reasons for his dismissal but the greatest was an initial refusal to adapt his tactics to his players. This doesn't apply for Moyes, who for the vast majority of his decade-long tenure at Goodison Park has employed with success either a flat 4-4-2 or a 4-4-1-1. He would have to make little or no adaptation, but simply deploy a superior playing group. To prove his efficacy, he need look no further than a player that Spurs now own – South African Steven Pienaar.

His maintenance of Everton as one of the league's more efficient defensive teams speaks volumes, as does his ability to bring together a cohesive dressing room and his noted ability to work well on a budget. Spurs could certainly benefit from all four of these selling points – in fact, combining Moyes' defensive schemes with the offensive talent on hand at White Hart Lane is an exciting prospect.

This remains pure speculation, and it's no sure thing that Moyes would agree to a contract at Spurs. However, it remains the most tantalising option should Redknapp be seconded into national service.

3 Reasons "Second" teams in the "Second" Division won't work

Andre Villas-Boas has been roundly criticised by Football League supporters this week for suggesting he’d like Chelsea’s B team to compete in the nation’s second tier.  Unfortunately for him and his club, Villas-Boas’ recent press statements have seen him become something of a mini-sensation magnet and he seems to spend more time now rebutting sly criticism than providing novel insights into the league.

Basing a second team in a competition further down the League tree would be of immense benefit to the parent club, as they could shuffle players in and out of their lineups to get game time as required.  Barcelona, amongst other clubs, uses such a model in the Liga Adelante; while the practice has become so treasured in Australia’s AFL that most clubs are now in a hurry to set up  their own subsidiary club.  However in England, it is almost unworkable – if not for the logistics, but the fans. 

Red tape hurdles include the strict nature of the English League “tree” – Everton boss David Moyes said this morning he tried five years ago to get a youthful Everton B team experience playing against grown men in the Conference (England’s fourth division).  However, he was told any new club would have to start in the lowest division – the ninth tier – and work their way up as have some more famous foundling clubs like AFC Wimbledon and FC United of Manchester.  

More problematic are the fans.  English fans, starting with respected and popular Football League blog The Seventy Two, object to their clubs being disadvantaged to suit the mega-rich.  And fair enough too: apart from somewhat minimising the raison d'etre of those clubs whose First XIs compete in the Championship, the League has a rich history and the landscape would change forever (but not necessarily for the worse, mind you). For the Football League to undergo such a radical re-shape simply for the benefit of Chelsea/Man United/Man City/Arsenal youth players would be a devalue English football for the benefit of a few superwealthy clubs.

Finally, there is one great difference between a Barcelona B team and a potential Chelsea B squad – the current Barcelona B team features a squad with two – two – international players (Jonathon dos Santos, of Mexico and Luis Gustavo Ledes of Portugal).  The team Chelsea of 2012 would send to the Championship includes overseas talents like Patrick van Aanholt, Nicolas Anelka and Alex.  The EPL reliance on overseas talent would make such a prospect unworkable and stunt the growth of true English player development. 

I can’t see why Andre Villas-Boas wouldn’t want Chelsea B team to play in the Championship.  As a manager focused mainly on results in the short and mid-term, it would be perfect.  But unfortunately it’s a concept which will have to remain strictly Iberian.

In defence of Andre Villas-Boas

After overseeing two successive home losses for the first time in the Abramovich era, Chelsea manager Andre Villas-Boas has faced renewed speculation as to his future at Chelsea. Such talk is inevitable - I said, inevitable - thanks to his boss' propensity for firing managers. Expected, sure, and unfair given his short tenure, but is sack-talk even warranted?

Let's examine AVB's remit: to win - or at least compete - for the Premier League and Champions' League titles, replenish an ageing squad, get Fernando Torres firing, all the time playing attractive football. The season is about 100 days old; to expect all of the above to occur by now is quite obviously laughable.

What has the 34-year old done to warrant such attention? Presiding over three losses in four, OK, but the play behind those losses hasn't been horrible. To fire a manager on results rather than overall quality of play, while common, is a last-ditch move; Abramovich must have second, third and fourth-line plans rather than just nuking it all and starting over.

Villas-Boas has been tactically sound, if prone to an ambitiously high defensive line. The Blues assemble in a compact formation usually featuring Torres up front, ostensibly allowing incision from Juan Mata and width players Malouda and Sturridge. In keeping with the reinvigoration part of his mandate, offensive focus isn't on players nearly his own age (Drogba, Anelka and Lampard) but guys entering their prime.

Neither has the manager redefined roles - his men play where and when they perform best. Spectators haven't seen Lampard lying deep before the defence - he isn't suited to it and won't or can't play that position effectively. While spectacularly unsuited to a high defensive line, John Terry isn't being empowered to act as a Libero. So far, with only a few exceptions - and one notable inclusion - guys deserving it have played.

The Blues still score goals - over two per. Torres, while not the blistering El Nino of old, has regained his blonde locks, and with them a semblance of form. Mata looks to be one of the buys of the offseason, while it shouldn't take long to replace Jon Obi Mikel with Raul Meireles (even though it's harsh to blame the Nigerian for Maxi Rodriguez' goal on Sunday). The team is now much less stiff-legged than last year; an athleticism AVB hoped to take advantage of with a new game style.

In short, Chelsea haven't won more because his men have given away poor goals and, at times, failed to take advantage of fruitful situations. Suggested "fixes" for Villas-Boas and the Blues have focused on improving the defence, big-upping Mata and finally choosing between Torres and Drogba. This is only kind of true: the defence certainly needs addressing, but Mata by virtue of skill alone is becoming a featured player. Villas-Boas already has chosen Torres over Drogba - the cards are on the table - but now needs the dressing room's waning alpha-dogs to embrace change.

No-one's calling Terry and Lampard old dogs - well, nearly no-one - but it takes time for players to adapt to another, especially one which prioritises out-and-out speed over muscularity. Villas-Boas will be fine, as will Chelsea. The same can't be said for Didier Drogba and Nicolas Anelka.