Save the moral outrage for reality, not football

There are some things about which it is right to be outraged.

And then there’s football. One can be rightly dismayed or genuinely livid at some aspects that surround the game – say, like the thoughtless deaths of innocent immigrant workers in Qatar to fund a tournament that may or may not have been “bought” by the host nation – but if the way one team plays football plays havoc with your morality-meter, then we’ve you’ve got a problem.

Christ's righteous anger.
Not it was not directed at Big Sam.
Courtesy: wikipedia

Let’s examine two basic facts about the (or, indeed, any) sport:

1. Often, there is a skill gap between two competing teams.

2. Winning is generally more enjoyable than losing.

The dichotomy of the two truths above is bridged by a concept called “tactics”. They allow teams at a disadvantage (in talent, location, health or mindset) to try their best to win.

Such an event took place on Sunday at Anfield. Jose Mourinho, the Chelsea manager, sent his men out to negate the opposition, the irrepressible force of Liverpool and was described as “parking two buses”, first by his opposite number and subsequently by fans and several media sources.

While it made the game stodgy and barely digestible for some, the results suggest that Mourinho made the right decision. Liverpool are better at attacking than Chelsea are, and probably worse at defending. To make sure his team had their best shot at winning a critical game, the manager played to his strengths and his opponents’ underbelly.

Aesthetic? Not unless you have particular tastes.

Pleasing for the Chelsea players, staff and support? Totally.

There is no “right” way to play football. (Unless an outfield player is batting the ball with their hands. That is, actually, wrong). Kicking the ball repeatedly upfield to a contest, or favouring compressive defence over expansive offence is not wrong, it’s just an opinion on how best a team can maximise their chances of winning a weighted contest.

The way a team plays football is a product of their tactics (or lack thereof). Each team has an obligation – and hopefully the desire – to maximise their chances of winning a match. It may be that one team’s singular strength is in negating another team’s singular strengths, which might make the game less pleasurable to watch. Welcome to football in the modern era.

In no way should the tactics of football be the subject for a temple-cleansing righteous anger. If you get morally uptight at the very thought of quote-unquote-anti-football, then maybe it’s time that you concentrate your energies on something else – football’s too lighthearted for you.

If watching the way that Stoke City, Chivas USA or the Socceroos go about their business makes you angry, then don’t watch. It really is that simple. Football is game and the playing thereof doesn’t deserve anything but interest. There are far better outlets for moralisation. 

How to not be a faceless corporate victory tank

The Champions League semi-final draws are now complete, and Bayern Munich will face Real Madrid in one leg, with the other matching Chelsea with Atletico Madrid. While it’s not certain that the four best teams in Europe have qualified for the Final Four, there can be little argument that this quartet are certainly the most deserving.

The most visible storyline emerging from the draw concerns the fate of Atletico Madrid’s goalkeeper Thibaut Courtois, the Belgian prodigy playing for Atleti temporarily – or not – while waiting to assume Petr Cech’s Chelsea mantle. The loan agreement between the two clubs did not explicitly state that the player would be allowed to play against his parent club, meaning his appearance against the Blues would incur a €3 million “penalty fee” per match, an amount far in excess of what Los Rojiblancos’ balance sheet could justify.

It is still unclear as to whether the youngster will be able to play in the quarter-finals, but a ruling today from UEFA seems to strikes positive chords for both Atletico and Courtois. Despite the inevitable (and potentially legally justifiable) clamour that will emerge from West London in response, this is the best solution for the competition.

Courtois has become such a factor for his proxy team that robbing Atleti of his presence would lessen the competition’s status as the world’s most elite football league. Courtois has featured so heavily in his three years at Vicente Calderon that employing his understudy would greatly de-harmonise defensive understanding – a key factor in coach Diego Simeone’s tactics – and rob the side of some morale simply due to their not having one of the world’s top handful of goalkeepers available. Atleti would certainly still be capable of winning the tie, but it would be far more difficult.

Were Chelsea to win without facing Courtois, it would be a hollow victory, a defeat of a team minus one of its key components. Any legal challenge made by the Blues would be an attempt at slanting the balance of the tie in their favour – which they have every right to do – but would nonetheless seem unsporting. But no matter what the context, a larger organization using legal intricacies to minimize their smaller opponents’ chance of victory just doesn’t smell good.

Chelsea have more money than, well, just about everybody. Atletico Madrid employ a goalkeeper on loan from a more prosperous club because he was the most cost-effective option they could find. The club couldn’t afford to replace Manchester-bound David De Gea with a goalkeeper of similar quality permanently, and thus were forced to rely on the loan market.

Mendeleev Tank, courtesy wikipedia

The situation has worked wonderfully well for all three parties: Atletico obtained a potentially world-class keeper, Courtois got ample game time and developed into one of the world’s best, while Chelsea allowed another club to turn an asset into one far more valuable while also earning back a significant chunk of his transfer fee. To further encumber Atletico by legally challenging UEFA’s ruling is their right – but would also turn Abramovich’s behemoth further into a faceless corporate victory tank.

Having the superior financial resources to purchase Courtois in the first place is one thing – bully for Chelsea FC. To then further use that stash to inconvenience opponents who just don’t have the same fiscal means begins to look a little antisocial.

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.

Jose Mourinho obeys laws of physics, leaves Real Madrid

The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases, because they spontaneously evolve towards thermodynamic equilibrium — that is, maximum entropy.

Entropy – defined as the tendency of a system to break into terminal disorder – is such a potent force that it will (probably) be the cause of the ultimate end of the universe, as heat is unable to escape the system and gradually rises to such a point that everything falls apart – literally.

In related news, José Mourinho is again a free man.  He leaves Real Madrid after three years’ not only obeying the second law of thermodynamics but actively seeking to hasten its work.  In that time he was first feted as savior; now he has been gratefully cast to scattering winds.

It is Mourinho’s modus operandi to close ranks and build a combative team infused utterly with an “us against the world” mentality that maintains a player’s confidence in himself, his manager and his teammates.  In such a way, he inspired Porto and Inter Milan to Champions League triumphs and redressed imbalances wrought in England and Spain by iconic teams like the Invincibles and Guardiola’s Barcelona.  To look at a squad coached by José Mourinho – in his first two years at a club, anyway – is to see a completely unified front and spectacular results.

However, isolation so desired creates the closed system in which the reaction byproducts remain, increasing interior temperature until relationships break down and instability ensues.  Often his ability to rock a boat is so profound that it affects not only him and his club but the managers succeeding him.

Not only did Mourinho fashion this closed system, but also the reactions ramping up the entropy within.  He has engaged in running battles with the Spanish media and cast doubt upon his own future at every opportunity; his reputation for wanderlust has been affirmed by short, but successful, spells at four clubs in a decade (and another coming).  The intensity with which he achieves such great results also serves as a constant abrasive as his cocksure manner shuffles relationships inexorably from “we” to “me”.

Until José Mourinho learns to temper his double-edged intensity, his tenures will always be short – indeed, it was this tendency that forestalled interest in him from Manchester United, a position he so obviously covets.  However, because the results he generates are so compelling, there will be no shortage of suitors hoping to take advantage of his remarkable talent.  

An overblown Eden Hazard love-in

The start of Eden Hazard’s career with Chelsea might best be described as bimodal.

After a £32-million summer transfer from the 2011 French Champions Lille, Hazard began the season lauded as perhaps the best Belgian in a league full of ‘em.  But his form slumped around the time his club entered the mid-season depression that cost Champions League winning manager Roberto Di Matteo his position and recovered only in the early months of this year.

Yet when one takes a look at the nominees for the PFA Player of the Year award and now that same organisation’s Team of the Year sees him line up behind Robin van Persie.  He has been touted for a superlative season, but hasn’t produced at the same level we expected after his glistening start.

Both seem a bit rich.  Hazard is unquestionably an incredibly talented player, but has performed rather inconsistently in the English Premiership – he is capable of outstanding performances but has remained somewhat anonymous in other matches, perhaps a function of Chelsea’s attempt to shoehorn three pesky creative types into one outfit.  While statistics only tell half the story, Mata has indeed had the superior season.

Was his selection in the Team of the Year a product of a lack of alternative options?  Given his peers voted him one of the best six players in the country, that’s a long bow to draw – it’s clear that the Premier League rank and file deem him a player to be respected.  Nevertheless, he made the celebrated team at the expense of players of whom it could be easily argued had better seasons like Arsenal’s Santi Cazorla or Swansea City superbargain Michu. 

The love-in surrounding Hazard’s debut English season has begun and history will say that it was a fine one, replete with awards.  But that doesn’t do him justice – he could be one of the five greatest players in the world and that hasn’t been reflected in the totality of his performances this year.  This year, he has been very-good-but-not-great, perhaps only displaying eighty percent of his formidable skill.  But does a player who only engages (even) a fraction of his ability truly deserve a position in such an esteemed team?

Agüero’s curious "tackle" lays bare need for rule change

Following Sergio Agüero’s … enthusiastic … challenge upon David Luiz’s hindquarters during this weekend’s FA Cup Semi-Final, the issue of crude tackles has once again been thrust into football’s spotlight. 

Agüero, who scored a decisive goal in City’s 2-0 triumph, appeared to drop-kick the Chelsea centre-back in the posterior at about the 82-minute mark and escaped without serious censure from referee Chris Foy.  

The incident – which you can view below – appears to show the Argentine beaten for a ball by Luiz, who goes to ground.  Agüero’s response is to go to ground himself, cleats first and no matter whose butt was lay in his way.  The result: a free kick to the Blues.

Should a player commit a poor foul, it is FA policy – barring “special circumstances” – to avoid further punishing players for such infractions.  It is their position that retrospective action would undermine a referee’s control of the game.  This posture assumes of course that the referee had control (and adequate sight-lines) in the first place.

It’s time for that rule to change.  To avoid serious injuries as a result of unduly rough play, the FA needs to seriously consider retrospective punishment.  That Agüero – and Callum McManaman – escaped serious punishment for poorly executed or deliberate feet-first contact is galling and it’s fortunate that their victims weren’t more seriously injured. 

It is a paramount duty of Football Associations to ensure player safety.  In order to do so, perhaps inspiration can come from the Australian Football League.  In the late 1980s, this competition instituted a “trial-by-video” system to eliminate rampant behind the play violence and to compensate for incidents the officiating umpires might have missed.  In so doing injuries as a result of player violence by dint of negligence or vindictiveness has been reduced markedly. 

In the AFL, each case is judged according to a penal matrix which assigns a points value to the incident’s intent (which can be graded intentional, reckless, negligent or accidental), impact (deemed severe, high, medium, low, negligible) and point of contact (was it to the head, groin or body?).  Players who score highly – for example a deliberate punch to the face of an opponent – are in line to receive far harsher sanctions than someone who negligently knees a player to the ribs.  Penalties are then meted out according to a similar system, with good or bad behavior bonds and early guilty pleas serving as multipliers.

Precedents are inadmissible evidence, meaning every player receives the same judgment.  More importantly, each player are charged with protecting player safety and made aware this duty of care is expected of them.  

For football, the point of contact might be adapted to assess how high up the “target” player’s leg impact occurs.

With such a system, Agüero’s challenge might be assessed as reckless, medium and to the upper leg, thus earning a moderately severe ban.

Football Associations across the globe must do more to ensure player safety and avoid cases like Ben Collett, Aaron Ramsey and Eduardo.  This is one way to empower players in taking charge of their own on-field security.  There has been one incident too many.

Benitez, Chelsea and the successful season

Now he's officially departing Cobham in a few weeks, we can begin to evaluate more fully Rafael Benitez's star-cross'd reign at Chelsea.

At present, the Blues are locked in a tight battle for a Champions League position, while also active on two further fronts: the Europa League and, after Monday's victory against Old Rivals United, the FA Cup.

More correctly, we ask what would constitute a a successful season for Benitez in a personal sense.  With free agency looming, Occam's Razor suggests he will only leave the club satisfied should he add trophies to his resume.  The Premiership is gone, perhaps even before he arrived, meaning a successful season for Rafael Benitez depends upon twinned FA Cup/Europa League wins.

Rafael Benitez is firmly cognizant that he has to leave Chelsea with something (or things) to show for an eventful six months.

Even were he to available to boss the Blues next season, he would have to hang his hat on Cups competition, because he has led the Blues to rather haphazard league form: predecessor Roberto Di Matteo averaged 2.0 points per contest this term while Rafa's Blues have managed only 1.72.

However, he has propelled them relatively easily into the latter stages of both remaining Cups competitions - to the extent that there are suggestions that he is deliberately focusing not on an administratively-desired Top Four position, but on collecting as much silverware as possible.

Upcoming/potential opponents in each of these winnable competitions might present some problems - but these could hardly be described as insoluble.

Should Chelsea qualify for the Big Dance next year - no matter if it's in third position or fourth - Benitez can proudly and justifiably say to any future employers that he signed off on three deliverables for his Russian plutocrat.  However, he must be well aware that multiple Europa League titles and FA Cup wins read better to potential employers than their solitary equivalents won half a decade ago or more.

Famously, Benitez was deprived of any real power by the word "interim" that hovered nebulously and forebodingly over his job title, and is now mobilising his endgame strategy using the only real power he retains - that of directing his charges.

If - and, at this stage we can only say if - Benitez is disregarding his current employer to make himself more desirable to future payors, then this is a passive-aggressive game of chicken for the ages.  Should it pay dividends, he automatically puts himself in the frame for some of the plum jobs in Europe; if not, he sleeps with management fishes.

While the Blues hold onto the all-important UCL qualifying position and remain in contention for two further trophies, Benitez's short reign must be seen as a tacit success.  However, should they drop the ball in all three competitions - an unlikely but possible "accomplishment" - then Rafael Benitez will become more toxic than he was before arriving in West London.

Benítez and Chelsea: the inevitable breakup

The Rafael Benítez experiment at Chelsea has quickly and predictably moved into an endgame as inevitable as it will be tedious.  The Spaniard will depart Stamford Bridge at the end of the season –perhaps much, much sooner – after presiding over half a season of rebellious players, fractious fan groups and disappointing English Premier League season.

In a curious press conference after win at Middlesbrough in the FA Cup, the Interim Chelsea boss delivered a long-winded (and loaded) response to question that might earn him his P45 far earlier than his preferred departure date.  In his lengthy statement, Benítez railed at his “Interim” title and at fans he thought – correctly –had never wanted him at the Blues in the first place.

Like many relationships, the Chelsea/ Benítez affair failed for one simple reason: the parties involved simply weren’t right for each other in the first place.  Abramovich and his board were on the rebound, a fact Benitez knew and accepted.  However, knowing that chances to step out on the arm of such an eligible club don’t come along that often, he hoped that a winning smile and ready-to-please personality might entice Roman into something more permanent.

But the groundwork for the break-up was laid even before the fling started.  An antagonistic relationship with Chelsea fans and a penchant for squad rotation wasn’t a great starting place for Benítez, while Abramovich is a managerial commitment-phobe on a level with James Bond and Hugh Hefner.  He has, and will continue to, move between managerial starlets and stalwarts alike with ready ease.

Sometimes when a break-up is inevitable, parties visibly plan exit strategies days, weeks or even months in advance.  Wednesday’s presser was just that – Benítez has realized the partnership is bad for both of them and has started making unmuffled noises about moving forward unattached.

Rafa Benítez never stood a chance to end up as an Abramovich long-termer – there was just too much baggage to begin with.

Rafael Benítez, Hired Goon

Chelsea manager Rafael Benítez is in a tough spot.  In fact, he’d probably be the first to admit it, though it would come with a caveat: often trial is accompanied by opportunity.

Benítez arrived at Chelsea in November, tasked with renewing a project with its genesis in former boss Andre Villas-Boas: the refreshment and gentrification of a team with roots reaching back to the Claudio Ranieri era – that is, eight years and eight managers ago.  The former Liverpool manager is neither liked at Stamford Bridge nor blessed with long-term job security: comments made of Chelsea supporters have hardly endeared himself to the Blues faithful, while Chelsea owner Roman Abramovich appears to have a thing for former Barcelona manager Pep Guardiola.

The first two players seemingly to be moved on are stalwarts Ashley Cole and Frank Lampard, neither of whom have been offered new contracts despite their current deals expiring in June. Cole has been more vocal, as is his wont – indeed, he probably has more currency still being near the peak of his powers and retaining his position as England’s left-back.  In contrast, while both sides have leaked information concerning a lack of contract negotiations, Lampard himself has been relatively quiet, by default claiming the moral high ground as a club champion ushered out the door before his time.

Sources suggested it was Benítez’s personal relationship with Abramovich that allowed him to take the manager’s role.  After being out of work for nearly two years, it was a low-risk: do what Roman wanted and if everything works out, take control of the club in the long(er) term; at worst, Rafa could – and has, somewhat – proved his big-club bona fides after an ill-fated spell at Inter Milan. 

What Roman apparently wants, however is to revive Andre Villas-Boas’ youthful attacking scheme.  Rumours persist that Lampard and Cole haven’t been offered new deals as Abramovich seeks to rid the club of players he sees as implicit in Villas-Boas’ loss of control and eventual demise.

In employing an unpopular henchman with serious questions over his long-term future, Abramovich has played to Russian money stereotype, but has done so with great effect.  Benítez, a hard-nosed, obstinate – and talented – manager is perhaps the best appointment for a thankless task.  Benítez has taken on the role as a goon to shield his boss, and perhaps his replacement, from tarnishing their reputation with the fans.

It could be that Benítez wins the position full-time: there are few other managers as talented and available as he is.  However, his poor popularity level and the impending availability of entropy-generating, serial Benítez-antagonist and former Chelsea boss Jose Mourinho, a successful trial period for Rafa won’t necessarily result in continued employment.  This is again, to type: when did you meet a henchman who wasn’t ultimately disposable?

Fernando Torres is not a time-traveller

I don't read much baseball - the odd seminal work like Moneyball, usually - but I make a habit of reading Lookout Landing, the SB Nation coverage for my local major league team, the Seattle Mariners.  Check it out - it's intelligent and funny stuff.

Hot on the topic of now ex-Mariner Chone Figgins trending on Twitter last week (after rumours of his long-impending demise proved true), the Landing's lead blogger Jeff Sullivan came up with the following statement to describe the serial underperformer:

I don't think 2009 Chone Figgins is ever coming back, because 2009 is one way in time and we go the other way and things that happened before often don't happen again. In sports, anyway. 

Does this remind you of anyone? It certainly did for me - so much so that even the dates match.

2009 harkens back to Fernando Torres' last season in his pomp at Liverpool and given the current state of affairs at Chelsea, Sullivan has once again proved remarkably prescient. Whether Roman Abramovich employed Rafa Benitez with the primary aim of helping Torres rediscover his form or simply because there are no more "names" available to him matters little; as Sullivan so rightly described  Figgins, Torres has been so out of form for so long that any last semblance the Fernando Torres of 2004-2009 has become only the fodder for pleasant Kop memories.

The player who once was Fernando Torres - the only man in England to give Nemanja Vidic nightmares - just doesn't exist any more.  He is an echo to a bygone age.

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.

Juan Mata leads (another) Chelsea revolution

It's hard to be mad at anything that scampers. Likewise disdainful, jealous or irritated. As a word, scamper is used generally when something flits about in a light-footed manner, implying that the observer receives some kind of pleasing entertainment just from the sight.

No-one scampers with malice – it can't be done. Any attempts veer quickly towards scurrying, or it's less desirable cousin, scuttling. A list of things that scamper almost invariably begins with Lionel Messi, kids or puppies; while any of this trio may not be your cup of tea, active disliking toddlers, Messi or puppies is almost always taking things too seriously.

Scampering almost perfectly describes the New Chelsea. After years of solid – but hardly light-footed – play won them a few titles but few friends outside their considerable fan base, the past twelve months has earned them new admirers. Abramovich's ultimate dream has finally become manifest: a team of artful dodgers able not just to compete, but win the Champions League.

This cheekiness isn't just paying off on the pitch: after nearly a decade of being England's pre-eminent “guys you love to hate”, Chelsea Football Club are suddenly somewhat likeable.

There are several reasons for a general mellowing of feeling towards the Blues, even despite their remarkable talent for attracting (and washing off) negative press. Part of this can be put down simply to success; another possibility is the final and extended dissolution of an inner sanctum far more unsavoury together than in its individual parts. But chief among these reasons has been the youthful personification of West London forward play: Marko Marin, Eden Hazard, Juan Mata and Oscar.

The latter three may be the most talented players in the Premier League, an on-pitch aria of insightful, constant scampering – with the ball or without, ability (and desire) to pass the ball and technical skill. Over the past decade, professional sport has verged towards an atmosphere of black-and-white tribalism; the intrinsic wit and dextrous nature to the football of Mata, Hazard and Oscar has brought Chelsea and some former critics closer in mutual appreciation.

While there are still some elements at Chelsea the casual observer must tolerate rather than enjoy, Roman Abramovich's mob has moved a long way from the days as the archetypal black hat villains.

New code of conduct has to help, right?

Last week the English FA handed down the report of its investigation into the racial abuse case levelled at former national team captain John Terry. The 53-page report loosely implies – but stops far short of accusing – Terry, teammate Ashley Cole and Chelsea FC executive David Barnard of contriving evidence to benefit the player's defence.

Cole responded as any normal person would: with a volley of abuse directed at the FA via Twitter.

courtesy: Twitter.com

He has apologised after the FA responded by charging him with misconduct for the insults. However, surely this isn't the main issue. Ashley Cole's rap-sheet of selfish behaviour is extensive and leans heavily on the use of mobile phones. Insults from incredible sources shouldn't hurt simply because their point of origin has – on appearances – so little integrity. The FA should be far more concerned that they suspect two players fabricated evidence in an attempt to avoid justice.

Perhaps as Cole's tweet was the final straw however, as amidst yesterday's palaver surrounding the opening of England's new home base at St George's Park, the FA instituted a new code of conduct applying to all players involved in the national set-up.

Of course it's a good idea, but begs the question: why hasn't this happened sooner? Perhaps these guidelines weren't seen as necessary; maybe those in the corridors of power ultimately realised that definitive expectations both allows players to know where they stand and provides a framework for enforcing social behaviour.

Under the new standards, the FA wouldn't have to charge Cole with the nebulous “misconduct” for his true-to-type Twittering but simply breaching the England player's code of conduct. Hopefully, this clarity will reduce the prevalence of spirit fouls like “actions unbefitting” or “bringing the game into disrepute”. It's a perfectly sensible step forward for English football, which has for too long indulged the selfishness of many star players.

Children need boundaries if they're to grow up to become productive parts of society. So too, it appears, do footballers. Maybe there's a link there.

Michael Ballack retires

Earlier this week, former Germany captain Michael Ballack retired from all professional football. The most stylish and (sometimes brutally) effective German player of his generation leaves the game permanently at age 36.

Ballack had both the fortune and misfortune of being born five years too late. To look at it another way, he was born five years too early. He could have been a precocious youngster alongside Lothar Matthäus, Jurgen Klinsmann and the greatest years of Oliver Kahn, but was born as the seventies turned. Born half a decade later and he wouldn't have just nurtured the startling Germany team of the home World Cup in 2006 but championed it. Instead, he scraped into the tail of one wonderful era and was moved on before the second blossomed.

In hindsight, this may actually have suited him. As the best player in the country, Ballack enjoyed starring roles at Bayer Leverkusen, Bayern Munich and for Die Mannschaft; after the success of 2006, he moved to Chelsea before concluding his career at Leverkusen. A man betraying precious little self-doubt, the spotlight rests easily on him. He was Germany: it wasn't a burden, just the way things were.

Courtesy: heraldsun.com.au

His polished – if not definitive – turn as an analyst for ESPN over the 2012 European Championships only highlighted his readiness to step away from the centre of midfield.

Michael Ballack rarely took a backwards step. And in a weird kind of way, that could be why his mooted move to Toronto FC or the fledgling Western Sydney Wanderers never really made it off the ground. Wage demands might have played a part, but had he wanted to keep playing the monetary terms could have been arranged. Some men are made to be ambassadors, but Michael Ballack just isn't one of them.

Sydney FC signee Alessandro Del Piero will be crucial to the A-League and football's growth in Australia. Without question, he is the best player to ever play in the Antipodes. Ballack is two years younger and fit a role which doesn't necessarily depend on speed. He could have owned the A-League; if Christian Tiffert makes such an impact in Seattle, how deadly would Michael Ballack be? However, doing so – even for reported millions – may have felt like a backward step. At 36, once usefulness at the very top level has been exhausted, the best players must accept a reduced role - one of venerable sage, goodwill ambassador or even figurehead.

Some athletes are engineered to keep going; Del Piero joins his English contemporary David Beckham as the most obvious examples. Ballack probably isn't wired that way, and that's fine – not many have the combination of talent, temperament and stamina to do so. The ultimate cost/benefit analysis all footballers face contrasts desire and depreciation. When that ratio dips too low, it's time to enter the tunnel for the final time.

Michael Ballack leaves the game on his own terms. It couldn't really have happened any other way. However, his luxuriant bouffant and measured analysis on ESPN suggests we will see a lot more of him in the future.

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.

Three things: Chelsea may regret Lukaku absence

Three things we noticed from the EPL this week:

Chelsea might regret loaning out Romelu Lukaku

Romelu Lukaku arrived at Stamford Bridge before last season at a significant cost: a reported 18 million pounds from Belgian club Anderlecht. Barely eighteen when he arrived, the boy-mountain spent most of last season on the bench and hated it. Despite impressing on the Blues' pre-season US tour, Lukaku found himself “gaining first-team experience” at West Brom this year and the Blues look like they may regret his temporary departure. His spell in the Midlands has so far been telling.

The Blues pulled out a 1-0 win against an uncompromising Stoke City at home on Saturday where none of their myriad new tricksy attacking types were able to really trouble the brutally efficient Stoke defense. While this new look can produce some wonderful football, the Blues appear to be missing a second look.

If those short-ish types aren't firing in the goals then the club – like the team they've attempted to emulate, Barcelona – seems to lack offensive versatility. Barca had to pay heavily to get Zlatan Ibrahimovic, as Chelsea did for the talented Lukaku; it costs money for big, strong and skilled. Perhaps with their dearth of options, it's time to explore what Lukaku can create for the Stamford Bridge unit.

Arsenal are looking good

Despite needing a late goal from Laurent Koscielny to snatch a draw, the Gunners played impressively at the Etihad Stadium. Champions Manchester City were penned back time and again by a quality combination of youth and experience; indeed, they may not have scored themselves if not for a mistake by third-string goalkeeper Vito Mannone.

Lukas Podolski, while not scoring bagfuls, has been impressive while Gervinho, not new signing Olivier Giroud, may eventually be the cetnre-forward to replace Robin van Persie.

Key to this solid start has been the central defensive partnership of Per Mertesacker and Koscielny. Only weeks ago we were suggesting Mertesacker's greatest contribution may come as stability from the bench, but he's been the Premiership's outstanding centre-back throughout the first four games and the club hardly missed resident Belgian Thomas Vermaelen.

Aston Villa – relegation fodder?

Maybe Paul Lambert began drinking his own Kool-Aid, but the world's most boring man may have bitten off more than he could chew in Birmingham. Even though last weekend provided some encouraging signs, Aston Villa struggled mightily in their 4-1 defeat to the defensively-inept Southampton. This year, Lambert just doesn't have the talent to work with in order to avoid a relegation battle.

This season's reinforcements have mostly come from lower divisions, like Matthew Lowton who only months ago was playing in League One. Although they may end up becoming quality players, these lower-tier recruits have acclimatise to the Big Show. After shedding most of the high-earners from their wage bill, Villa appear shorn of quality all over the park – comparing their squad from now to five years ago is simply amazing.

Unless you're Roberto Martinez, you can't sell your best players each year and expect to maintain your Premiership status. Hang on – now their constant inquiries as to his availability suddenly makes more sense.

Three things: Handshakes are still important

Three things we noticed from the Premier League this weekend:

Handshakes are still important

Queens Park Rangers fronted up against Chelsea – and John Terry – in the West London derby. In the pre-match handshake line, Anton Ferdinand, who accused Terry of racially abusing him on the pitch last season, refused the proffered hands of the former England captain and left-back Ashley Cole. Next week, Northwestern rivals Liverpool and Manchester United face off in the first match since Luis Suarez refused to shake Patrice Evra's hand.

Handshakes still matter. Just ask Mark Hughes, who's gotten into rumbles about the tradition with practically everyone.

PFA President and handshake advocate Clarke Carlisle says handshakes are “a statement of intent to play the game in a certain manner befitting a professional”. In a perfect world, this would be so – however, we live in a football society where tribalism runs rampant and songs about tragic events have become so commonplace that managers and administrators rightly condemn their own fans for singing them. The game has often become more important than basic civility. The game's landscape is now so merciless that the handshake feels meaningless, a relic from past times.

Ideally, handshakes – gesture that perhaps began when two parties used their weapon-hand to greet an opponent, rather than kill him – would actually mean something – that the game isn't worth some costs. Hopefully, some footballers still think that way. However, in today's dog-eat-dog football culture, expecting players to make a honourable motions before a game is sadly a stretch. The stakes – and competitive desire – are just too great.

Berbatov's wages are (probably) worth it

Dimitar Berbatov made his first start for new club Fulham on Saturday and led the Cottagers to a win, scoring twice against the previously undefeated West Bromwich Albion. Despite sharing the league's Golden Boot with Carlos Tevez in 2010, the Bulgarian never appeared totally settled at Manchester United; this was partly because Sir Alex Ferguson rarely trusted him leading the line in big games and because his style is far more suited to a two-man front.

Fulham entered the season in a state of flux. Forwards Andy Johnson, Moussa Dembele and Clint Dempsey departed during the summer, replaced by Berbatov and Hugo Rodallega. The highly-salaried Berbatov has immediately shown his class and efficacy in the 4-4-2; paired with Rodallega – the archetypal runner lacking end product (the Colombian averages a Premier League goal every 5½ games and takes 100 shots to register six goals), Berbatov and his understated ability to hold the ball up looks crucial to a re-built West London side.

The "new" Dembele - last year's Costa Rican big buy, Bryan Ruiz - should have ample forward options to pass to - Berbatov's silky scoring and Rodallega's natural athleticism should keep the Cottagers firmly in mid-table.

Southampton need to work it out at the back

They can put goals on the board against the best teams in the country. They've got pretty fair trust fund backing them in the transfer market. They raided Scotland for the best player in that country. Rickie Lambert celebrates a goal better than anyone in creation.

Still, Southampton sit winless at the bottom of the Premier League table. Part of this can be ascribed to their dauting fixture list: they opened the season against Manchester City, Wigan Athletic, Manchester United, Arsenal. Despite boasting more exciting talent than their promoted brethren – and, arguably, more total talent – the Saints have made a habit of conceding, shopping six to Arsenal over the weekend. To make things worse, the Gunners only scored four as Nathan Clyne and the calamitous Jos Hooiveld both put the ball into their own net.

Despite looking better than average in midfield and attack, the Saints will be relegated if they don't fix their defence. The talent simply hasn't stacked up yet. Maybe it never will.

Ian Holloway's Blackpool – and Steve Kean's Blackburn – proved conclusively that in the lower reaches of the Premiership, attack must always be balanced by defence. It's not that the Saints defenders don't try, but appear lacking in class and even perhaps Premier League ability.

Financial Fair Play: why it had to happen

No-one said that Financial Fair Play (FFP) was perfect. Even Michel Platini, the UEFA President behind the long-touted new standards, accepts his brainchild has some serious flaws. But in these days of the paradoxical austerity boom, European football clubs are going to have to take responsibility for their collective bottom lines.  FFP had to happen.

A slight shift towards prudence by some clubs – for example Newcastle United or AC Milan – has been balanced by remarkable spending by others. Nothing prompts wasteful extravagance like owning a football club. According to UEFA, almost seventy percent of all European top-flight clubs are losing money. Platini's regulations resolve to save clubs from themselves.

At its simplest, FFP penalises clubs who spend more than they earn. Opponents to the plan suggest this will keep the big clubs powerful and the small ones insignificant; they may have a point. However, it will also minimise the wealthy benefactor model made so famous by Chelsea, Manchester City and now Paris Saint-Germain.

Clubs are already beginning to implement the necessary changes. Whether UEFA enforces their laws is still to be seen.

While even Platini should accept the FFP legislation is imperfect, the overall ramifications of the legistlation should somewhat control spiralling wage-bills. The percentage of overall revenue spent on player wages by top-tier European clubs is simply bad business practice.

Within the past two years, American sport has seen lockouts in the NFL and NBA. A similar impasse has been reached between NHL owners and players. In all three cases, the warring parties struggle(d) to agree on a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) which splits revenue fairly between players and owners.

The graphic below charts the revenue split between players and owners in each of the four major US sports and compares it to top-flight European football clubs. The contrast is stark. Baseballers receive about 57% of their pie – as do hockey players under the current CBA – while NFL and NBA players' shares decreased to around 50% with their last CBA. (Given the habit owners have of “winning” these negotiations, the figures below come from the owners' last offer rather than the current iteration of the CBA which will certainly change).

Sources: The National Football Post, New book dives into business of baseball, Breaking down changes in new CBA, Twitter and the Belfast Telegraph.

And this chart doesn't even take into account transfer fees that are paid on top of wages! Even accounting for cross-continental differences, the average 13-20% extra that top division European footballers earn makes them the obvious outlier. What makes this startling is that the player/owner revenue sharing scheme now in operation in Europe isn't codified but voluntary – owners don't pay this lofty percentage out of legal compulsion.

No matter how different the sports, American owners like the Glazers, Stan Kroenke and Fenway Sports Group operate teams on both sides of the Atlantic. This means that there is a basis for comparison, if not for drawing fully-fleshed-out conclusions.  It's obvious that running a business and not accumulating debt - let alone making a profit - when you pay 70% of your income to employees is hard to do.

Because of the continental ramifications of employing a salary cap, an system index-linked to revenue was the most feasible way that UEFA could harness undisciplined spending.  FFP is not perfect, has loopholes aplenty and it won't necessarily address the lack of competitive balance across Europe's top four leagues. Hopefully, these refinements will come.

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.