FA Cup Final preview

The English FA Cup has long been thought of as the crowning jewel of that nation’s football season. For a country in which the term “second season” usually has a very different meaning, a cup competition interspersed amongst the sweaty buildup to the season’s final days is meant to provide the most tangible drama available before everyone takes a nice Bex and retires for a three-month long siesta.

This year’s Cup Final will be played today at Wembley, and features an Arsenal team that hopes to break a nine-year title drought and Hull City, whose trophyless dates back to 1965-66 when they triumphed in England’s third tier.

Hull City come into the games as palpable underdogs and haven’t won since the 5^th of April. That victory took them to twelfth in the Premiership before more recent results have slipped the club to sixteenth and within sight of relegation. The club’s two most potent attackers, strikers Nikica Jelavic and Shane Long, are both ineligible for the matchup after having already played FA Cup matches this season for Everton and West Bromwich Albion.

I'm a Tiger!  Raawr!
courtesy: eng.wikipedia.org

Their replacements will likely be Yannick Sagbo and Matty Fryatt, journeymen players whose best hope will be to capitalize on any potential poacher’s chances that come their way. This is football writer’s code for “not as good as the other guys”.

Manager Steve Bruce is likely to field a team that revolves around a midfield more balanced than most in the Premier League; the club’s midfield trio include Tottenham expats Tom Huddlestone and Jake Livermore with Slovenian mainstay Robert Koren. The crown jewel undoubtedly Huddlestone (no, not Loki), whose ability to spray accurate, lengthy through balls betwixt defences remains somehow unmissed by England bos Roy Hodgson.

The Tigers have more than a modicum of hope, however. Few teams have been as capable of mental disintegration over the past decade as their opponents, The Arsenal. This iteration of the Gunners however has a few pieces that were missing in former years, namely central midfielder Aaron Ramsey’s A-game and the second-striking wizardry of Mesut Ozil.-

After all the hype that (probably fairly) accompanied his arrival at the Emirates stadium, Ozil has been a disappointment in 2013-14. It says much of the fabled German that most of his influence has come about as a result of his presence rather than as a result of appreciable moments of pure skill; manager Arsene Wenger should certainly hope that all his featured player requires is a stage with sufficient exposure.

Ozil’s relative absence has been made up for in part by the barnstorming season experienced by Aaron Ramsey. He last played in an FA Cup final with Cardiff City in 2008 only weeks before his transfer to North London and has waited several years for his health to catch up to his talent. With a defence led by Per Mertesacker and Laurent Koscielny far improved from seasons previous, elimination games tend to highlight Arsenal’s real point of weakness – their aforementioned tendency to freeze.

While theories abound, no-one can quite explain why a team with as much footballing nous as the Gunners tend to freak out when finding themselves in positions of power. Popular hypotheses include them buying too far into Wenger’s we-are-a-young-team Kool-Aid, that the men in red “sense the occasion” (in the bad way), or that they just don’t know how to win. The distinctive proof of the club’s poor record in big matches than the 2009 League Cup Final, where they lost to Birmingham City – a team who would then be relegated.

The similarities between the two situations are all too obvious for Gooner fans.

The match will likely be a close one – not since 2003-04, where Manchester United spiflicated low-riders Millwall, has the FA Cup Final produced a margin of over a goal. This, and the presence of difference-makers like Ozil, Ramsey and Huddlestone, adds to the promise of a great match.

Prediction: Hull City 1-1 victors on penalties, with Tom Huddlestone Man of the Match.

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.

Is Luis Suárez a cheat?

In English football, one of the most debated players is Liverpool and Uruguay forward Luis Suárez.  Rumours – and even some visuals – of alleged misdeeds arrived on British soil before he did in early 2011; since then, his list of perceived sins is ... notable.

Luis Suárez far more than a Black Hat bad guy or simple cheat.  He is the single best example of the dichotomy that exists between football’s rules and their on-field execution.

The latest act in Suárez’s vile reign of terror occurred on Sunday as he scored a decisive goal against 5^th-tier Mansfield Town after controlling the ball with his right hand.  As always, intentionality – as fits his narrative – can only be guessed at, especially when seen by a referee at live speeds and without replay.

The dictionary definition of cheating is to act dishonestly or unfairly to gain an advantage.  According to that black and white dogma, if he deliberately controlled the ball with his hand, Luis Suárez cheated.   Therefore, so did Thierry Henry, when he controlled the ball to score his game-winner against Ireland during World Cup qualifying in 2010.  As has every player who ever earned a penalty by simulation or popped an opponent with an elbow and escaped unscathed.

The word “cheat” is not often used in sport.  When it is, it’s usually preceded by the adjective “drug”.  It is a label to be avoided and the gravitas of such a moniker isn’t taken lightly.  Add to this the multifactorial nature of any situation in sport, difficulty in judging intent and simple urge to avoid litigation and it’s probably for the best that the phrase isn’t bandied about.  As ESPN commentator Jon Champion found out on Sunday, the term “cheat” doesn’t provide for much wiggle room; it is a black-and-white descriptor that just doesn’t sit right.

The rules of a sport are just as monochromatic, and plainly as two-dimensional.  Unfortunately, the field is green, white and most certainly encompassing not only third but fourth dimensions.  That they are enforced by humans with (one presumes) opinions, reasoning skills, no replays and imperfect positioning  mean rules can only be best implemented rather than perfectly applied.  Referees cannot be 100% correct and this means that players will accordingly risk sanctions to try and gain an advantage.

Suárez puts himself in positions to take those risks and obtain that advantage more than almost anyone else in the game.  This doesn’t make him evil, or a cheat (unless you like black and white descriptors); it makes him a pragmatist – someone who values results over aesthetics.  That he can shape matches – and debate – to such an extent is actually a compliment, of sorts.

Luis Suárez is not evil.  Well, not as far as I know, anyway.  He has a knack for being in the right (wrong?) place at the right (wrong?) time.  And this rare talent gives him more opportunity to display how much he’s prepared to trade for a Liverpool win.

Be very proud, Spurs fans

Football fans get a bad rap. It’s often deserved.

I first understood the full scary nature of a football mob mentality when at my first La Liga match.  At the Barcelona derby in December 2003, I was amused to find Parakeet ultras lighting fires, fighting police in running battles and frisbee-ing seats dangerously close to players on the pitch – until they came into my section of Montjuïc Stadium.  As they closed on our section, amusement gave way quickly to apprehension.  It speaks volumes to Marc Overmars’ elusive ability not that he created several goals on the night, but that he also avoided the barrage of broken polymer.

There are also myriad more incidents of both pre-meditated and unconscious bigotry that make observers uncomfortable in their own skin – regardless of colour, gender or sexual preference.

But there are times which  make you rejoice at the spirit of your brothers – or even in that of your opponents.  I’m not talking about last minute goals, Champions League victories or even campaigns like Save Darlo, but of the horrible events of Saturday’s FA Cup match between Tottenham Hotspur and Bolton Wanderers.

Watching the match from the sofa was horrifying; to imagine being at the match itself doesn’t bear thinking about.  After seeing the young midfielder convulse once, Fox Soccer Channel wisely opted not to telecast further the resuscitation efforts, but the tears of those at the ground were evidence enough that Muamba was in grave trouble.

To then hear Spurs fans chant “Fabrice Muamba” again and again while the player was treated was one of the most touching things I’ve seen in football.  Many argue that football has lost part of its humanity as a result of its occupation by the twin armies of tribalism and capitalism.  No matter how unflinching the game has become, decency won out on this occasion in a resounding chorus.

We can only hope and pray Fabrice Muamba wins his battle also.

The chants, though strictly unnecessary, were an honest human response to a man in serious danger.  It was an entirely honourable action, performed by nearly all those at White Hart Lane who could still speak.  I don’t think I’ll remember another moment from this footballing year with more clarity, both for the sickening situation and for the cumulative response of Tottenham fans.

Since the advent of cutthroat professionalism and the arrival of the football-as-a-business era, the term “honourable” hasn’t been used that often.  It is these moments, though, and not just glamour goals, saves or results that we fans remember.  Players’ actions leave a mark on us, often moreso than the result of their endeavours.  To take a high-profile example, I can’t remember who won the race – at the peak of their rivalry – in which John Landy helped up Ron Clarke after he had fallen; the image is seminal to what it means to be Australian.  I’m sure everyone can recollect similar instances without pausing for thought.

On the whole, responses since Muamba's collapse have been overwhelmingly positive from players, administrators and fans alike.  But, for their initial, vocal, offer of support, Spurs’ fans chants stood out as entirely honourable, a gleaming – albeit small – positive from an awful event.

FA Cup revamp rebuttal

After Crawley Town's gallant display against Manchester United and Leyton Orient's surprising draw with Arsenal, any plans to change the format of England's FA Cup must surely now be thrown in the garbage. The world's pre-eminent domestic cup competition is sacred and should remain so, as notions of the death of "the romance of the cup" became greatly overstated.

For some time, occasional "experts" have suggested that from Round 3 of the Cup the draw should be seeded, ostensibly pitting smaller clubs against larger from that time on. The rationale behind that would be with more big-versus-small clashes, there comes a greater chance of a giant-killing effort from a "minnow". This is complete bunk simply because both the odds and the talent available suggests that it wouldn't lead to more of this melodrama, but only an increase in Goliath moments where impudent would-be Davids are squished by the giant feet of Champions' League clubs. If anything, seeding a draw would rob the Cup of mystery as any potential Crawley Towns or Havant & Waterloovilles unthinkingly know their fate in the third, fourth or fifth-round: likely a Premiership club and odds-on elimination.

It actually happens that small clubs like to come up against their larger counterparts as a match against Chelsea or Liverpool is liable to bring in larger crowds at home and a share of the (suitably large) gate takings when away. This could be preferable to clubs in or nearing administration like Plymouth. But what it does to the plethora of - and names like these are always debatable - well-run clubs like Peterborough, Ipswich or Millwall is rob them of a puncher's chance to advance further in the competition. Better to stay with the current system, where clubs discover their coming opponents mere weeks ahead of schedule.

Plans to change when Cup ties are played to maximise attendances are also clearly an idea by the same crowd who bought us the Collins-class submarine. The FA's former Chief Executive, Ian Watmore, recently suggested that games be played mid-week because he had seen several games played at night of good standard. When considering revamping an institution such as the FA Cup, one must tread very carefully and suggestions like this are dangerous if increasing attendance is the ultimate aim: if crowds are poor for a Bournemouth versus Dag & Red fixture on a weekend in sleet and howling winds, how much improved are they likely to be on a Tuesday night in rain/snow mix and very fresh winds? The answer is fewer attendees, if anything, simply because mid-week equals school for the kids and an automatic decrease in the available market.

The proposition that replays used in case of a draw in the first leg be abolished is also ludicrous. In a recent example, the Chairman of Leyton Orient Barry Hearn has been quoted as saying he would take all his players to Las Vegas as reward for their endeavour in earning a replay against the Gunners at the Emirates stadium. That replay would earn Orient a significant percentage of the gate money which the club say will abolish their seasonal operating loss. By robbing the Cup of replays, not only do you enforce penalty shoot-outs in almost every match, but slam the door in the faces of the small clubs needing those funds to get out of jail. The big clubs are happy with replays as well, with both Sir Alex Ferguson and Arsene Wenger coming out in support of them for the same reasons: they can allow a big club to get out of jail, albeit not from a financial prison but a footballing one.

The final suggestion mooted for "improving" the FA Cup involves a Champions' League place being awarded to the winner. This suggestion has much more merit than the previous three but is flawed in some ways: if this were in effect now, last year's runners-up would be entitled to a UCL position as the winners, Chelsea, attained automatic qualification. Meaning Portsmouth would be eligible to play in Europe's top club competition amidst a swarm of debts and, early on this season having only sixteen senior players under contract. With UEFA's Financial Fair Play rules about to bite home on many of Europe's largest clubs, it woudn't be a stretch to suggest similar rules could be put in place for FA Cup winners' European entrances: if your books aren't balanced (to a point) or two teams who finished in the EPL's top four play off for the Cup, the position is goes automatically to the fourth-placed Premiership club. This plan seems more satisfying than the previous three because it would add another air of mystery to the end of the season: would the Cup winner make Europe? Or would the team who came in fourth? This is unlikely to occur however, as should a runner-up make Europe, then their performances on the continent would affect England's UEFA coefficient and bad displays especially could see the country robbed of it's fourth UCL slot.

The first three suggestions: abolishing replays, playing midweek and seeding the draw from the third round on, mean one of two things. The first option is the FA have no concept of what they actually want to do with The Cup - reinforce the larger teams or smaller? Attendance or romance? Finance or football? If this is true, the answer is simple: there's not enough data to suggest what clubs or fans want from The Cup so it's best to do nothing until a clear picture appears. It's in no immediate danger of falling into irrelevancy, so best not to fix something which isn't broken.

The second alternative is that the story is media-driven, with no FA substance whatsoever, peddled by networks and newspapers who want only to write about the Gerrards, Rooneys and Terrys of this world and not, it seems, the football of lower tiers which props up the planet's most famous league. The narrative of many lower league clubs make fascinating reading: Bournemouth's lack of money hasn't stopped them charging to the top of League One and their 32 year-old manager Eddie Howe being poached by Premiership-aspirant Burnley. Or Gus Poyet's men at Brighton, destined for a spot in the Championship for the first year in who knows how long? Have you heard about Norwich's rise from League One also-rans to Championship Playoff team? Even in the top division there are stories to tell: Newcastle's rise from the ashes and the everlasting inquiry into Ian Holloway's sanity spring instantly to the fingertips.

Perhaps you've heard of some of these tales. Perhaps not.

Surely football for its own sake should be enough.

The Hodgson exorcism, commenced

Let's be honest, Roy Hodgson's Liverpool career was probably never going to be a really long one. After steering Fulham to the Europa League final last year, his stock was as high as it was ever likely to be and given the traumatic last six months of the Rafa Benitez, then-Anfield execs Martin Broughton and Christian Purslow thought the controlled, effective manner of Hodgson would present a stark, much needed contrast to the mayhem that characterised the final, Hitler's bunker-style days of Benitez.

Unfortunately Hodgson wasn't so much handicapped from day one but never had any legs to stand on: by the club's impending sale, by player - and especially fan - resistance to his preferred style of play, by a lack of funds to buy "Liverpool quality" players, by Fernando Torres' inability to recapture his consistent excellent form of seasons past ... the list goes on. It was a matter of time before Roy was given his cards. His appalling away record - about as appealing as rat sorbet - brought with him from the Cottagers, must have counted against him nearly as much as the protests. It probably also didn't help that many middling Scouse efforts, Roy chose to announce them as their "best performances yet" which meant his credibility both in the dressing room and with The Kop began to waver early in the season.

It's also no surprise that Kenny Dalglish replaces him. "Our Ken" has been angling for a return to managing the Anfield mob for months now. By sniffing around like a beagle on heat, strategically-not-denying-interest and at times actively promoting it like a poor vaudevillian, he's excited the fans dreaming of a end to the tenures of Rafa and Roy. False hope, probably, but hope is a saleable asset in sports. When approached to help in the search for the new Liverpool boss, Dalglish made sure his name was top of the list. His return shouldn't inspire blind confidence in the Mersey faithful though, as his last spell as manager - though successful - ended twenty years ago and he hasn't managed for ten years. He does, however, remain a Liverpool icon and as such perhaps the board had that in mind when dismissing Hodgson in time for Dalglish to make his second manaagerial bow for Liverpool against Manchester United, rallying fans and players alike for their FA Cup clash against their great rivals.

Dalglish returns as caretaker manager, the man thrown to the Premier League wolves to save the Scouser's season. If he gets Torres, Gerrard etc back into touch then, given his status as a club legend, there's every chance he will have secured himself the position for the foxreseeable future.

The first step on Liverpool's new path to glory is on Sunday as they take on United in the FA Cup, a path sure to be long and eventful.