polpolpol

Given the arbitrary formula, the lack of any popular support, the crazy hosting time and, best of all, the lack of any motivation for clubs or players to compete, I must admit: I would love to see the officious administration of a tournament with such a petty, unjust and possibly illegal set of rules. Seriously, the imposition of anything this unpopular would be hilarious for anyone lucky enough to not be involved.

Maybe slightly, they say 1200 tests, but with 74 teams in the CL alone, each playing at least 2 games - on average, about 5 games - plus the Euro cup, you are looking at about 2 players per game being tested. That is more a sign that La Liga is very loose in its testing: http://www.uefa.com/uefa/footballfirst/protectingthegame/antidoping/news/newsid=1601485.html But still, this is only a urine test, and it seems that they are only interested in finding fairly simple steriods: stuff which is broken down in the body within 48 hours or so anyway. So you have a tiny chance of being tested, and it is only a problem if you've taken certain things right before the game. Note also that TUE's are mentioned. I think it is about 50% of tennis and cycling pro's who have sanctioned TUE's for respiriatory aids: http://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/AntiDoping/uefaorg/Anti-doping/93/79/49/937949_DOWNLOAD.pdf edit - As for the world cup, FIFA's position - well, Blatter's, which is effectively FIFA's - is that there is no problem in football regarding doping. 552 tests at the world cup, including 260 announced ones in pre-tournament training. 48 group games plus 16 knock out: http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/archive/southafrica2010/news/newsid=1280619/index.html The FIFA guidelines are just that there can be tests, but they dont legislate about what has to be tested for: http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afdeveloping/medical/6.17.%20fifa%20doping%20control%20regulations_1533.pdf

Real Madrid are looking to tighten up the doping controls in Spain. This is symptomatic of the hardening of positions regarding Barcalona's spectacular success at the moment. It looks like Spanish clubs are moving away from the belief that they can compete with Barcelona in the doping arms race to the realisation that the La Maisa academy is the 'Star Wars' programme of doping. Here is the gist of it, from another forum: “According to Marca, Real Madrid will probably demand a more rigid antidoping policy in La Liga. http://www.marca.com/2011/03/14/futb...300061219.html Currently, there is only one test for matchday, one player each team (just one match for matchday, not every single match). No blood test. No EPO or HGH detection. No tests on saturday's matches, just sunday's ones. In theory, it is possible to do additional tests any day, but that has never been done. You must be the most stupid footballer to get caught doped if you know when you can be tested, you know they can't catch you for using EPO or HGH, statistically just 2 players of your team are tested every season and there is not blood test.” “About the Barça's doctors, one of them is Ramón Segura, who was Guardiola's personal doctor when he was tested positive and is related to De Boers' and Meca's positives as well.” The fact that there aren't blood, EPO or HGH tests is incredible, generation 2 doping is still about gains in endurance, but particularly about gains in recovery time. The kind of thing that allows Barcelona to run around like they do without suffering the expected level of injury or fatigue. Other stuff: France doped in '98: http://blogs.hereisthecity.com/2010/08/26/france_doctor_alleges_1998_world_cup_winners_had_blood_test_anom/ Parma were loaded with EPO in the 90's: http://www.lanacion.com.ar/112713-la-polemica-por-el-doping-tambien-estallo-en-parma Doping suspected in Germany: http://www.german-times.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1834&Itemid=74 And it happens at lower tiers in England: http://www.independent.ie/sport/soccer/the-drugs-do-work-and-thats-why-players-cant-say-no-2577489.html The last two are pretty interesting, It seems that the implicit contract between the players and the clubs is that the players don't ask, and the clubs don't tell, although people like Wenger have been saying for years "that some clubs dope players without their knowledge." You can see why this is the only effective way in a game like football where a lot of players are rejected by the clubs, and could be considered prime candidates for whistle-blowing.

0-0 double on the CL games tonight. It was about a minute from working out in the first leg... Every team except Inter has something to lose if they don't play to keep it tight, and I suspect Inter will try and keep it 0-0 until the later part of the second half before taking risks.

I have it down as a good bet: Wolves : 3.49 Tottenham : 2.14 The Draw : 4.03 for a scoreline: 1 - 2 : 8.17 Any Unquoted : 11.15

Freiburg @2.6 look value against Bremen, who stink of failure. edit - maybe not.

Rod Liddle writing about football? FWIW Joey should sue the little s***... calling someone a lunatic in a serious paper is crossing the line. And he's clearly only mildly deranged now, he hasn't done anything lunatic for at least a few months. I read that and the Eye's piece was itself written like the gutter press articles it so despises and trys to ridicule. Sad. Not a big deal, but I'm all for people with deep pockets going after irresponsible journalism. The rampant spread of "Murdochism" means that nowadays the press think they can print anything they want, and of course even listen into private conversations if they fancy. does anyone have a link for these articles? in full: ““This being January, Newcastle United are on the search for lunatics” Rod Liddle wrote in his Sunday Times column last month. “They already have one of course, Joey Barton, but what if Barton is injured or undergoing ECT one week? The answer is – let's sign Stephen Ireland. He's totally bonkers” Mild stuff by Liddle's standards? Not according to his London lawyers, Messrs Clintons, who want an apology and damages. The article, they claim, has caused the sensitive sportsman “considerable pain and embarrassment” being “clearly defamatory and likely to bring our client into disrepute”. So how, er, “sensitive” is Joey Barton? Well, he stubbed out a lit cigar in a youth's eye at a Christmas party in 2004, was sent home from a Far East tournament the next summer for beating up a 15 year old. In May 2007 he thumped a team mate so violently he detached a retina, and in May 2008 he was given six moths in jail after punching a man unconscious and beating up a teenager. Barton's lawyers insist that his problems are “behind him” and that, since jail, he is now “a role model for young people”. Really? In may 20098, Newcastle suspended him for what manager Alan Shearer called “a coward's tackle” that saw him sent off. Last November he punched a Blackburn player in the chest, and just before Christmas he made lewd gestures at Liverpool's Fernando Torres and called him a “fucking poof”. Oddly enough the Sunday Times seems disinclined to grovel to the Clintons' letter." ------ It seems like the Eye is making a fair point. What is Barton going to argue, that these bursts of rage are the product of calculated rationality rather than luncay? edit: Can't find the original Liddle bit, probably behind The Times' paywall, but he has a history of going after Barton. The second one sums it up for me. All that "higher calling" stuff is a symptom of something: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/columnists/rod_liddle/article6968305.ece or http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/columnists/rod_liddle/article4449472.ece

Gets a mention in Private Eye this edition: ““This being January, Newcastle United are on the search for lunatics” Rod Liddle wrote in his Sunday Times column last month. “They already have one of course, Joey Barton, but what if Barton is injured or undergoing ECT one week? The answer is – let's sign Stephen Ireland. He's totally bonkers” Mild stuff by Liddle's standards? Not according to his London lawyers, Messrs Clintons, who want an apology and damages. The article, they claim, has caused the sensitive sportsman “considerable pain and embarrassment” being “clearly defamatory and likely to bring our client into disrepute”.” It goes on to explain that Barton is, in fact, a shit, providing ample evidence of his failings, before casting doubts on his chances of getting anywhere with the action. It certainly seems a bit frivolous. I wonder if he has been advised to do this, or has something against The Times?

The odds on the Liverpool Prague game being high scoring look pretty high, considering the disparity in league quality.

Glad Arsenal won, though I'm beginning to think my hatred of Barcelona might be a little churlish. A lot of it can be attributed to the unholy aerial abilities of Messi or Xavi on Pro-evo, resulting in their ability to out-jump Standard's 6' centre backs with such regularity, and the ensuing trash talk of some 12 year old French kid which is coming out of your TV speakers. Anyway, the second goal is a classic example of how Barca can be beaten. The initial pass out of defence (the fourth from the end - I think it was Fabregas to Wilshire) was made when four Barca players were crowded around the passer. Four players - that is a whole midfield out of position. So long as a player can push the ball out of the pocket of Barca pressure, the spaces left by these four players are open to exploitation. I know this is a calculated form of defensive strategy from Guardiola, but it think that its efficacy so far stems from novelty rather than probability. I was hammering on about this after the Madrid game:

I prefer to see a team that can execute a plan, even if it is a basic one like Stoke's, to a team which has no idea what it is doing and is just a disjointed mess (West Ham). So: 1. Blackpool 2. Spurs 3. Arsenal (think they have atrophied a bit in midfield movement this year) 4. Sunderland (like their tempo) 5. Aston Villa (number of players who work between the lines = interesting) 6. Bolton (a bit overshadowed by Blackpool in the play your-own-game-not-theirs stakes) 7. Liverpool (quite like this new back 3 idea) 8. Newcastle 9. Stoke (their plan is simplistic, but at least they can execute it) 10. Wigan 11. Man U (lucky above all else) 12. West Brom (noble aims, practical ineptitude) 13. Everton (like what they down at sides of pitch, not so much in centre) 14. Wolves (a worse Stoke) 15. Man City 16. Chelsea (this low on current form. They play like a through-ball-happy 7 year old on pro-evo) 17. Birmingham (seem to have no strategy, only tactics) 18. Blackburn (again, pure pragmatism) 19. Fulham (about as mobile as a fussball team) 20. West Ham

His taking of the ball on the half-turn and his distribution remind me a lot of Scholes (evidence of latter below in unsightly, large picture. Tiote on top, Scholes the left and centre of the bottom row). It wouldn't surprise me if Ferguson interested in him as a replacement for Carrick ((the old new-Scholes) as seen below, bottom right, giving the ball away too often). http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/7654/tiotevsscholes.jpg

Non causa pro causa. At best a false appreciation of Pardew's agency in the determination of any result; a classic case of causal oversimplification. Even more worryingly, you show no evident understanding of the plurality of sufficient causes of a goal event in a football game. Additionally, I have some concerns about the sample set you have chosen to use. A much more interesting thesis would be how you think the next 11 games will go, instead of commenting only after the accident of what happens to have been.

red button Sky Player. I don't think I have one.

Sky need to skip this 'anlysis' and get the Real-Real game on. OItherwise I'll have to keep reading Yahoo!'s drivel: http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/1333/56694963.jpg

The Liverpool XI must be the slowest group of players ever to play in the Premier League. What a pisspoor game.

Meireles to score anytime @ 9; looks good if he's upfront for Liverpool.

My calculations for Stoke 1 - 2 Sunderland are that it should be 7.49, and its about 20 on betfair, so a cheeky five on that for the early game.

The principle of this tactical jiggery-pokery is to end up with (1) a spare player covering at the back and (2) your best attacking option to be 1-1 with the opposition and (3) some potential overloads. Going 3 at the back against one or three upfront is a man two few or too many. 3 at the back is designed to counter a standard 442, with two stoppers and a sweeper dealing with the defensive phase and the central CB getting into midfield to make an extra man in transition. All good in theory, but the problem is that most teams now are fairly plastic in their tactical approach, and the 442 can easily be adapted into 4312, 4231 and such in game time, whereas 3 at the back is for 90 minutes, not just for christmas. There isn't much point in utilising a tactical disposition as a matter of strategy – this is how we play, regardless – it is all abut dealing with with the specific tactical stratagems of the immediate opposition. Once we're sure we have enough defensive cover, what I'd like to see our manger do is to try and jig it so we have parity or better down the left flank, where our players who run with the ball 1v1 are stationed (Enrique and Jonas). This is the bit of the pitch where we want to prevent to opposition having a covering player, so if either of them run / wall pass around their opposing counterpart, they are clear to get to the byline. (What was good about Carroll was that as a left footer, he would err to the left side of the pitch, getting between right full back and centre back, and making that right back tuck in a bit. Ameboi and Ranger always drift to their left, which stops this.) Down the right and in the centre our reliance on long balls / aerial play, which is essentially a % game, means we can operate more effectively even when outnumbered.

I'm going for low scoring games in Serie A, of which the nadir is: http://img821.imageshack.us/img821/1254/oddsm.jpg

I can understand this viewpoint but when Sunderland sold Bent I can remember saying that a cold hard look at it would suggest that Sunderland had sold him at his optimum value and personally I felt he was on a downward spiral at Sunderland anyway. While Carroll is a different case there was always a part of me that wondered if he didn't continue in this vein next season we would never get this sort of money for him again. Unfortunately to keep players when the big clubs come calling will mean smashing our wage structure which we obviously aren't prepared to do yet. This round of transfer activity is driven by Chelsea's willingness to spend big before the impact of the finical fair play rules. There's no guarantee that once the roundabout stops spinning now, anyone will be driving it with such big investments in the future. are the fair play rules actually coming into effect? and what do they mean? From 2011-2012 season the operating loss made over each three year period will not be able to break a certain level. In the initial period (up to 2015) that will be £38 million, so one contemporary Andy Carroll blows it all. Of course, Liverpool wouldn't be in trouble, because they sold Torres for the money. But Chelsea would not have been able to roll the first stone by magicking up £50 million if the rules were in place now. Once the loss making clubs are no longer in a position to drive the market, there should be some deflation in fees. right. so whatever you bring in, you can only spend 38m more than that? is that it? Theoretically. But a load of things are deductible from the running coast calculations like academy development, so there will be a bit of room for fudging the books to make it add up. It should take a few years before sufficient legal/populist/investigative pressure is put on clubs to really comply, but making big money transfers isn't going to look too good for borderline cases.

That's how we roll in the avant-garde.

This obsession with the 'other', or 'plastic' fans' enjoyment and the idea that they are somehow acquiring it illegitimately or in bad-faith stinks of paranoia. If anyone is or (seems to be) enjoying a situation what is the problem? It is quite the sickness to attempt such an ill tempered dissection of it (as if there would be anything at its core!) as I see in this thread. The only thing that reveals is a terrible sob of anguish: “why are they stealing the enjoyment/I should be enjoying” As for the paranoid construction of the 'plastic fan', what are you opposing to it? Anybody who can't accept plasticity is inured in the most horrible conservatism, and if there has to be a reaction formation – so that your own “solidness” can give you a hard on - that's a sorry state of affairs. The problem with this idea that there is some final or legitimate case with which it can be determined that you are a true 'fan' is that it turns into a horrific race to the bottom. To me, it just sounds like a paean to travail, famille, patrie and all those other palaeolithic formations that sluice up desire: “They enjoy, but my desire is Real”. What poppycock and nonsense: a desire for the Law and the ever-same.

Villa look quite backable @ 10, the fact that Man U are techincally "unbeatable" will have pushed that up quite a bit. Especially if it can be laid-off in play after Villa score and before the dreaded comeback.

I can understand this viewpoint but when Sunderland sold Bent I can remember saying that a cold hard look at it would suggest that Sunderland had sold him at his optimum value and personally I felt he was on a downward spiral at Sunderland anyway. While Carroll is a different case there was always a part of me that wondered if he didn't continue in this vein next season we would never get this sort of money for him again. Unfortunately to keep players when the big clubs come calling will mean smashing our wage structure which we obviously aren't prepared to do yet. This round of transfer activity is driven by Chelsea's willingness to spend big before the impact of the finical fair play rules. There's no guarantee that once the roundabout stops spinning now, anyone will be driving it with such big investments in the future. are the fair play rules actually coming into effect? and what do they mean? From 2011-2012 season the operating loss made over each three year period will not be able to break a certain level. In the initial period (up to 2015) that will be £38 million, so one contemporary Andy Carroll blows it all. Of course, Liverpool wouldn't be in trouble, because they sold Torres for the money. But Chelsea would not have been able to roll the first stone by magicking up £50 million if the rules were in place now. Once the loss making clubs are no longer in a position to drive the market, there should be some deflation in fees.