New season predictions

Arsenal will get a top four finish.  We will be top at the new year. We won't win a trophy.
A team from Manchester will win the league, with Chelsea second. The other Manchester team third.

I think it might be City this year.  The FA Cup will be won by someone from the middle of the Premier League.

Arsenal will continue to lose matches they dominate and won't sort out our defensive frailties.

England will have at least two Champions League semi-finalists, but won't win the trophy.

Spurs will continue to be annoying.

Football: writing history

I saw a post on another blog about the sale of Sheffield FC's manuscript rules of the game and comparing it with the price raised by the Jane Austen manuscript.
The BBC report of the auction of an old set of rules by Sheffield FC appears to be contradicted by other sources of information.
It is not disputed that modern association football is descended from rules drawn up by Cambridge University Football club. The 1848 original is lost, but a copy from 1856 is, it appears, in the library at Shrewsbury School. 
The 1848 Cambridge rules evolved into the 1863 edition, that were pretty close to the first official Football Association rules. The Sheffield Rules were another contributing stream, but not the only one.

The version auctioned is from 1857. So it is not, as claimed, the oldest surviving rules.

(This is to ignore that the rules have changed significantly since then anyway.)

The fact that FIFA and the FA still insist that Sheffield is older than Cambridge University Football Club has more to do with wanting a narrative for the sport than any historical accuracy: it is better for an industrial northern town to be the oldest team than an elite educational establishment.

(I will admit as Cambridge resident to a certain bias.)

Preseason footy: Greentown v Arsenal

Watching the second half of Arsenal's game in China against Hangzhou Greentown it seems a case of more of the same. I am grateful, from the comments made on the video stream by the Arsenal commentators, that I missed the first half.  I shall remain from commenting further on the fact that I am writing about a live football game in July.

Arsenal battered poor Greentown for nearly all of the second half. The game was pretty much Arsenal camping outside their penalty area.

This is, of course, familiar from last season.

Despite that Arsenal didn't score.

This is, of course, familiar from last season.

And on the rare ocassions that Greentown could break they managed to get behind our centre backs.

This is, of course, familiar from last season.

What is different is that the defenders covered for each other better, and Greentown didn't score against the run of play. Whether this is because Arsenal defended better or that Greentown weren't good enough to stretch Arsenal is open to question.

We created plenty of chances, but couldn't convert. Praise must go to the opposition goalie, who made several very good saves after what I felt was a shaky start. But questions about ruthlessness already suggest themselves.

This is, of course, familiar from last season.

There are positives from this:

• The midfield trio of Ramsey-Wilshire-Song looks pretty good. Given the Cesc situation that is important.
• This was my first chance to see Miyaichi: he looked pretty lively and involved.
• New signing Jenkinson looked to have good feet (apart from one embarassing slip right at the start.)

Another thing to comment on is the use of the 4-3-3 formation.
This is, of course, familiar from last season.

Looking at the very brief highlight showing Arsenal's first half goal it appears this came when Vela drifted in to the middle from his wing position, allowing him to bundle in the rebound from Van Persie's shot: we looked a bit more like 4-4-2.  Both Theo and Miyaichi did well to get into the middle, and Ramsey and Wilshire supported Chamakh well in the second half, but I would like to see more flexibility in formation: could we have a plan b earlier, and mix it up more.  No sign of that here.

This is, of course, familiar from last season.

Overall an enjoyable half, but no end product.

This is, of course, familiar from last season.

Both the Premier League and I am back

Not that half the world cares about the former, and even less care about the latter.

There hasn't been enough downtime between seasons: there were two weekends off between the World Cup final (11 July) and the Emirates cup (31st July), and a glance at Arsenal's fixture list shows they were playing matches against Barnet and had their two games in Austria in that time. Too much footy for me. Am I getting old?

Anyway time for the usual preseason optimism, and a few predictions.

First, my optimism doesn't extend to an Arsenal league win. It does tell me that Arsenal will finish above Spurs for the 16th season in a row. (I do not teach anyone who was alive when Spurs last finished above Arsenal!)

I am also not optimistic about the opening weekend. I'd settle for a draw, but that might be beyond us against a Liverpool team who ought to be fired up for the new manager.

Sticking my neck out: The league will be won by Manchester United. Chelsea will be second. Arsenal will get a champion's league place, but will be out of the championship race by February. They may top the league in early December leading to me starting to think I'm wrong and we can do it.

The game I'm just watching will provide the fourth placed finish team. I hope it will be City and not Spurs. Today I am cheering on City. Also what are Autonomy doing sponsoring Spurs?

Relegation: haven't a clue. Blackpool probably. Two others from the other two up, and the teams who got under 50 points last season.

World Cup Final

I'm cheering for the Netherlands following my "Arsenal players" policy: Van Persie has played more than Cesc, and van Bronckhorst used to be a Gunner.

It has been a good tournament overall. A very slow start, but we've had some cracking games since. Germany's demolition jobs were impressive, but they weren't enough to get rid of the Spanish. We've had controversy and cheating (Uruguay's last minute handball versus Ghana, which the ref got spot on). We finally had goals from free kicks and range as people got used to that ball. (Japan's two against Denmark will live in the memory.)

Better yet is a final that guarantees a new name on the trophy and between two teams playing football worth watching. The final could be disappointing (they often are), but the best teams got there.

Suddenly...

For some reason I don't feel so embarassed by the 4-1 defeat by Germany.

Overall it's been a good knock out and quarter finals, with plenty of shocks. You have to feel sorry for Ghana, especially for Gyan. Gyan had been the best player for the (limited) parts I saw, but then missed the last second penalty.

The round of 16 saw 22 goals in 8 games, the quarters 9 in 3. Although the Spain-Paraguay game looks determined to make it 9 in 4. This is almost certainly enough to lift the tournament above Italia'90 (currently it has reached 2.2 assuming I'm right about the second half).

The dominance of South America has evaporated following the German and Dutch wins over the two favourites. I can't see Uruguay beating the Netherlands given they scraped past Korea with a late goal, and needed luck and a shootout to beat Ghana. The Dutch are the only team with 100% record.

Don't forget that the Dutch are the Unofficial World Champions (this tournament will reunify the titles for the first time since 1998 (in 2002 and 2006 the UWC's didn't qualify)).

Goal line technology

Well that was pretty awful. England's second goal should have stood and should have hidden a woeful performance: I couldn't see us being so gung-ho at 2-2 as we were at 2-1. Germany would probably have still won though: they were much better than England.

So what could be done about the ridiculous goal line decision? I'm not convinced by the introduction of technology but I'm even less convinced by FIFA's arguments against.

According to the media there seem to be three basic issues and one lame one that they raise:

1. Fans enjoy debating the controversy
2. That it can't be done everywhere, so it shouldn't be done anywhere (so called "universality of the Laws of the Game")
3. It would interrupt the game too much
4. That it costs too much

Let's look at these one by one...

Controversy

It is clearly true to say fans enjoy discussing decisions, but irrelevant. We want games decided by footballers not random, poor or corrupt referees. The reason I mention the last is that Brian Clough's Derby team were robbed by a corrupt ref (who later admitted it). There is enough unavoidable controversy without allowing for a load of avoidable and unnecessary problems. Surely FIFA want to remove the really bad decisions: otherwise they can let me ref the world cup final.

This is not a sound argument.

Universality

They make a big issue of this and it simply isn't true. Competitive football is different all the way down the pecking order. At big games (internationals and premier league) there are a ref, two linesmen, and a fourth and fifth official. As you go down the levels you lose these step by step. At village football level you often have a ref and club linesmen, in pub leagues you just have a ref. At the level I played competitive football we had club refs (you'd nominate a player to ref the first half, and the other team the other).

We already accept different levels of officiating as we go down, so this is not a sound argument.

Interruptions

This one has some merit, but is not impossible to work round. Firstly these incidents are rare, I don't recall two in a game.

The ref can stop the game for various reasons and does (if a player is injured, to administer a booking, if an outside influence interferes). Just give the ref the power to stop the game for a check with an appropriate restart. Or give each team an appeal and if they win it they get it back, if they lose it they can't appeal again and the opposition have an indirect free kick.

Or just get the fifth official to check the video and radio the ref who can take the game back. The fifth official hasn't much to do anyway. No interruption at all, but how long can you give for it to be decided?

So there is an issue here, but it can be rationed (like substitutions) and would be rare. It isn't like a wicket in cricket.

Cost

Don't make me laugh. However these incidents are incredibly rare so is it worth it? That however is a different argument.

Conclusion?

FIFA's arguments aren't that good. There is a problem to be addressed concerning interruptions in the game but that could be resolved with creative thinking.

As I said I'm not convinced that the change should be made. I agree with IFAB that the way ahead could be for two extra assistants at big matches (as mentioned in this account of the IFAB meeting). (Remember it isn't FIFA who set the rules, though they have an effective veto.)Ironically, England and Scotland voted in favour of technology at that meeting, and were voted down by FIFA, Wales and Ireland.

I wasn't quite totally wrong...

But not far off.

Called Denmark over Japan. Denmark looked better until the first amazing goal (and the first superb free kick of the tournament), then collapsed and the Japanese looked so much better. The second free kick was superb (the better of the two), and the final goal was a good well worked chance. Got Netherlands correct, but hardly a difficult shout. 1 out of 2.

As for group F, and I quote "Italy can't be as bad as they were against New Zealand again." Well I was right, but they were worse until the last few minutes, and Paraguay failed to beat the Kiwis. 0 out of 2 on calls, 1 out of 2 on advances.

Group G: Forgot Brazil's coach was Dunga. Again 1 out of 2 on results, but got the 2 advancers.

Group H: Spain did win, but Switzerland didn't make it exciting. I am pleased as Chile and Spain have been exciting to watch.

Anyway the gpg looks more normal now. Teams have got used to the ball (if that was the problem), and whilst we are still likely to have a below average tournament (and the 103 goals in 48 group games is in line for an all time low at 2.15 per game) it isn't as bad as at the start. The last round was 2.25 gpg, broadly in line with Germany. Will the KO rounds be above or below the group stage? Recent history is mixed with 2 above (USA and France) and 3 below (Italy, Germany and Japan/Korea).

I have found the anaylsis of the world cup on US political site 538 quite interesting. They have used the ESPN Soccer Power Index ratings in a model of the tournament and used Monte Carlo methods to predict the chance of teams getting through. They have Uruguay, Netherlands and Brazil advancing in that half with a fifty-fifty call for USA-Ghana. In England's half they have Paraguay and Argentina, with tighter calls for England and Spain.

Looking at the ties I'd say I agree with that, save for calling for USA by comfortably in that game (see 538's blog post which I agree with), and thinking Germany-England could well go to penalties...

Excellent weekend of football ahead however!

Starting to look good

This Sunday are two really mouth watering games in prospect: Germany v England and Argentina v Mexico. Saturday's games look like the warm up.

Mexico are much underrated and were unlucky to get South Africa for the opening match. That said they were disappointing against Uruguay. The Argentians have just looked very good. I think that Argentina will win but it should be exciting.

Germany England on the other hand will just be nerve wracking. As long as it doesn't go to penalties (and yes I know the Germans missed the first penalty since Bismarck in 1882 or whenever)...

England have yet to look like they are really fired up. If they can't do it against the Germans then they never will.

My predictions for Groups AB and D were mixed: I called the right teams but wrong score in group A (although I called SAfrica over France), in group B I was spot on, in group D I didn't allow for Serbia self destructing (or Australia's scintillating performance) but got the right teams.

What about today and tomorrow's groups then.

Group E:
Netherlands will get at least a draw to win the group against a woeful Cameroon. I had higher hopes of them. My eurocentricism makes me call Denmark against Japan. But it'll be close.

Group F:
This afternoon's games I can't see not going to form. Paraguay top, Italy second. Italy can't be as bad as they were against New Zealand again.

Group G:
A gap of 9 goals is too much for Ivory Coast to make up. Portugal will lose to Brazil and go through on a slightly better goal difference.

Group H:
Oooh tricky. Spain need to beat Chile. Chile could beat Spain. Could the Swiss sneak through by beating Honduras? Too close to call, but this is a huge test for Spain. Can they find the cutting edge. If I have to make a prediction Spain will win 1-0, and we might have a draw to seperate Switzerland and Chile. Not confident about it though.

I also looked at the goals per game, and round 2 of the group game was an improvement. In the 16 second round group games we had 42 goals at 2.63 gpg, compared to 25 at 1.56 in the first 16 games. Round 3 has reverted to type though: lots of tense 1-0s (often very enjoyable like Ghana v Germany) means we have had 16 in 8 games (exactly 2 per game).

The tournament has broken through to 2.08 goals per game, it might beat Italia 90 yet.

Settling back to below normal

I think I spoke too soon.

Since the bright start things have settled down. After the Australia v Ghana game (a suprisingly entertaining affair) we have fallen to 21 goals in 9 games, back to 2.33 goals per game. At least that is in line with other tournaments.

England were woeful. So disappointing to watch that performance. What is worrying is the lack of any innovation. Rooney was poor up front, and pointless as a left winger. Surely a switch to 4-3-3 isn't that scary?

However to keep it in perspective: we beat Slovenia we are through. Slovenia may be top of the group but they are a European opponent and that may suit our style of play. After all we did alright against Europeans in qualifying. Of course we had a fit Walcott then.

Wright-Philips was the closest to a high spot in the team, and you can't be rude about Joe Cole because we haven't seen him play, but I am starting to wonder if Theo should have been picked. This is entirely benefit of hindsight, I agreed with the selection at the time, but we need something different. Maybe Capello needs to play Cole, but I agree with whichever pundit said that if Cole is the answer you're asking the wrong question.

The big issue is at centre back. Carragher is banned. King is crocked. Ferdinand is Emiled. I'd guess it'll be Terry and Upson, but we are well down the pecking order. Dawson (who is probably next when Terry gets sent off or whatever), it should be noted, has the princely total of 0 caps.

Anyway I remain cautiously optimistic about reaching the knock out stages.

Looking at the other groups that have played 2 games:

Group A: France are relying on Mexico wanting to win the group. That isn't impossible: would you want to face Argentina, or would you prefer South Korea, Greece or Nigeria? France could still get there, but I suspect South Africa might want a result more than the current French team. Somehow I suspect Uruguay and Mexico will play out a 0-0 draw and get through.

Group B: Argentina are solid. I suspect that means Greece are going to get thrashed. Nigeria have been disappointing, so I suspect South Korea might sneak through the middle. Argentina and S Korea.

Group D: I suspect Germany will beat Ghana, which would mean the winner of Serbia v Australia would be in with a shout. However (assuming wikipedia is right about the tie break method) Australia would have a huge goal difference to overcome, and I think Serbia are better anyway. Germany and Serbia I think.

Anyway the next game in my football marathon is in a couple of hours. Cameroon v Denmark.

Then again I could do something else instead...

More world cup woes: How to decide who to support in a random game

So you have a game, lets say Honduras v Chile. Obviously you'll be watching it because it is on TV/Radio/t'Internet. But who do you support?

You don't have any grandparents from Honduras or Chile. None of your club team play for the countries, and none of their big rivals players do either. You've never visited either, or met anyone as far as you know from the countries. None have a particular history against your first choice nations. You don't have either in the sweepstake, and the match prediction game you entered you are already last in...

so...

My wife suggests

• Whose manager has the worst suit
• The goalkeeper with silliest ("most original") hair (Algeria!) or worst keeper kit (D Seaman for England in the Refresher kit)
• Team whose kit is most like your favourite team's kit
• Team who look most like Harchester Utd
• Players with most/least/biggest/silliest hair
• Best national anthem (I'd say "shortest")
• Team with most players with the same surname (a good way to chose one of the Koreas)

I'd go for the country with most Liberal MPs if I could be bothered to look it up.

World Cup Woes

I'm currently watching Serbia v Ghana. It is 0-0. I've watched a lot of football, and I know most games in the opening days of tournaments are disappointing but...

We've had lots of hype about the ball being a problem for keepers (I guess it must deform in odd ways that interact with the spin) but it has actually been worse for the attackers.

When I agree with the ITV pundits that a free kick that only just missed the target is the best we've seen so far it isn't good!

In the 6 games so far we've had 8 goals, an average of 1.3 per game(see footnote).

In complete tournaments the worst was Italia '90 at 2.2. Almost an extra goal. The first 7 games of that tournament yielded 20 goals, nearly 3 per game. That was helped by two mismatches (Czechoslovakia 5-1 USA and West Germany 4-1 Yugoslavia. Hmmm... only one of those countries exists today.)

I hope it catches fire soon but I'm pessimistic.

In other news ITV's apology for making HD viewers (of which I am not one) miss England's opening goal was pathetic. Not good enough. Much in line with the rest of their football coverage.

Footnote: I know it is 1 1/3 or 1.3333333.... but meh.