A Beautiful Thread for the Beautiful Game

So, how do you see the next Qualifiers round? Here is South America's matches:

Thursday:

Colombia-Bolivia

Uruguay-Brazil

Paraguay-Ecuador

Argentina-Chile

Venezuela-Peru

Tuesday 28th:

Bolivia-Argentina

Ecuador-Colombia

Chile-Venezuela

Brazil-Paraguay

Peru-Uruguay.

Wake me up at your own risk.

I'm not really following the qualifying matches anymore after Venezuela's deplorable performances in them. So it's in many ways a period of vacation for me as far as watching matches goes.

135 - 169 - 273 - 191 - 188 - 230 - 300

I hope Alexis won't be playing for Chile. I'm sure he wants to, but that tackle on him in the last game (against WBA) was pretty awful, and Wenger said the ankle didn't look good after the game. He shouldn't risk getting injured.

Then again, Chile is probably much more important for him than Arsenal, even if the games were friendlies. These are qualifiers, so maybe he'd rather play and miss Arsenal games than rest and play for Arsenal.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

At the very least, it should be noted that Chile, you know, plays to win. They should give us that much, and that should make a huge difference between playing for Chile and playing for Arsenal.

Wake me up at your own risk.

That's true. Chile have more chance of winning the World Cup next year than Arsenal have of being in the Champions League next season (and just being in it doesn't mean you're competing for anything, either).

It must be horrible to be a world class player like him at a club that struggles to teach mediocrity. Arsenal have self-destructed to the same degree that Chelsea did last season, and Manchester United did under Moyes. It's time to rebuild from scratch, and while it would be nice to have Alexis involved next season (and also trying to limit the damage this season by at least challenging for Europa League football), I completely understand that if he's called up by Chile he'll consider it more important than Arsenal. For most of Arsenal players this season, if they lost a game and then spilled a cup of coffee the next morning, they'll worry more about the spilled coffee than the game.

If Alexis wants to at least help Arsenal mitigate the devastation they're set for at the season's end, I really hope he'll play all the remaining games for Arsenal. That probably means he'll still play both of Chile's games and hope to avoid injuries - but chances are, he's already injured going in, but will play, anyway.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

As bad and as dysfunctional as things were for Chelsea last season, it's notable that this season's resurgence kept together the exact same core group of players, with only two new additions and one returning player who was allowed to depart before the team's collapse.

Outside of changing managers (if that much even happens), it remains to be seen how many key Arsenal players other than Giroud may still have—or even want to have—a role to play following any kind of anticipated overhaul.

So, who do you think is gonna miss the World Cup, and who do you feel that, even if they qualify, they'll just go to punch the clock?

Wake me up at your own risk.

United States?

In the AFC, Japan or Australia, depending on what Saudi Arabia does in their group.

In the CAF, either Cameroon or Algeria, unless Nigeria loses points in the next two or three matches. Also, either South Africa or Senegal, unless Burkina Faso fails to deliver, after the good form they showed at the AFCON.

In the UEFA, either Sweden or Netherlands, Denmark or Romania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Turkey.

edited 21st Mar '17 9:55:14 AM by Quag15

Arsenal had their best season in a long time in 2013-14, and after that, they've been consistently absolute shit. After almost every game Arsenal have won, I've been left feeling sort of vicariously embarrassed for the other team and the fact they were beaten by that. (There's a Finnish word - myötähäpeä - for feeling embarrassed at something you see someone else doing, and that's a word I would have used if it existed in the English language.)

The squad hasn't changed a whole lot since then, considering that was almost 3 full seasons ago. If anything, the players that have come in have been improvements - at least on paper - over the players Arsenal had then. Still, the performance of the team has degraded. Intuitively, it feels that a new manager with new ideas (especially about motivating the players to give an actual fuck about the game) should be able to get a lot more out of this team.

Of course, it must also be pointed out that anyone who would not be able to keep Arsenal in the top-4 for 20 seasons and through the Champions League group stage for at least 15 seasons consecutively would be an utter and complete failure, even if they won the league and FA Cup a couple of times during those years. That's the floor. the lowest expectation for any Arsenal manager now. Wenger is being driven out of the club because he has made that floor his ceiling, and now he can't seem to even reach it anymore. The possibility that a new manager might not be able to stay in the top-4 for even 10, let alone 20, seasons consecutively is the reason why the board is still eager to keep Wenger. Of course, you could argue that winning the league and then dropping out of the top-4 is better than finishing in the top-4 10 or 20 times, but there you go.

Some of the recent comments from the club have suggested that they're willing to spend the sort of money this summer that they did last summer. Of course, there are clubs that can spend that and more on a single player and still spend the same amount again spread over a number of other transfers. That means Arsenal are not competitive, especially if they can't even offer Champions League football. Still, if by some miracle the key players choose to stay and accept that they've been mediocre and need to do better, maybe £100 million is enough to improve the squad in a position or two.

There will be some departures, to be sure. The veterans - Cazorla, Koscielny, Mertesacker, Cech - are probably happy to stay, even without the hope of trophies. Some of the other high-profile players, such as Ramsey and Xhaka, have long and well-playing contracts that they probably wouldn't get at other clubs. The most ambitious players, though, are most likely to want to go, and who can blame them. Ospina, for one, should be sold, both for his sake and for the club's. Szczesny is set to return next summer, as there's currently no deal with Roma, and if he gets to learn from Cech for a season or two before becoming the #1, he should be content to stay. He's had a taste of playing for a real club in Italy, but to be honest, that's a one-horse league so playing for the 2nd best team there isn't really any different than playing for a top-4 contender in England. (Are Arsenal going to be a top-4 contender, though? That remains to be seen; right now I'd say no, not even close.)

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

Is there any chance of Arsenal holding down one of Özil and Sanchez to a new contract? (I would already imagine it would be nigh impossible to for Arsenal keep both of them, no matter any other possible outcomes or circumstances this late in the season)

If neither of them are at the club next season, is there anyone short of another new marquee signing or two for the club to build a core team around to meet their ambitions?

And is this now the Running Joke Du Joir?

There's a chance of keeping both Özil and Sanchez if they're willing to settle for a lot of money while lowering their ambition. Arsenal are very unlikely to get Champions League football for next season, and that definitely is a problem, but clubs like Liverpool and Tottenham and Everton often manage to keep their best players even without Champions League football. Chelsea and Manchester United have also been out of the Champions League at times, yet their key players generally stay.

Of course, these clubs are offering their top players higher wages than Arsenal, but if the club are suddenly willing to spend, they could offer Özil and Alexis about £250k a week each.

Arsenal are one of the world's biggest clubs financially, well above what you'd expect for a club with so little recent success, so if the other players can accept that the top is going to drift from the middle of the wage bill, it could happen.

Do the key players want Wenger to stay? Who knows. Publicly, both Özil and Alexis have said that they wouldn't have come to Arsenal if Wenger wasn't there, but who knows if that's true, either (and whether their opinion has changed). If Wenger stays, the club agrees to spend a lot more, and the players decide loyalty is more important at this point than ambition, maybe they'll stay. Very unlikely, though.

If they go, there have to be new signings to replace them. Out of Arsenal's current players, only Cazorla and Koscielny match the contribution of Alexis and Özil. At least those two are likely to stay, but they're pretty old by now and Cazorla is often injured. (His injury, after all, ended Arsenal's season this time around.) Alexis and Özil are both approaching the end of their contract, but in today's market you'd still expect to get something like £35-50 million for each of them. That money would have to be spent on world-class replacements, if any want to come to Arsenal.

The core of the last decent Arsenal season (in no particular order) was Ramsey, Wilshere, Cazorla, Özil, Sagna, Mertesacker, Koscielny, Giroud, Rosicky, Arteta, Gibbs, Szczesny. (I looked up the appearances in that season to make sure I wasn't including anyone who shouldn't be there.)

Sagna left after that season, Szczesny has had two loan spells and Wilshere has had one, and Rosicky and Arteta have both left/retired later. Other than that, the squad is still there. That season, Özil, Ramsey, Wilshere, and a couple of other players had a lot of injury problems, which is the main reason Arsenal didn't achieve more then. They must've lost about 15-20 points just to those injuries.

After that, squad depth in almost all positions has improved, and some of the players that have been brought in are better, on paper, than the ones who left. (That squad included the likes of Monreal, Podolski, Fabianski, Flamini, and Walcott on the fringes, as well - Walcott, of course, was mainly injured, rather than dropped for form.)

So the core of the squad that last impressed for Arsenal is almost entirely still there. Tactically, it's still very similar to back then, except there's a bit more emphasis on movement and space in the attack, and perhaps the central midfield sits back a bit more these days.

In terms of players, the most notable changes are:

• Ospina/Cech replacing Szczesny, which right now looks pretty much like-for-like (Szczesny also shared the Golden Glove with Cech that season.) Fabianski was the back-up 'keeper then, and he's arguably been better at Swansea than Ospina has been at Arsenal.
• Alexis for Podolski - an improvement.
• Mustafi for Vermaelen - like-for-like, but with a lot of potential for improvement. (Perhaps Mertesacker, who replaced Vermaelen first, should be reinstated in place of Mustafi now that he's fit again.)
• Xhaka for Arteta - Xhaka is better, but gets carded much more often. Once he gets rid of that problem, he's an improvement over Arteta in every way. (He's pretty young, too.)
• Elneny for Flamini - pretty much the same, but of course Elneny is much younger and has fewer discipline problems. This slot in the squad is on the bench.
• Bellerin for Sagna - Bellerin is better in the attack, but not quite as good defensively (especially with set pieces). Still, most clubs would be very happy to make that change, especially with Bellerin's youth and potential.
• Ramsey has basically replaced Rosicky as a versatile midfield playmaker who isn't in the default starting line-up. (That season, Ramsey mostly played on the wings because he had to be shoehorned into the squad somehow.)
• Wilshere has not been replaced, and that has left Arsenal's bench short of midfielders. To be fair, though, there was more than a month when 5 or 6 central midfielders were simultaneously unavailable, and it's very hard to plan for that. He was a back-up then, and remains a back-up now.
• Players that have been added that don't correspond to any that left include: Welbeck, Lucas Perez, Debuchy, Chambers, Gabriel, Coquelin.
• Players that have left and not had a clear like-for-like replacement: Bendtner, Park Chu-Young, Djourou, Afobe, Diaby, Miyaichi, Wellington Silva, Serge Gnabry. Obviously, these are fringe players, and Gnabry is the only one of them that Arsenal would have been reluctant to sell/release. I suppose he was sort of replaced with Perez, but it's a stretch because Perez is higher profile and in line for more games per season.

So as you can see, the players that have left have mostly been replaced by better ones, and there's been an addition of depth, as well. Szczesny and Wilshere will be back for next season, so whoever is manager then can decide whether to use them. (I would: sell Ospina and have Szczesny as back-up 'keeper and have Wilshere play as many games as he can when there's room in the squad, and make room if he's in form.)

Arsenal have a decent squad. It's mostly injuries and mental problems that have been Arsenal's undoing - in particular, these past two seasons the players and manager just haven't put in a shift. They're not driven, so every time someone puts up a fight they fold.

Tactically, the main problem is defending set pieces. The second most prominent issue is game management, for want of a better term: Wenger doesn't change team selection or tactics based on the opponent. That's fine if you're Bayern or Barcelona, but if you're West Ham or Arsenal you have to acknowledge that you're not going to control the entire game, and even if you do control most of it, you need players and tactics that take advantage of your opponent's weaknesses.

The third biggest problem is defensive movement. There's not enough cover, nor sufficiently rapid movement back to defensive positions, when the other side intercepts and gets a counter. Arsenal get found out because of this several times every game.

A lower defensive line and a lower position for one or two central midfielders when the team are attacking would do it, but of course that would reduce the effectiveness of long build-up play. When Arsenal play well, this problem is solved with overlaps from the full-backs, and in the good season Gibbs, in particular, was useful for this. Now, Bellerin is the more attacking option, and Monreal is played because he provides balance by staying back more. If the midfield had a more established practice of having a defensive midfielder stay way back, both full-backs could overlap in the same attacking movement, and that would make up for losing that midfielder from the attacking build-up.

Anyway, there's plenty of potential in this team. Most of the players have had at least one really good season, as well. They just need to have that good season at the same time. A change - say, a new manager, or maybe a world-class signing - could enable that, but you'd also need to have a mostly injury-free season for more than half of the first-choice players.

If Arsenal are like Liverpool and Chelsea, when they drop out of Europe they'll improve in the league because they'll have fewer games and less travel. It's impossible to tell whether that will happen. The problem is, Liverpool and Chelsea are prestigious and wealthy enough that they can keep their key players even without Champions League football. Who'd want to play for Arsenal if they're not even in the Champions League? Might as well sign for Southampton and join a growing club that looks like it's going places.

edited 21st Mar '17 1:00:46 PM by BestOf

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

I really don't think Arsenal would be willing to meet those wage demands for Özil and Sanchez, especially for both players. The club could provide the financial resources, no doubt, but shelling out over £500k-a-week for the pair of them could potentially leave the club more preoccupied with allocating more cash towards inflating their overall wage bill, which will cut into what they'd have left over for new transfers and building a squad. Those kinds of wages would already translate to a £5mil-to-£6mil annual increase in Arsenal's wage bill (from where Özil and Sanchez are currently raking in, what, £180k, £200k-a-week?), and that's before new players and more older signings up for contract negotiations begin demanding higher wages of their own.

It would probably make more sense, financially, if Arsenal just as well sells one or both of Özil and Sanchez and use their resources to bring in a younger replacement (much like all those other examples you've listed) whom they can then offer the same existing £180k, £200k-a-week wage. The most obvious, substantial criticism about that is it would mean Arsenal would keep on doing transfer business the way they've done for the last decade, but there's no denying it sounds more practical than taking steps towards matching Chelsea's or the Manchester clubs' wage bills.

---

In other oddball news:

• Gary Neville unintentionally ruins the illusion of celebrities and public figures voicing their own original thoughts and comments on social media.
• Bastian Schweinsteiger's stellar career continues to decline, finally departs the Man United reserves and is diagnosed with a chronic case of MLS.
• As much as I feel like this sort of shit is becoming tiring and overplayed, there's just no way I could keep something like this to myself. Here's your Insufferable Arsenal Fan of the Day:

edited 22nd Mar '17 1:36:02 PM by SeanMurrayI

And there are rumours that Drogba is going to sign for an USL club.

---

There was a friendly today between Germany and England, and Germany won 1-0, in what was the last international match for Lukas Podolski. Who scored the goal? Well, none other than him. Here's the standing ovation when he was subbed-off and a replay of his goal.

edited 22nd Mar '17 4:11:52 PM by Quag15

Surprising enough just to read that Shaun Wright-Phillips is already signed with the same team. If he and Drogba do pair up again, they'll be sure to bump into Joe Cole down in Tampa Bay.

---

Leafing through old soccer books in my possession. Came back across a paragraph declaring a 1997 World Cup Qualifier, Poland v. England, to be quite possibly the worst-ever televised sportscast (at least, in the UK). Rereading a few brief sentences about three hours of pre-game coverage (presented, for some inexplicable reason, by a former Page 3 Girl, the host of the video game show 'Gamesmaster', and a horse racing commentator in a plaid jacket that set the cameras funny) in a studio space the network tried to pass off as a "football cafe", before radio commenter Jonathan Pearce was unleashed on an unassuming TV-watching public for the very first time, and I'm off finding out how of this can be corroborated and pieced back together through the Internet.

As it were, various blogs recounting the broadcast are incredibly consistent in every detail (passages in that second link are remarkably in-depth). And the more I'm reading about the "football cafe" set for the bloated pre-show, the more I'm sensing parallels to the even more bizarre "English pub" set from the now-defunct Fox Soccer Channel—completely devoid of patrons or even a working bartender◊ but if there was a bartender, the only fucking drink they'd serve is Budweiser.◊

Sadly whatever photographic or video evidence may remain of Channel 5's "football cafe" and the bizarre antics therein, it's not to be found on YouTube or Google. What can be found is 12-and-a-half minutes of game highlights incidentally featuring snippets of Jonathan Pearce's commentary. (Mind the buzzing; someone's been sitting on this recording for over 19 years before deciding he should make it public)

edited 23rd Mar '17 1:54:20 PM by SeanMurrayI

Subtlety was never Budweiser's strong point when it comes to product placement.

I'll have to read those links in detail later.

---

While Colombia is playing against Bolivia, let's see what happened in the Asian qualifiers.

In group A, Iran won 1-0 at Qatar's place (Highlights here), while there were two relative surprises: China winning 1-0 against South Korea, and Syria winning 1-0 against Uzbekistan with a panenka penalty near the end. With these results, Iran are closer to getting qualified (4 points more than SK), while South Korea, Uzbekistan and Syria will duke it out for the other direct spot and the play-off spot.

In group B, Saudi Arabia and Japan comfortably won their matches, while Australia drew 1-1 with Iraq. The Aussies will have to duke it out with the UAE to see if they will continue to fight for a direct spot or if they will have to fight for the play-off spot with the same UAE.

edited 23rd Mar '17 2:25:41 PM by Quag15

I gave a look at the standings. Bolivia and Venezuela are really just punching the clock. It'll take a damn near miracle for them to pass.

Wake me up at your own risk.

I believe the general consensus, to the extent that such can ever exist in these matters, about what was the most boring game of football in history points to a particular World Cup game: Germany v Austria, 1982. It was the last game of the group stage, and at the time the last round games weren't played simultaneously; so both sides knew that if Germany won by 1 or 2 goals, both Austria and Germany would advance from the group. As soon as Germany did score, at 10 minutes, both sides just plain stopped trying to score. This incident led to the decision to play future group stage last round games simultaneously.

Some highlights of the reaction at the time, according to Wikipedia, include:

Since then, the game has been referred to by a different term in different countries, and none of them are flattering for anyone involved. "The Disgrace of Gijón", "The Non-aggression pact of Gijón" and "The Deceit of Gijon" are among the more neutral; but in countries where neither English or German is spoken, the most prevalent term, according to Wikipedia, is simply "Anschluss". I really hope that the Austrian players, when they heard that, felt it.

Of course, my earlier comment about that being the most boring game ever was only true if you're willing to ignore Arsenal's performances in the last 2½ years or so. If those are included, every time Arsenal lose to someone by 4 goals or more is even more boring and predictable than this calamity.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

There's a difference between boring and meme, though. Which is why Arsenal is the latter (there's nothing boring about being humiliated by Bayern, after all).

---

While the other SA qualifiers are ongoing, Colombia won 1-0 against Bolivia. It could have been a draw, since there was a ball that hit the bar (iirc), an invalidated penalty that should have been, and if James hadn't scored on the rebound after the Bolivian GK saved his penalty, Colombia would have been pissed off at itself.

edited 23rd Mar '17 5:03:07 PM by Quag15

Uruguay and Brazil are 1-1 and Paraguay is beating Ecuador 1-0.

edited 23rd Mar '17 5:06:01 PM by Blueace

Wake me up at your own risk.

The thunderstorm I'm having just gave me a thought. Do the teams play no matter what the weather, or are there restrictions?

I like to keep my audience riveted.

I don't necessarily agree that Arsenal have been humiliated by Bayern these past couple of seasons. That would be like saying that Nottingham Forest were humiliated when Arsenal beat them 0-4 in the League Cup. Losing by 2 or 3 goals would've been considered a decent result, and losing by just one would have been a bit of an ambarrassment for the bigger team.

Losing by 4 goals when you expect it can be extremely boring, and that's why Arsenal are the most boring team in the world at the moment. That, if anything, is what ruins Wenger's legacy: even when things weren't going well, until last season you could at least always say that even when they lost, Arsenal were usually very interesting. This season, I don't really remember there being more than maybe one or two Arsenal games that were interesting or remarkable in any way at all.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

Venezuela 2 - 2 Perú (ongoing)

Ugh. Venezuela was winning 2-0 but Perú got to equalize by minute 67. They can't even get a consolation victory, can they?

135 - 169 - 273 - 191 - 188 - 230 - 300

If it's pouring rain to the point that the field becomes unplayable, the match is either interrupted or postponed (in the case of the former, e.g. Colombia vs Chile in the Copa America Centenario).

There have been matches played in the snow, but those usually don't get interrupted or postponed unless it snows so much it becomes impossible to navigate through the field. In the case of the latter situation: this is what happened earlier tonight between Icelandic teams Fram and Breiðablik (at the 70th minute) before the referee decided to postpone the match.

---

Well, Uruguay lost... 1-4 against Brazil. Cavani scored a penalty, but Paulinho and Neymar were decisive in making sure Brazil got away with the 3 points. Paulinho equalized in what was a great goal, scored a second one, Neymar pulled off a lovely chip, and Paulinho did the hat-trick near the end of the match.

Paraguay won 2-1 against Ecuador. With this win, Paraguay are back in the fight to qualify or to at least get the play-off spot. Goals by Valdez, Alonso and a penalty goal by Caicedo, respectively.

And while Brazil are getting stronger and are reinvigorating themselves under Tite, Argentina haven't been... good enough. They won 1-0 against a Vidal-less Chile thanks to a penalty by Messi, in what was a poor match for both sides.

edited 23rd Mar '17 6:31:28 PM by Quag15

7x There's a world of difference between discussing an unentertaining match and dodgy, laughable sports broadcasting. I've got no disagreements about Germany-Austria 1982, but right now I'm focusing squarely on examples of the latter...

In a similar vein, I'm also reading that long before Sky Sports' Monday Night Football found the class and respectability where Jurgen Klopp could unexpectedly stop by the studio to offer viewers extensive lessons on tactics, upon the program's launch in the early '90's, Sky Sports honchos instead were taking a stab at transplanting American Football razzmatazz, complete with a dance troupe (the 'Sky Strikers') and live music performances at halftime.

Wikipedia's only cited source on all of this is a 1993 article from 'The Independent', which sheds some light on much of the rather hostile reception from stadium crowds, before it all got scrapped.

edited 24th Mar '17 9:35:40 AM by SeanMurrayI