V-E Day Turns Into The Alamo

Last year, Barcelona came home for the second leg of the Champions League semifinal having played three matches against Real Madrid, two on the road and one at a neutral site.  Barca had salted away a third straight La Liga title, lost a heart-breaker in the Copa del Rey Final, and then beaten Real 2-0 in the first leg of the Champions League semi.  They were like warriors coming home after winning the war, so a hype video using the theme from The Pacific made perfect sense:



This year, the Blaugrana enter a Champions League semifinal trailing 1-0 to Chelsea after a disastrous first leg in which Barca spurned at least six good scoring chances and allowed the Blues to score on their only shot of the match. Barca was described as "unlucky," after the match, but luck implies factors outside of their control. Barca's terrible finishing was within their control, as was the ability to mark Didier Drogba in the box when he was Ramires's only passing target.

Barca then followed that match by being beaten at home by Real Madrid in an entirely deserved fashion. Whereas Chelsea were timid and rode their luck (while Barca were not unlucky, Chelsea were most definitely lucky because they had nothing to do with Busquets and Cesc skying open-goal chances into the stands), Real were powerful, created more good chances, and won their La Liga title in emphatic fashion. In so doing, they ended all sorts of streaks: Mourinho having never won at the Nou Camp, not beating Barca in La Liga in four years, Barca not losing at home in La Liga in almost two seasons, Barca not having lost two meaningful games in a row since the beginning of Guardiola's time at Barca, etc.

So, when Barca deploy another hype video using the theme from The Pacific, this feels more like a last stand than a victory parade:





How did this come to pass for Barca?  I would point to the complete uncertainty up front.  In 2009, Barca won the Champions League with a set front three: Messi on the right, Henry on the left, and Eto'o in the center.  Those three combined to score 97 goals, including both of the strikes on that famous night in Rome when Barca started building their resume for being one of the best sides of all-time.  In 2010, Barca went out of the Champions League in the semifinals in no small part because they were in the middle of a transition away from Zlatan Ibrahimovic as a striker and towards Leo Messi as a false nine.  Ibra started both matches against Inter and was ineffective, in part because he was coming back from an injury and in part because Barca was realizing that he just was not a fit for their style.  By the end of the season, the Blaugrana were playing Bojan Krkic as a starter and Ibra was a very expensive substitute.  In 2011, Barca again had a stable front three: Messi in the middle, Pedro on the right, and David Villa on the left.  Messi dropped off of the front and created space for the other forwards to use.  Those three produced 95 goals and Barca won the Champions League again.

This year has been a lot more 2010 than 2009 or 2011.  I don't have any idea who is going to go on the team sheet and neither do most Barca fans.  Alexis Sanchez seems like a fairly likely bet, despite his pair of glaring misses at Stamford Bridge, because he provides Messi with a runner.  As for the other?  Cuenca because he plays as a true winger?  Tello because he is a dangerous dribbler?  Cesc because he combines well with Messi?  Pedro because he is a scorer of big goals (and was very nearly the hero last Wednesday)?  Dani Alves because he can play right forward?  Barca are 58 matches into the season and they don't know the identity of their front three.  Blame new signings, injuries, or a tendency to sit and watch the best player in the world if you like, but here we are.

The lack of certainty up front has made Barca weaker at the back.  Pep always says that Barca is not a very good defensive team when the other team is allowed to have the ball, so keeping the ball and then pressing hard when turning it over is essential.  If the front line isn't doing its job, then the back line gets exposed.  As Michael Cox explained, Pep has been forced to use quantity up front to make up for a lack of quality, which has created defensive vulnerability:

Whereas Real played their usual 4-2-3-1, Guardiola’s choice of formation was a surprise. He went for the 3-4-3, which meant Dani Alves pushed very high up on the right, Tello on the opposite flank, and Adriano on the left of a back three. This was an attacking gamble by Guardiola – he’s commented before on how dangerous it is to play a back three without controlling the whole game.

In a sense, it also hinted at Guardiola’s lack of confidence in Barcelona’s attacking department – he felt he needed two wingers to stretch the play on either side, yet also an additional midfielder to ensure superiority in the centre. This came at the risk of defensive stability, and Barcelona were particularly vulnerable to breaks into the channels/wings.

Today's match against Chelsea is no time to batten down the defensive hatches, as Barca need a two-goal win to progress.  (1-0 just gets the Blaugrana to extra time.)

So, here we are at the Alamo, Thermopylae, Bastogne, Rorke's Drift, Shiroyama.  Barca are struggling, at least relative to the standard that they have set for the last three years, but even a struggling Barca side can put together a great performance.  They are playing for history (first club to retain the Champions League), so it would figure that they will need a last stand to make that happen.

Hello Blueness My Old Friend

For the ninth time in the past decade, Barca and Chelsea will meet today in the Champions League.  In fact, one of the neat little facts about this year's semifinals is that they pit the two most commonly-played match-ups in European history, with Bayern-Real first and Barca-Chelsea second.  The Barca-Chelsea ties have always been very close, tightly-contested affairs, with each one settled by a single goal or less over 180 minutes.  A few thoughts in advance of the match tonight:

1. In 2009, one of the excuses that I and other Cules used to justify Barca's struggles against Chelsea was the fact that the two matches book-ended a La Liga-decider against Real Madrid.  The same issue will exist this year, although Chelsea is similarly conflicted in that they played an FA Cup semifinal on Sunday and they have a big match against Arsenal over the weekend.  Chelsea are currently fighting for fourth place, the last Champions League spot in England, and they know that attracting new talent to the squad is always harder when you can only offer the Europa League (and where your prior ability to dump bags of cash at the feet of new signings is constricted someone by FFP).  In 2009, they were set, with little chance of winning the Premiership and almost no chance of missing out on the Champions League.  The teams they played before and during the tie with Barca - West Ham and Fulham - were both cemented in mid-table places.  Thus, both teams will have significant distractions and the playing field should be even.

2. At least that's what I tell myself, because the second possibility is that Chelsea are just a very difficult match-up for Barca.  They have the defensive midfielders that Manchester United lack, so they can clog the middle and deny Barca the ability to play through them.  It would be nice to say to myself "this is the Chelsea team that struggled so much over the course of the season, so they are clearly inferior," but that would only be true if Andre Villas Boas were still in charge.  Roberto Di Matteo (or, if you are cynical, John Terry) has Chelsea playing in their more traditional, defensive style, which remains the right approach against Barca.  Two banks of four without the ball and then long balls to Drogba with Mata, Kalou, and Ramires as the runners?  That can work very well, as Cesc has fretted.  (Kudos to the English rags for turning a statement of the obvious into some sort of insult.)  Chelsea can pose a threat without taking too many risks.  It's not the way that an expensively assembled side should play, but I've been saying the same thing for six years.  The Blues are who they are.  They tried to play a more aggressive, attractive style, the patient rejected the transplant, and now they are playing the way that gives them the best chance to succeed.  It is what it is.

3. From the Barca perspective, I will be most interested in how the Barca front line stacks up against a tight, talented defense.  Three years ago, Chelsea were able to negate a front line that had Eto'o in the middle with Messi on the right and Henry on the left.*  Now, Messi will be drifting into the middle between the central defenders and the midfield.  Thus, John Terry and Gary Cahill will be confronted with the choice of whether to step out and follow him (thus leaving space for runs for the left and right forwards; that dynamic has led to Messi leading all players in the five big European leagues in assists) or stay back, leaving Mikel and Lampard to deal with Messi.  Assuming that Cesc and Sanchez are the forwards, they bring different dimensions as opposed to what Eto'o and Henry did.  Sanchez is faster and Cesc has a better ability to link up with Messi than any other Barca forward has had.

* - Warren Barton hilariously claimed last night on FSC that Chelsea have always done well at denying Messi the space in between the lines.  That's where Messi plays now as a false nine, but previously, he was a right winger who attacked fullbacks at pace instead of floating in the middle.  Moreover, he was outstanding at Stamford Bridge in 2006, ripping Chelsea apart and drawing a red card that was a major event in the match.  In fact, that match is generally seen as the instance where Messi announced himself to the world.  Other than all that, you're totally solid, Warren.   

4. From the Chelsea perspective, I'll be interested to see whether they will be comfortable with a 0-0.  Milan got a 0-0 at home against Barca and then lost 3-1 at the Nou Camp, but Milan without Thiago Silva were also more defensively suspect than Chelsea.  0-0 wouldn't be a bad result for Chelsea, although as they showed in the second leg in 2009, they can play defensively and still create a ton of chances on the counter.  Conversely, of the three crunch games that Barca will play in the next seven days, this is the one for which they will have the most rest.  Do they view this as the chance to win the tie early so they can go for broke on Saturday and then have an easier time on Tuesday?  Or do they conserve energy and accept a 0-0 if it is tacitly offered.  (If Keita is in the lineup, then the latter is a distinct possibility.)

5. It's also worth watching Xavi's fitness.  He is the player who makes Barca go, but he has been struggling with a calf/Achilles issue during the second half of the season.  He was subbed after 45 minutes on Saturday with Barca trailing at Levante, a move that Pep said was strategic, but may very well have been to rest his fulcrum for the match today.  Real Madrid are suffering because their key midfielder - Xabi Alonso - is running out of steam.*  Will Barca show signs of the same?

* - It's interesting that Real Madrid are the deeper side than Barca, but Xabi Alonso has had to make 45 starts this year, whereas Xavi has made only 40 (and this is despite the fact that Barca played in two extra competitions and made a deeper run in the Copa del Rey).  If Real's season comes unglued at the end, it may be down to the fact that Nuri Sahin never broke into the lineup to give Mourinho a viable alternative to Xabi Alonso. 

Barca-Milan: I Feel a Change Coming On

You know that I'm jaded by Barca's success when they close out a 3-1 win over AC Milan - the current leaders in Serie A - and my first thought is "well, that wasn't especially impressive."  Barca played well, created a bevy of chances, outshot Milan 18-3, and were able to take their feet off the proverbial pedal for the last 20 minutes of the match, but because their finishing was poor and they relied on two penalties - one of which was debatable - they didn't win with the sort of panache that one would expect from this team.

Then again, from a historical perspective, I'm probably asking for too much in wanting every home match to finish 5-0, regardless of the opponent.  Last year, Barca benefited a dubious red card against Robin Van Persie and a clumsy touch from Niclas Bendtner in order to see off Arsenal.  Three years ago, Barca slogged their way through 180 minutes against Chelsea before finally getting the break-through in injury time after having survived a number of penalty appeals (one of which was actually legitimate).  In 2006, Barca needed a late miss by Benfica in the quarters and then a favorable call on a potential equalizer in the semi against Milan in order to progress.  In all three instance, Barca won the Champions League.  It's not necessary to dominate every match and it's helpful to keep in mind that I always remember the opponents' close calls without accounting for those of my team.

The main issue that I had last night after watching the match was that Pep Guardiola still seems to be searching for the best combination with this team.  In his two previous Champions League victories, Pep had to shuffle players at the back to deal with injuries and suspensions, but he always knew whom to play in the midfield and forward lines.  In contrast, in 2010, he was dealing with the unraveling Ibra situation and so he didn't really know how to deploy a striker along with Messi and Pedro.  After Ibra flopped against Inter, Pep saw out a second straight league title with Bojan as the third forward.

This year is closer to 2010.  Pep has to deal with Xavi's calf/Achilles issues.  More importantly, he is constantly shuttling players in and out around Messi.  At times, he plays Cesc as a second striker because his interplay with Messi is so good.  At times, he uses Alexis Sanchez as a runner for Messi's passes.  At times, he uses Isaac Cuenca and Cristian Tello for width.  And then there is a Pedro, a fixture for the last two years and a reliable scorer in big matches, but also a guy who has lost much of his form this year, at least in part because of injuries.

With all of these questions swirling in the background, Pep used a new formation for the most important match of the season: a 3-3-4.  On the one hand, it's nice to have a manager who can tailor his team to the opponent and thus remain unpredictable:

The real interest here was Barcelona’s shape. Dani Alves was pushed up even higher than in the first leg, with (at first) no responsibility to get back into the right-back zone. He and Cuenca played on roughly the same horizontal line, with Fabregas in a free role and Lionel Messi as a false nine. It could be interpreted as a 3-4-3 with a diamond midfield, with Fabregas at the front tip, but he and Messi were often together, playing as a partnership and dovetailing – therefore, the unusual 3-3-4 notation makes sense here.

Barcelona have played that way briefly in league games at the Nou Camp against weak opposition, but this was probably the first time they’ve looked 3-3-4 in a truly big game. In many ways, it makes perfect sense against this Milan side. It allows a spare man at the back, and if Fabregas dropped back slightly, equal numbers in midfield against Milan’s diamond. The obvious problem with a 3-3-4, on paper, is the lack of cover on the flanks – but few sides are as narrow as Milan, so in theory it shouldn’t be an issue.

On the other hand, Barca are supposed to be a team with a set way of playing that says to opponents "we are going to play a certain way and we are so good at it, you'll know what's coming and you won't be able to stop it."*

* - Michigan fans will be familiar with this mantra.  It worked when Bo was the coach and was more problematic when Lloyd was in charge and had only 85 players on scholarship.

Jonathan Wilson, a student of history who has previously wondered if this Barca team is going to reach its statute of limitations the way that most great teams do after 3-4 years, thinks that Pep tinkering with his formations is a good thing:

What marks Guardiola out is his awareness of the future, not in the sense of positioning himself for a move to another club or even in terms of youth development – although he is clearly acutely aware of that – but in terms of understanding the sweep of history, of recognising that what is good now will not necessarily be good in a year or two's time. Dress it as the lesson of Bela Guttmann ("the third year is fatal") or Karl Marx ("all that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned"*), but that awareness marks Guardiola as a true dynastician. Not for him the club-hopping of Guttmann or even José Mourinho: he wants to erect an edifice for the ages, something, paradoxically, strengthened by his refusal to commit to more than a 12-month rolling contract; he will not become a weary leader, governing by convention, but leaves open a perpetual route to step down for a fresher man when the occasion calls for it. (As examples from Tony Blair to Abdoulaye Wade indicate, though, leaving the door open does not necessarily mean he will still be willing to step through it when the time is right.)

In football terms, Guardiola is clearly determined to prevent Barcelona ever becoming complacent or predictable, to make sure they always have a second line of attack. The signing of Zlatan Ibrahimovic was intended to give them height, the option of going aerial if the usual tiki-taka didn't deliver and, when that didn't quite work, he began experimenting with the back three.

What I am trying to accept in my head is the idea that change and uncertainty might not be a bad thing.  When a team has won as much as Barca has, it's natural for a fan to say to himself "keep doing what you've been doing."  The memories of Rome and Wembley are so happy and positive in my mind that I want Barca to avoid change at all costs.  However, opponents are constantly changing their approaches to playing the Blaugrana and Barca's personnel is changing in all sorts of ways, so sticking with what worked before isn't a realistic option.  Hard to accept as it might be, if Barca are to win the Champions League again this year, they will have to do it in a different way.

Zlatan, Please Remember that this is a Tuesday

I shouldn't be nervous about Barca-Milan today.  A draw on the road in the first leg of a Champions League knock-out tie is generally a good result, especially when one's team was denied an obvious penalty, outshot the home team 18-6, and took the only two corners of the match.  The only time when a Pep Guardiola-coached Barca team was knocked out of Europe, they lost the road leg by two goals.  Pep's Barca sides have drawn the opening leg four times - Arsenal, Lyon, Stuttgart, and Chelsea - and progressed each time.  In the three instances in which they drew on the road, they then won the home legs by a combined score of 13-3.  Additionally, Barca were hampered in the first leg by a suspect pitch.  At home, on a perfect, wide pitch, they should have no problem circulating the ball quickly.  Reason says that they won't have issues today.

And yet, I still fret.  Maybe it's a residual effect of AC Milan's famous red and black stripes, which remind me of the fact that only Real Madrid have won more European Cups.  Maybe it's the fear that Zlatan has been waiting for an opportunity just like this.  Maybe it's the fact that Milan played a good game in the first leg, pressing for the first 20 minutes and then settling into a counter-attacking style that works well with their personnel.  Maybe it's the fact that we're into April and Pep still doesn't know his best XI.  Whatever the case may be, this match has more menace than a win-or-go-home game at the Nou Camp should.

The prevailing sentiment in the lead-up to the match has concerned Barca's lack of width in the first leg.  The consensus is that Pep erred by deploying a left side of Puyol (a solid defender who isn't great going forward), Keita (a defensively solid midfielder who isn't as good a passer as others on the team), and Iniesta (a great midfielder who usually looks to come inside when deployed on the wing).  Barca had no width on the left and thus became a lop-sided team that didn't stretch a narrow Milan side.  Michael Cox spotted this flaw:

Maybe the pitch was to blame, but it was surprising how little Barcelona tested AC Milan down the flanks in last week’s 0-0 draw at the San Siro. Milan’s narrow 4-3-1-2 formation means the full-backs are often left free, and Max Allegri’s side can be vulnerable to a quick switch of play from one side to the other.

Part of the problem was that Barcelona played Andres Iniesta in the left-sided forward position. Iniesta is a fine player, but he prefers playing an attacking midfield role, and when used as a forward he tends to come inside into his natural position anyway. Pep Guardiola probably played Iniesta there in order to give Barcelona more options in midfield – Milan have a four-against-three advantage in terms of pure formations, but it meant Barca were unable to stretch the play. With Carles Puyol used at left-back, they had no width down that side.

Ramzi from The Offside Barcelona also addresses width, but argues that the solution should be attackers who can play between the lines (read: Cesc):

Width is important for offense to be more lethal. However there is another factor needed hand in hand width – aerial threat. Without it, width becomes irrelevant. Even for a team like Manchester City, where you find Dzeko and co, teams made a well calculated risk and decided to defend narrow.

That’s something you can expect from AC Milan, a very narrow, tactically disciplined defense. The only setback for them will be fatigue impact where teams become increasingly prone to mistakes.   Messi’s dribbling quality will drag defenders toward him like magnets. That creates holes. Fatigue plays a role there in slowing down Milan’s players to reposition continuously and close the popping out gaps.  That’s where players capable of moving between the lines comes in handy.

If Cesc is fully fit, he will play. Unlike the first leg, the game at home is a perfect game for a player like the Fabregas. Where will he play? It depends.

There were some whispers that Xavi had a slight injury. If he is not able to play, Cesc may play in the midfield. Thiago is obviously a better alternative there, but he played a very physically demanding match against Athletic Bilbao. Even for a player his age, such games leave some bruises.

If he plays in offense, leaving Keita on the bench, it is important that he plays in front of Messi, not behind him. Alexis on the left and Alves on the right can provide the passing outlets on the flanks to breakthrough Milan’s press on ball holder. Messi on a free role accompanied with Iniesta while Xavi plays in a more conservative role closer to Busquets.

Personally, I'd rather see Tello play as opposed to Cesc.  Alexis Sanchez is coming on, but he does not strike me as a player to provide a lot of width.  I prefer the idea of Messi and Sanchez joined by Tello on the front line with Xavi, Iniesta, and Busquets as the midfield.  With Pedro's form having dipped, this is Barca's best front six and it ought to be the starting lineup today.  Then again, it's possible that Pep knows a little more about soccer than I do, so we'll see what he cooks up.

Back to the San Siro

It's been a while since I wrote about the Catalan Futbol Colllective and we are coming down to the business end of the season, so this seems like as good a time as any to spill a few words.  Barca go to Milan for the first leg of the Champions League quarterfinal.  This is not an unfamiliar venue, as Barca played Milan at the San Siro in late November, taking a 3-2 decision that cemented first place in the group.  That win allowed Barca to play Bayer Leverkusen - a team that was more interested in getting Leo Messi's shirt than actually trying to tackle him - instead of Arsenal in the round of 16.  In addition, Barca played at the San Siro against Inter twice in 2009-10 (a 0-0 draw and then the famous 3-1 defeat to Mourinho's Inter that led to Ibra's now-famous "you have no balls!" insult directed at Pep Guardiola) and once against Milan in 2006 (a famous 0-1 win in the Champions League semifinals en route to Barca winning their first Champions League title in 14 years).  In short, the San Siro is a familiar place for Barca and most of their memories there have been happy ones.*  It's certainly better than playing Milan in Athens.

* - Along with Tiger Stadium (the one in Baton Rouge), the San Siro is my favorite backdrop for a televised sporting event.  The design is distinctive, the mist/smoke that envelops the place during a match gives it an otherworldly quality, and the noise is outstanding because of the vertical stands.  It's not always full, but it will be tonight.

In terms of this match-up, Milan present a pair of weaknesses that Barca should be able to exploit.  First, Milan don't have the type of aggressive defensive midfielders who can give Barca trouble.  Massimiliano Allegri, the Milan manager, said that his team is more "technical" than physical, but there is no team in the world that can compete with Barca on technical ability.  While teams have had some joy coming out and attacking Barca this year, no longer afraid of putting pressure on Barca's defenders (Real have had success with this approach), this Milan side doesn't have the front players for that sort of task.  After all, if you cut away all of the bullshit from Zlatan, the big reason why his stay in Catalunya was so short was that he was a bad fit in this Barca side because he isn't much on pressing opposing defenders when not in possession.  If Robinho is his partner, then you have another player who isn't exactly know for his work-rate.  Thus, the two favorable approaches to playing Barca - parking a narrow bus to congest the middle or pressing Barca at the back to force turnovers - seem to both be beyond Milan's grasp.

Second, Milan have weak fullbacks.  If you don't believe me, read The Guardian's minute-by-minute of Arsenal's demolition of Milan in the round of 16 at the Emirates.  Some highlights:

24 min: Arsenal attack down Milan's right flank again, having clearly identified Milan left-back Djamel Mesbah as a weak link. The link-up play between Song, Gervinho and Walcott is marvellous, releasing ... oh my word!

39 min: Theo Walcott sets off on a gallop down the right flank and is taken out by beleaguered full-back Djamel Mesbah, who he's been tormenting all night. The Arsenal winger goes down holding his thigh, but is fit to continue after receiving treatment.

44 min: You'd have to say Arsenal are the favourites to win this tie at this stage, as long as they don't lose the run of themselves and forget to defend stoutly. They've been making hay down the right wing, where the visitors' left-back Djamel Mesbah looks like some supporter who's won a competition where first prize was the opportunity to play for AC Milan in a Champions League match. He's having a shocker.

Second half: And we're off ... there don't appear to be any changes on either side. That seems odd to me, as I'd suggest Milan would be better off playing with 10 man rather than 11 including Djamel Mesbah.

54 min: Theo Walcott picks up the ball on the right flank, waltzes past the hapless Djamel Mesbah and tries to square the ball across the face of the Milan goal. At the near post, Thiago Silva clears.

88 min: Milan substitution: Djamel Mesbah gets put out of his misery and walks off very slowly - his first worthwhile contribution to his team's cause this evening. He's replaced by Daniele Bonera.

While the La Masia has struggled to produce top defenders in recent years, it has had no such issues producing tricky wingers.  Thus, Guardiola has Pedro, Isaac Cuenca, and Cristian Tello to throw at Milan's fullbacks, not to mention Alexis Sanchez and the now-fit Ibrahim Affelay.  If Barca's play-makers - Xavi, Iniesta, and Messi - have time to operate between the defense and midfield, then they will be able to find the wingers cutting in behind the fullbacks all day.  Additionally, the wingers ought to be able to beat the fullbacks and put passes into the box.

Against all of this, Barca's big weakness is at the back.  With Eric Abidal out for the year and possibly having to retire because of his impending liver transplant and Adriano also injured, Barca don't have depth at fullback.  Additionally, Gerard Pique's form has dipped this year, leading to all sorts of analogies between his girlfriend Shakira and Yoko Ono (or, if you are a Man United fan, Posh Spice).  Milan have terrific attackers.  If they can get the ball to their forwards (the big question in this match), then I don't have the same confidence in Barca's defenders that I have had in recent years.  I have this mental image of Pique deploying his befuddled face as Zlatan wheels away to the corner flag to celebrate a vindicating goal. 

In the end, this match doesn't give me too much heartburn.  Barca have been playing better in recent weeks, winning nine in a row since the loss at Osasuna.  Additionally, Barca's overall problem this year has been one of focus, as they have dropped points on the road against a number of lesser opponents.  In the toughest road games - two matches at the Bernabeu, one at the San Siro, and one at the Calderon (where they never win - they have won every time.  There are teams out there that will give the Blaugrana fits - Chelsea looked ominous last night with their ability to negate Benfica and then ground out an ugly 0-1 win - but this Milan side do not look to be one of them.

Mes Que Un Club, Syrian Resistance Edition

You have to love embattled dictatorships:

Syria’s state-run television channel has made the astonishing claim that the Barcelona soccer team is assisting a group of rebel fighters by delivering coded messages via its tactical formations...

 

Al-Dunya TV aired a bizarre feature Sunday outlining how Barcelona transmitted details of effective smuggling routes that could be used to distribute arms to dissident fighters. The program repeated charges originally made in December. According to the TV reporter, the Barca side’s positioning on the field allegedly was deliberately set up to recreate a giant map, with players representing smugglers and the ball depicting a cache of arms.

A run from Andres Iniesta is said to portray the first part of the route, while the end of the move, where superstar World Footballer of the Year Lionel Messi passes the ball, indicates the successful handover of the shipment, according to Al-Dunya.

All season, Michael Cox has been trying to decipher the evolution of Barca's formations away from a set 4-3-3, but he's been looking in the wrong place for explanations.  He should have been looking at maps of Syria.  And doesn't this allegation really end the debate as to whether Barca is the best team of all-time?  If they have been winning while being hamstrung by the need to send covert messages to rebel groups, then they truly are the best. 

The Giants' Owners, the Georgia Dome, and the NFL as Crony Capitalism

Sometimes, my column ideas come as the result of days of thought.  Other times, the idea comes to me in the shower.  This column is the latter, so I'm interested in your thoughts on whether I'm off the reservation.  Here is the gist:

Last May, FC Barcelona won the Champions League for the third time in six years. On the two previous recent occasions that the club won the title, the trophy was presented to team captain Carles Puyol. Puyol is an iconic figure, a native Catalan who came up through the team's youth ranks and is noted both for being a great leader on the field and for looking like a caveman (or at least a Dokken roadie). When Barcelona won the title last May, Puyol gave the honor of lifting the trophy to Eric Abidal, the team's French left back. Abidal had had an excellent season for Barca, playing both left and center back because of injuries, before he was felled by a liver tumor early in 2011. Abidal recovered in time to play in the Final, where he shut down Manchester United right-winger Antonio Valencia. Thus, there were few fans around the world who weren't a little touched by the scene of Abidal receiving the Champions League trophy from his countryman Michel Platini, himself a French legend who led the French side that won the European Cup in 1984 and made the semifinals of the World Cup in 1982 and 1986.

Forgive me for sounding like a Eurosnob* for a moment, but the presentation of the Lombardi Trophy last night didn't quite have the same flair. (Watch trophy presentation video here.)

Instead of a football icon handing the trophy over, we get Roger Goodell, a life-long NFL suit who is most noted for giving himself the power to suspend players for any reason he sees fit and for persuading Peter King to write the most sycophantic cover story that I can recall reading in Sports Illustrated. Instead of a club totem like Puyol or a cancer-survivor like Abidal accepting the trophy, we had the New York Giants' owners getting the honor. Puyol and Abidal got the right to hold the trophy aloft because they established themselves as some of the best players in the world at their positions; John Mara and Steve Tisch got the right to hoist the Lombardi Trophy because they inherited the team from their parents. On the list of individuals about whom Giants fans were feeling very strong affection last night, I doubt that the team's owners were in the top 20.

This leads to a complaint about the Falcons having the gall to ask for a new stadium to replace the Georgia Dome, a facility in which they have all of twenty seasons under their belt.  The overall point is that the NFL is a perfect illustration of crony capitalism, an entity that socializes profits by extorting concessions from local government and minimizing the incentives for good management.  Somehow, the awarding of the Lombardi Trophy to the Giants' owners and the Falcons' chutzpah in asking for a $700M new stadium seem linked in my head, although I'm not sure that I properly explained why.

Other thoughts for the director's cut:

1. You'll notice that there is an asterisk with no footnote.  That was going to be a paragraph where I list all of the reasons why the US is better than Europe, including the fundamental contradiction that is the EU (putting Greece and Germany under the same roof isn't a recipe for stability) and our bad-ass technology for blowing things up.  (Generally speaking, I could have just said "our technology.")  When I was done with the footnote, it read like a loyalty oath, so I took it out.  But, just in case you are concerned, G-d bless the USA! (HT: Lee Greenwood.)

2. I was also going to include a footnote to the effect of "I'm not saying that everyone should love soccer because of the way the sport is structured in Europe.  I grew up playing and watching the sport, so I'm not offended by a nil-nil.  Your mileage may vary.  In the old days, I would get mad at Americans who didn't like soccer because that sentiment kept it off of TV.  With the Internet and digital cable, that's no longer an issue, so if you find the sport desperately boring, that's your choice and I respect it."

3. Is there anyone out there who thinks that the Georgia Dome needs to be replaced?  Seriously.  I know the selling point is going to be that the new stadium will be funded by a hotel tax, but a significant number of Georgians will end up paying that tax.  Additionally, if we are going to raise $700M, then I can think of 20 better ways to spend the money.  For starters, how about a moratorium on plunking metal plates down on our roads?  $700M would pay for some pretty smooth surface streets.  The public gets this, hence the significant opposition to a new stadium.  If there are any Polisci students out there, this issue would make for a really interesting thesis.

Will the Heat Care Tonight?

On my way to lunch on Saturday, I was listening to ESPN Radio and the hosts were interviewing some media professional associated with the Miami Heat.  (Either that or they were talking to an NBA writer and just happened to only ask him questions about the Heat.  Given that we are talking about ESPN, that is just as plausible.)  The topic was the Heat coasting at times during the season, specifically during a barely-explicable home loss to the Bucks that dropped the Heat to 11-5.  The Heat have since won five in a row to get to 16-5, a record more befitting their talent, but the fact remains that even in a shortened NBA season, we can't rely on teams to be focused from game to game.  The stakes are simply too low.  What is the advantage gained by the Heat busting their tails to get to 50 wins?  The right to play those rare game sevens at home.  That's a small payoff for a major effort.  If you want an illustration of how low the stakes are in regular season NBA games, the Heat and Bulls - the two best teams in the East - played on Sunday and the discussion on Monday morning was not about the result, but rather about the fact that Carlos Boozer's son was caught going along with the "Let's go Heat" chant.

If you want to know why I've gravitated to European soccer as my second favorite sport after college football, the lack of importance of the vast majority of American pro sports games would be one of the major reason.  In contrast to the "will the Heat care today?" question that we have to ask ourselves before each game, on Sunday afternoon, I watched Barca labor to a 0-0 draw at Villarreal.  Unlike the Heat, Barca have earned the right to coast every now and again by winning 13 trophies in the past three years and change.  The theme of Barca's season in La Liga this year has been their struggles on the road, dropping points regularly in 0-0 and 2-2 draws.  Maybe Barca's players are having a hard time getting up for these games, but the key point is that they are punished for doing so.  The Blaugrana are now seven points behind Real Madrid and will require significant help from their arch-rivals to get back into the title race.  If the La Liga season were simply about seeding for a short post-season tournament, then Barca could go through the motions on the road and no one would bat an eyelash.  Instead, the stakes are high for each match and the penalty for not scoring at El Madrigal is significant.

I thought about this issue when reading Bill Simmons' column last night.  Simmons spends 1,261 words describing an elaborate plan to push the NBA regular season back with a later start date and conclusion, but he never grapples with the fundamental problem with the sport: the regular season is four-times as long as the playoffs, but isn't even one-quarter as important.  What about doing away with the playoffs to reward the teams that are the best over the long-haul?  Or at least limit the playoffs to one series like baseball did before 1969?  To quote Simmons:

"Because that's the way we've always done it."

(News flash: Those are the eight worst words in sports.)

For the record, I don't buy Simmons' notion that leagues should make radical changes and that there is no value in traditions.  A sport should follow a certain rhythm and the NBA is no different.  Get rid of that rhythm and you are disconnecting your fans from their patterns, which might lead them to no longer buy your product.  However, if the NBA is interested in a major change, then surely doing something to increase the stakes of the regular season is more important than the start date. 

We Expected Midway and Got Antietam

Barca and Real Madrid drew 2-2 on Wednesday.  It's helpful to think about the meeting both in terms of tactics and strategy.  Tactically speaking, the match was a win for Barca because they progress in the Copa Del Rey and will now be favored to win at least one of the three major trophies on offer (albeit the least important of the three).  Barca kept Jose Mourinho stuck on one win against the Blaugrana in ten tries since he took over at the Bernabeu.  Mourinho has still never won at the Camp Nou, which is a nice stat to bandy about in relation to the club's bete noire. 

Strategically, the match was a win for Mourinho and Real Madrid because they preserved their dignity.  Here is Sid Lowe's description:

They got knocked out but they got up again. For José Mourinho's Real Madrid, the latest clásico was always likely to be less about the result and more about recovery after a week of intrigue and insult. As Pep Guardiola insisted on the eve of the game, Barcelona had a problem: the assumption was that the Catalans were already in the semi-final. A place in the next round was not really at stake; instead the prize was something less tangible. This morning, it is Barcelona who are through but Madrid emerged from a wonderful 2-2 draw as winners too.

Suddenly, unexpected, deservedly, a semi-final slot had been within Madrid's reach. In the end they could not grab it but they did grab a lifeline. Madrid never expected to progress in the cup but the progression was evident. Mourinho's side have now faced Barcelona 10 times and won just once. The run was extended but it felt like it had been ended. Mourinho underlined the comment going round the away dressing room: "it's impossible to win here." Yet the lasting impression was the exact opposite: it no longer looks impossible to win here. Barely 24 hours earlier, it did.

In this respect, Wednesday night was a missed opportunity for Barca, a chance to end the war gone.  If you like military analogies (and you know I do), this was McClellan allowing the Army of Northern Virginia to escape in the aftermath of Antietam.  At halftime, Barca had a 2-0 lead in the match and a 4-1 lead on aggregate.  Real's players had to have been dispirited at halftime because they had played well in the first half, but had failed to score because of a combination of poor finishing and excellent shot-stopping by Barca's rapping reserve keeper, Jose Pinto.  Barca had the chance to stick the knife in by delivering a humiliation that would have caused a serious crisis for Mourinho, a malaise that might have affected Real's form in La Liga and allowed Barca to winnow down the current five-point deficit.  Instead, Real came off the deck in the second half, scoring twice in rapid succession and forcing a very nervy final 20 minutes for the Catalans.

All that said, there are two caveats to the conclusion that Wednesday was an affirming match for Mourinho and Real.  First, Real came out of the Spanish Supercup in August with a similar feeling.  In that instance, they had gone at Barca hard for 180 minutes, choosing to employ an aggressive, attacking approach instead of parking the bus.  Barca won the tie 5-4 on aggregate, but Real had seemingly showed that they were now on par with Barca, such that they would no longer need to employ the tactics of inferior teams.  That affirmation didn't last, as Real lost the next two matches against Barca, both at the Bernabeu.  Second, Real's players have cause to wonder about Mourinho's tactics.  If Real can truly play with Barca, as they showed in the second leg, then why did Mourinho take such a defensive approach - marked by Pepe in midfield - in the first leg?  Couldn't Real have come to the Nou Camp without having to win on the road if their style would have been better in the first leg?  Also, Real played much better with Karim Benzema up front as opposed to Gonzalo Higuain.  Benzema is establishing quite a record for scoring against Barca, so why was he not on the pitch from the start?  Again, would Real have been in a better position than down 4-1 if Benzema had been a starter?

The two clubs will now take a break from one another for at least two months (the earliest that they can play would be the Champions League quarterfinals, which kick off two months from today).  Real have been the better side this season against everyone else, so we'll see if that continues.

Mourinho's Fleet Arrives at Midway

Barcelona and Real Madrid meet this evening for the ninth time in the last ten months.  Real Madrid have won only one of the previous nine meetings, that in extra time at the Mestalla in the Copa del Rey Final last spring.  Los Merengues are five points clear of their hated enemy in La Liga, which one would think would be cause for celebration among their fans.  Instead, discontent is building because of Real's failure to beat Barca head-to-head.  Real got two shots at the Blaugrana in recent weeks, both at home.  In both matches, Real went ahead early and then lost as Barca's midfield asserted control over the matches.  Most gallingly for Jose Mourinho and Real fans, they can't even throw up their hands and say "Barca have the best player in the world and he beat us."  Leo Messi hasn't scored in either match, although he assisted on the equalizer in December and the winner last week. 

Mourinho's failure to beat Barca is now starting to become an issue.  Real Madrid is a massive institution, even by the standards of European mega-clubs.  It has a complicated political structure involving various executives and sometimes players (read: Raul) that often illustrates the saying "too many chefs spoil the broth."  For years, the manager was set up as a fall guy.  He didn't decide the style, he didn't have control over signings, and if anything went wrong, he would be the scapegoat for the failings of others.  The experience of Vicente Del Bosque at the Bernabeu is Exhibit A:

In his four seasons in charge Del Bosque ushered the club through its most successful spell in modern history, having steered the club to two UEFA Champions League titles in 2000 and 2002, two domestic La Liga titles in 2001 and 2003, a Spanish Supercup in 2001, a UEFA Super Cup in 2002, the Intercontinental Cup in 2002 as well as finishing in the last four of the UEFA Champions League every year he was in charge. Not since the great Madrid side of the 1950s and 1960s that had Alfredo Di Stéfano and Ferenc Puskás did the club succeed so consistently. Del Bosque was famed for his humble, patient and unassuming style which saw him manage the club as it underwent a policy during Florentino Pérez's tenure as club President that was known as 'Los Galacticos'- where the world's best and most marketable stars were signed for the club beginning with Luís Figo, and including Zinedine Zidane and Ronaldo. Del Bosque's management was successful in uniting the many different modern player egos in his star studded team: in the Del Bosque era Real managed 104 wins out of a possible 186 in his time as coach of Madrid. Despite the level of success, many players – in particular the so-called 'Galacticos' – were bought without the input of Del Bosque amid often made allegations that the Real Madrid hierarchy (in particular Pérez and general manager Jorge Valdano) had more control over transfer policy, team selection and other aspects of club that minimalised the level of control Del Bosque had during his time as manager.

Shockingly, Real Madrid decided not to renew Del Bosque's contract in 2003, just a day after he won the club its 29th League title and a week after the club signed David Beckham. Del Bosque was offered the post of technical director but turned it down, leading to many suggestions in the Spanish media that there was indeed a much rumoured political split at the club involving Del Bosque and several players, especially captain Fernando Hierro (who was asked to leave the club in the summer of 2003), on one side, while Jorge Valdano and Florentino Pérez wielded the axe of control to in their words, 'shake up the team', on the other. Pérez said in an interview with BBC Sport: "Del Bosque was showing signs of exhaustion. I want to be sincere about this – our belief that he was not the right coach for the future."

Del Bosque then added the World Cup to his personal trophy room in 2010.  Depending on Barca's trophy haul this year, his list of accomplishments is not that far removed from that of Pep Guardiola's four years in charge in Barcelona.  Guardiola is untouchable; Del Bosque got the boot because winning La Liga and losing in the last four of the Champions League (in a close, enthralling tie with Juventus) was just not enough.  Moreover, the guy who made the decision to axe Del Bosque - Florentino Perez - also happens to be the current president of the club.

One of the issues that makes Real a snakepit for a manager is the local media.  Madrid has two sports dailies - Marca and AS - that provide exhaustive coverage of the club.  Marca has especially close ties to Real, such that its campaign against Manuel Pellegrini during the first year of the new Galactico era in 2009-10 was thought to be encouraged (or at least tacitly permitted) by upper management at the Bernabeu.  So, when Marca prints an exchange between Mourinho and Sergio Ramos verbatim, this is not a good sign for Mourinho.  Here is Sid Lowe's description of the Marca story:

Marca's cover showed Mourinho and Sergio Ramos face to face. Word for word, they reproduced a conversation between the two men, and Iker Casillas, at Real Madrid's Valdebebas training ground on Friday morning – two days after Madrid, playing ultra-defensively, had again been beaten by Barcelona; two days after Ramos had noted: "We follow the coach's tactics. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't." According to Marca, the conversation started with Mourinho turning towards Ramos and saying: "You [plural] killed me in the mixed zone." To which Ramos replied: "No, mister [the Spanish term for a coach], you only read what it says in the papers not everything we said."

Mourinho replied: "Sure, because you Spaniards have been world champions and your friends in the media protect you … and because the goalkeeper …" At that point there is a shout from Casillas, training 30 metres away: "Eh, mister, round here you say things to our faces, eh!"

Another part of the conversation starts with Mourinho saying: "Where were you on the first goal [against Barcelona], Sergio?"

"Marking Piqué"

"Well, you should have been marking Puyol."

"Yes, but they were blocking us off [using basketball style screens] with Piqué and we decided to change the marking."

"What? So now you're playing at being coach?"

"No," replies Ramos, "but depending on the situation in the game, sometimes you have to change the marking. Because you've never been a player, you don't know that that sometimes happens."

This story represents all sorts of issues for Mourinho.  First, it illustrates a less-than-content locker room, which cuts against one of Mourinho's noted strengths: his ability to get wealthy, egotistical stars to all pull in the same direction, even if they might not like being on the bench or playing in a defensive style.  Second, it hints at cliques based on nationality, hence the "you Spaniards" remark.  (The current rumor is that there is a division between the Spanish and Portuguese players in the side.)  Third, it hits Mourinho where it hurts, which is that unlike Guardiola, he was not a successful player.  (Think Tracy Flick here.)  Fourth, the fact that Marca has a source within the team and ran a cover story pulling up Mourinho's kimono implies that Mourinho's political situation is not entirely secure.  For someone with a well developed sense of paranoia (Simon Kuper attributes this tendency to Mourinho growing up in a dictatorship), Marca's story is ominous.

Jose's teams generally don't play attractive football, with the match against Barca last week generally and Pepe's behavior specifically being a nadir.  If his teams win, then everyone is happy.  If they don't win, then there is really nothing to commend Jose at all.  Real Madrid are winning, but they are not accomplishing what Mourinho was brought to the Bernabeu to do: conquer Guardiola's Barca.  (Mourinho's wins over Barca at Chelsea and Inter were a major credential in hiring him.)  Thus, today's match is critical because it comes at an important juncture.  If Real can overturn the 2-1 deficit and win at the Nou Camp (a feat that Mourinho has never accomplished, despite three chances at Chelsea, two at Inter, and three so far at Real; he has four losses and four draws), then his reputation as a Barca-killer returns.  He will re-establish his credibility with his players and accumulate political capital to deal with management and the media in Madrid.  If Real lose, then Jose faces a genuine crisis because the impression will be further cemented that he cannot do what he was brought to Madrid to do.  It's one thing to lose to a historically great team; it's another to do it while deploying eight defensive players, including your compatriot - a center back playing midfield - stomping on Messi's hand.  It's strange for me as a Cule to say this, but today's match is more about the enemy. 

 

Phil Jackson & Bela Guttmann

Jonathan Wilson’s latest article, which asks whether Barcelona will be a victim of Bela Guttmann’s famous three-year rule, is worth a look.  Here is the gist:

"The third year," the great Hungarian coach Bela Guttmann always said, "is fatal." If a manager stays at a club more than that, he said, his players tend to become bored and/or complacent and opponents start to work out counter-strategies. There are occasional exceptions, especially in weaker leagues, but at the highest level it seems to hold true that great teams last a maximum of three years – which is why Barcelona's draw against Espanyol on Saturday may be more significant than just two dropped points. This, after all, is Pep Guardiola's fourth season as a manager at the Camp Nou.

Now right off the bat, there is a problem with Wilson’s analogy.  Guttmann said that the third year is fatal, but in year three under Guardiola, Barca won the two biggest prizes available to it: the Spanish Primera and the Champions League.  It’s only if you modify Guttmann’s concept to “every year after the first three is fatal” that is has applicability here.  Additionally, Guardiola is a disciple of Johan Cruyff and Cruyff’s version of the theory is that a great team has a four-year shelf life.  This makes sense from Cruyff’s personal experience because his Barca Dream Team won four straight La Liga titles in the early 90s, as well as the club’s first European Cup, and then declined.*  Guttmann could make a side function at a top level for two years, so he thinks that that is the statute of limitations.  Cruyff’s team lasted for four, so he thinks that that is the limit.  There is a danger here of assuming that one’s personal experience is universal.

* – Cruyff suggested that Barca should have broken its 2006 Champions League-winning side apart because it was coming to the end of its cycle, although that team had really only been together for three years.  The bottom really fell out in year five when the Blaugrana finished third in La Liga and suffered the ultimate humiliation of forming a Pasillo for Real Madrid after Los Merengues clinched the league.  Samuel Eto’o and Deco both got cards intentionally in the preceding match so they would not have to participate, which is a major reason that both were ultimately drummed out of the club.

Wilson’s article got me thinking about American sports and whether a three- or four-year rule applies there.  One could make a good argument that it applies in the NBA.  Because basketball requires more natural teamwork than baseball or football,* it would seem to be a proper candidate.  Look at recent NBA history.  The Bulls won three titles, then Michael Jordan went away.  They won three more, then Jerry Krause broke the team apart.  The Lakers won three in a row, then Shaq and Kobe could no longer co-exist.  Once a team gets to the top, it seems that it has a three-year statute of limitations before the combination of egos and pressure create an untenable situation.  Phil Jackson, did you ever know that your intellectual forefather was a Hungarian nomad?

* – Football obviously involves players working together, but to do so, they are often following instructions in the form of a play.  Basketball, because it is less controlled by the coaches, requires organic cooperation from its players.

In addressing whether Barca can be an exception to the three-year rule, Wilson points out a distinction that would not apply to NBA teams:

Yet in many ways, Barcelona are a side set up to endure. Like Ferguson, who reflected last week on how those who have been brought up at a club have more instinctive loyalty, Guardiola has a stock of homegrown talent. The impression is that most players play for Barcelona because they want to rather than because it's a convenient way of paying for the cars and clothes and rounds of Jaegerbombs.

The Lakers and Bulls didn't build their teams by signing players when they were twelve and then teaching those players over the course of years how to play in a certain style.  With the exception of Dani Alves, Barca's current core comes from the La Masia cocoon.  These players grew up together, were taught how to play together, matured together, and have now won a room full of trophies together.  That experience is simply different than what the NBA's dynastic teams experience.

I'm currently reading Soccer Men, which is Simon Kuper's attempt to explain what modern soccer* stars are really like.  One of the themes of the book is that players don't feel the same way that we do about teams and matches because for them, it's a job.  For instance, Bernd Holzenbein, one of the starters on the team that won the 1974 World Cup in a famous final against the Netherlands, recalls West Germany's win in 1954 with greater fondness.  As he describes his feelings, he was a fan in 1954 and a professional in 1974.  The chapter on Fernando Torres is also interesting, as it explains that Torres was an Atletico Madrid fan almost from birth, but had no problem moving to Liverpool because it was a better opportunity for him.  We want to think that the players we love feel the same way about the clubs that we love, but that usually isn't true.  On one end of the spectrum, we expect that LeBron, Wade, and Bosh don't feel any strong connection to the Miami Heat as an institution.  On the other end, it will be interesting to learn how strong the connection is between Xavi, Iniesta, and Messi and Futbol Club Barcelona.   

* - Kuper explains in the book that soccer is actually a British term and the sport was referred to by that title instead of football until the 70s.  I am going to be more comfortable using the term and not worrying that I come off as too American.

No Really, You Go Ahead And Blow Your Own Foot Off. I’ll Be Here In The Corner, Doing A Lot Of Nothing

On May 6, 2009, I sat in this room, in front of this computer, and wondered about the meaning of my team winning a big game when it had been both outplayed and the beneficiary of at least one notable close call.  In that instance, Andres Iniesta hit a 93rd minute winner past Petr Cech to send Barcelona to Rome.  Iniesta’s shot was Barca’s first on target in the match.  The Blaugrana trailed for most of the encounter and had to stave off numerous close encounters, including a pair of one-on-ones between Didier Drogba and Victor Valdes and four penalty appeals of varying quality.  In the end, Barca were the inferior team, but went through anyway. 

In the aftermath, I came to grips with the fact that there are more ways to succeed in a football match than by dominating possession and creating chances.  For one thing, a goalie making big saves is not exactly luck.  You would think that I would grasp this fact given that I have played goalie since age ten, but after the game, I had to remind myself that Valdes performing to keep Barca in the match counted just as much as Messi or Eto’o creating and finishing chances at the other end.  For another, a team keeping its concentration in adverse circumstances is important.  Barca could have gotten frustrated with Chelsea’s defensive approach, with the penalty that they were denied in the first leg, and with the general unfairness that their perfect season was about to end without the most coveted prize available.  Instead, they kept plugging away and then Iniesta foreshadowed his World Cup-winning strike with the goal that made the treble possible.

Tonight, I’m in the same position.  Michigan just won the Sugar Bowl, capping an 11-2 season that, with one notable exception, is as good as any I’ve experienced since enrolling in Ann Arbor in September 1993.  By conventional metrics, Michigan had no business winning the game.  The Wolverines were outgained 375 to 184.  The Hokies ran 24 more plays and were 1.4 yards better on a per play basis.  Michigan’s two touchdowns were both Jeff Bowden specials, with Junior Hemingway playing the role of Greg Carr.  Michigan’s first field goal in regulation came from an insanely lucky deflected pass to a previously-ineligible receiver.  The Michigan defense was stout in a number of respects, especially in the red zone, but they gave up a season’s worth of third and longs to a team without an especially good passing game.  In the end, Michigan benefited from a close reversal of a Hokie touchdown in overtime (the right call, I think, but very close) and then an ignored false start on the winning field goal (although it’s not as if Virginia Tech can claim that Michigan gained any sort of advantage from Brendan Gibbons starting, stopping, and then having to start again).  Notre Dame in the late 80s, Tennessee ‘98, and Ohio State ‘02 all came to mind; this was lucky.

All that said, the ability to avoid blowing off one’s own foot is a skill in college football.  If we have learned anything over the last few days after seeing kickers repeatedly spit the bit, coaches turtle up in end-game situations, and players of all shapes and sizes make mistakes, it’s that avoiding big errors is important.  Michigan had one turnover and 24 yards of penalties.  They didn’t miss a field goal.  They didn’t call a stupid fake punt on fourth and one when their running game was cooking.  Fitzgerald Toussaint didn’t take a 220-yard loss on first and goal.  They neither roughed a punter to prolong a drive, nor watched the drive end by not knocking down a pass on 3rd and 17.  Feel free to shoot me in the face for sounding like a Tressel acolyte, but playing mistake-free football can atone for a lot of sins.

Likewise, just as Barca’s persistence at Stamford Bridge was a skill, so was Michigan’s performance tonight.  They came in with their star left tackle limping around.  They then added an injury to their Rimington-winning senior center who makes all of the calls for the line and who relies on mobility to make up for a lack of size.  A group of players who remember total collapses like Illinois 2009 and Ohio State 2010 showed that they don’t roll over anymore.  Virginia Tech dominated most of the first half, but the defense made stands in the red zone and then the offense had a brief flurry to turn a 6-0 deficit into a 17-6 lead.  When the Hokies pegged them back to 17-17 and then 20-20, Michigan stood up in overtime and won the game.  Add persistence to “didn’t blow our own feet off” to the list of skills that this team used to make up for the fact that they couldn’t block or make a stop on third and long.

In a way, this is how the 2011 season had to end for Michigan.  At the end of the Rich Rodriguez era, Michigan was a great offfense and then a smoking heap of wreckage.  The defense was unconscionably bad.  The special teams were barely above that level, most notably because the Wolverines could not kick a field goal.  Michigan did dumb things like not knowing that a blocked field goal is a live ball.  The turnover rate was terrible.  This year was a palate cleanser in every way.  In the end, Michigan won a game despite the offense being completely stymied.  The Wolverines won by being good on defense, very good on special teams, and smart enough to avoid the mistakes that killed their otherwise superior opponent.  In 2010, I looked at box scores and said “we have to be better than what the scoreboard says.”  At the end of 2011, I say “according to that gleaming Sugar Bowl trophy headed to Schembechler Hall, we are better than what the box score says.”  

Brazil Goes to the Map Room

My favorite movie is Raiders of the Lost Ark.  My parents dragged me to it when I was six years old.  I say "dragged" because I wanted to see Clash of the Titans instead.  Based on the picture of Indiana Jones in the newspaper wearing a Middle Eastern headdress,* I feared that the movie was going to be an extension of Sunday School, which I was already mature enough to find boring.  Two hours after being forced against my will to go into one of the theaters on 29 in Charlottesville, I came dancing out, convinced that I had seen the best movie in the history of the world.  Three decades later, I will admit that there might be other movies of superior technical quality, but no movie has surpassed Raiders as my favorite.

* - Showing a similar mentality, my five-year old described our neighbors' nativity scene as "Jews, a camel, and a donkey."

One of Raiders' best aspects is that it is stuffed to the gills with iconic scenes.  Indy running away from the boulder.  Indy's travels being tracked by a red line on a map.  Indy shooting the swordsman in the Cairo market.*  The Ark melting the faces of Toht and Dietrich.  The Ark being buried in a government warehouse along with who knows what.** 

* - If there is a better 30-second metaphor for colonialism, I'd like to see it. OK, maybe the fact that the locals cheer the Westerner who uses technology to defeat the skilled, but outdated native cuts against my conclusion, but leave me my attempt to find meaning in a pulp classic.  Also, it's interesting to me that two of the best scenes in George Lucas-affiliated movies - the swordsman scene in Raiders and the "I love you." "I know." scene in Empire Strikes Back - were both improvised by Harrison Ford.

** - The perfect metaphor for government waste.

For me, the best scene in the entire movie is the Map Room.  Indy takes his right-sized staff into the Map Room at the right time, waits for the sun to hit the right spot, and then looks on with amazement as a brilliant beam of light strikes the location of the Well of the Souls.

Two qualities make the scene.  The first is John Williams' score, as the Ark's theme rises to an inspiring crescendo.  The second is Harrison Ford's expression of wonder at the show of light.  The cynicism of a world-weary archaeologist with the weathered leather jacket and fedora - the guy who said earlier in the movie " I don't believe in magic, a lot of superstitious hocus pocus. I'm going after a find of incredible historical significance, you're talking about the boogie man" - melts away now that he realizes that he is in the presence of the ethereal.  Steven Spielberg's movies are often noted for the moment of realization that his protagonists have.  (Think about Roy Scheider's face in Jaws when he realizes the size of the shark he's hunting, or Liam Neeson's face when he finally realizes the extent of the Final Solution and its effect on children in Schindler's List.)  The definitive moment of realization is Indy in the Map Room as his face changes to a wide-eyed gape.

I had Indy's expression in mind when I read Tim Vickery's pieces about the lesson that Brazilians should take from the hiding that Santos took from Barcelona in Japan.  With the world title on the line, Santos brought in a team that had been strengthened after winning the Copa Libertadores and was led by two burgeoning stars: Neymar and Ganso.  With the Brazilian domestic league in good financial form after signing a lucrative TV deal and the currency doing well against the failing Euro, this seemed like the time for a Brazilian club side to show its strength against a European champion.  Instead, Barca won in embarrassingly comfortable fashion, breaking out to a 3-0 lead at the half and then coasting home.

Vickery, who has been preaching about the failings of modern Brazilian futebol for as long as I have been reading and listening to him, could have viewed the match as a confirmation of his hypothesis that Brazil has given up the ability to produce passing midfielders.  Here is what Vickery wrote for the BBC:

Like watching Muhammad Ali against some outgunned challenger, Barcelona's destruction of Santos was as joyful as it was clinical. Xavi, Andres Iniesta, Cesc Fabregas and Lionel Messi ran rings round Santos as if the Brazilians were traffic cones in a training exercise.

According to the dominant current of thought in Brazil in recent years, this sort of thing is not supposed to happen. The physical evolution of the game, it was thought, had made it impossible. In this modern football of reduced space, the central midfielders need to be six-footers, big and strong enough to win the 50-50 balls and protect the defence.

And there was no point in possession football - a move with more than seven passes had a reduced chance of ending up in a goal. The way to win was to block the middle and look for quick counter attacks and set-pieces.

And the quality of the play? "If you want to see a spectacle," says Santos coach Muricy Ramalho, "then go to the theatre." Or maybe go to watch his side taken apart in such style by Barcelona.

In football the idea comes first. And the line of thinking helps explain the type of players produced. In Neymar Santos could count on a Messi equivalent. But where is the Xavi or the Iniesta? Brazilian football no longer has them because it is not looking to produce them. They do not fit the mould.

And here is his similar description for ESPN:

Sunday's match was not decided by a financial imbalance. It was the imposition of one footballing philosophy over another, a victory for the skilful little guys with the low centre of gravity, a triumph for the spectacle and self-expression of pass and move - a win like many that South American football has enjoyed in its glorious history.

The value of defeat is always in the lessons that it can teach. Perhaps the big lesson that Barcelona have taught in Yokohama is this: if Brazilian football wants to keep on winning not only titles but also hearts then it would be well advised to get back in touch with elements of its own tradition. There is an argument against the view that possession football is outdated and that the central midfielders should be unimaginative giants. Its case was made loud and clear in Japan this Sunday.

If Spain's triumph and Brazil's failure in South Africa was not evidence enough, Sunday's result in Yokohama should be Brazil's trip to the Map Room.  It should be enough to convince the cynics who have led Brazil astray ever since the beautiful 1982 iteration to the Selecao - led by Zico, Falcao, and the late Socrates - was upset by Italy (ironically enough, in Barcelona at Espanyol's old ground) that technical ability in the central midfield is more important than brawn.*

* - As Jack Lang of Snap Kaka Pop was marveling at Thiago - Barca's latest midfield prodigy and the son of a former Brazil international - and expressing regret that Thiago has declared for Spain instead of Brazil, I was tempted to respond with "maybe he didn't want to become a fullback."

To come back to this blog's favorite topic, the Map Room analogy has me thinking about similar episodes in college football, instances where one striking result caused an epiphany from a team or a conference.  These are the examples that came to mind, but I am all ears for more:

1.  After getting his tail kicked in by Florida State and Miami in a series of Orange and Fiesta Bowls, Tom Osborne decides that he needs defensive players who can run.  He recruits Texas and California more heavily, thus producing the dominant team that won national titles in 1994, 1995, and 1997.

2.  After a favored Ohio State team gets obliterated by Florida in the 2006 national championship game, the Big Ten moves towards the spread offense.  Ohio State shows a run-based spread with Terrelle Pryor, Penn State deploys the "Spread HD," and Michigan hires Rich Rodriguez. 

3.  After Danny Wuerrfel is beaten to a pulp by Florida State at Doak Campbell Stadium in November 1996, Steve Spurrier relents on his long-standing opposition to the shotgun.  The Gators bury the Noles in the rematch and the 'gun is a feature of Spurrier's offense from that point forward.

4. After the SEC was dominated in the 1980s by conservative, run-the-ball-and-play-defense coaches like Vince Dooley and Pat Dye, Spurrier arrives in 1990, destroys a highly-rated Auburn team in 1990 48-7, wins the Gators' first SEC title in 1991, and then sets himself on a path of destruction through the conference.  The rest of the SEC enters the Map Room and emerges with the David Cutcliffe offense at Tennessee, the Air Raid at Kentucky, and the quasi-spread run by Terry Bowden and featuring Dameyune Craig at Auburn.

Others?

The Dwight Howard Pipedream

Two weeks ago, I started a post agreeing with Jeff Schultz that the Hawks should make a play for Dwight Howard and then, in the process of writing it, realized that Howard would never come here because he would end up in a situation that is worse than the one he was leaving in Orlando.  Here was my conclusion:

Additionally, Howard has to be thinking that the biggest obstacle to gaining a higher Q-rating is that he hasn't won a championship and has only made the Finals once.  He needs to go somewhere where he will win.  His issue in Orlando is the supporting cast.  Will it make sense for him to come here to play with Jeff Teague (a player whose promise is based on a six-game series against the Bulls last year), Joe Johnson (holder of one of the worst contracts in the NBA), Marvin Williams (average small forward who escapes being non-descript only because of his Draft position and the careers of the players taken after him), and a power forward to be named later?  And then you add in the fact that Atlanta Spirit has expressed an aversion to paying the luxury tax and in light of the team's revenues, they can't really be blamed, can they?  The end game could well be that Thorpe wants to send Howard to Atlanta, but can't make the trade happen because Howard refuses to agree to a potential extension with the Hawks.

Yesterday, Bill Simmons framed Howard's decision in the same way:

Put it this way: If I'm Dwight Howard, I'm thinking about titles and titles only. I don't care about money — that's coming, regardless. I don't care about weather — I have to live in whatever city for only eight months a year, and I'm traveling during that entire time, anyway. I don't care about "building my brand" and all that crap — if I don't start winning titles soon, my brand is going to be "the center who's much better than every other center but can't win a title." I care only about playing in a big city, finding a team that doesn't have to demolish itself to acquire me, finding one All-Star teammate who can make my life a little easier (the Duncan to my Robinson), and winning titles. Not title … titles. I want to come out of this decade with more rings than anyone else. I want to be remembered alongside Shaq, Moses and Hakeem, not Robinson and Ewing.

Tellingly, Simmons listed five destinations for Howard and Black Hollywood was nowhere in sight, except for a brief mention of the fact that the Hawks were able to beat the Magic last year with a "let Dwight get his; we need to make sure that the Magic shooters don't get theirs" strategy.  For instance, he pooh-poohs the prospect of Howard ending up on the Lakers because he would be playing with Kobe Bryant and a gutted roster.  Would Howard be any more likely to have a desire to play with Joe Johnson, Jeff Teague, Marvin Williams, and then a similarly gutted roster, only in this instance, you have Atlanta Spirit instead of Jerry Buss filling in the remainder?

Simmons' interest in stars going to play for the Bulls is interesting to me.  As he mentions, he wanted LeBron to go there and now he wants Howard to make the same decision.  This preference is to Simmons' credit, as a superpower in Chicago would be detrimental to the prospect of the Celtics winning a title in the next decade.  Simmons is often derided as a Boston homer and he does plenty of things to earn the label, but he is able to put that aside when he pines for Derrick Rose to have a superstar wing man like LeBron or Howard.  I think that there are two things going on here.  First, Simmons is more of a basketball fan than a Celtics fan and he would like to see a memorable team come together instead of the NBA's stars being isolated and surrounded by poor supporting casts.  Second, he wants that memorable team to play in uniforms that mean something and in an environment that makes for good TV.  The Bulls uniform evokes memories of the Jordan dynasty and the United Center has a great atmosphere when the team is good.

I have to admit that I feel the same way.  It's hard for me to reconcile my feelings about Major League Baseball with my current feelings about the NBA.  In baseball, I get very annoyed by the constant focus on the Red Sox and Yankees.  This annoyance extends to those two teams sucking up free agents left and right to cover for the failings of their own farm systems.  In basketball, I liked the idea of Chris Paul and Dwight Howard going to the Lakers because that team would be highly entertaining.  Again, I am going to point to two factors that drive my thinking.  First, basketball is a team game.  Like soccer, it's more interesting to watch great players play with one another because they bring one another to a higher level.  Baseball, on the other hand, is a game with a minimal amount of teamwork.  This makes baseball more conducive to reaching stat-based conclusions with confidence, but it also means that there is no great joy in watching superstars play with one another.  Mark Teixeira driving in A-Rod isn't the same thing as Messi finding Cesc with a defense-splitting pass or Paul hitting Howard with an alley-oop.  Second, I have a lifelong disdain for New York teams.  If the Knicks were the ones assembling a cache of talent, then I would be annoyed because Mike Lupica would be happy.  I don't feel the same "oh G-d, this is going to be intolerable" pangs with Chicago or Los Angeles.

We Meet Again

After taking a four-month break to cut swaths through Europe and, in Barca's case, drop points on the road with alarming frequency, Jose Mourinho's Real Madrid and Pep Guardiola's Barcelona will have a little get-together on Saturday at 4 p.m.  Light refreshments and occasional eye-gouges will be served.  The proceedings will be broadcast on GolTV, ESPN Deportes, ESPN3, and any one of a number of streaming Internet feeds of dubious legality.  As I do every year, I will make an appeal for any college football fans who have been thinking about checking out a European footie match to spend some time on Saturday watching this match.  SEC fans, just watch the reactions of the fans in the stands as the game progresses.  The looks of sheer anger and exhilaration will be quite familiar to you.  Plus, you will be watching the two best players and the two best teams in the world,* bar none and without any dispute.  Come on, this is our first Saturday without college football and you have the perfect dose of methadone staring you in the face.  Plus, there is a good chance that there will be more scoring than there was in Bama-LSU.

* - Real and Barca are now almost prohibitive favorites to win the Champions League.  The two best contenders from England are out, Bayern Munich have slowed down after a fast start, and Barca recently won on the road against the best side from Serie A.  The only question seems to be whether Barca and Real will avoid each other until the final.

For those of you who are already familiar with the game and the players, here are my thoughts of what to watch for in the match:

1. How does Pep line up his forward line?  I assume that he is not going to play three at the back, given that Real play one striker (three at the back really makes more sense against two) and Puyol and Pique are both available.  I further assume that the midfield will be Busquets, Xavi, and Iniesta.  (Busquets gets the nod over Mascherano because the latter has become more of a defender than a midfielder.)  So who goes with Messi up top?  Alexis Sanchez, who is coming back to health and has played really well over the past week?  Pedro, who just came back from an injury spell on Tuesday, but who gives the team more width and has a great record of scoring against Real? Isaac Cuenca, the latest product of La Masia and a player who Guardiola already trusts to be in the right place at the right time?  David Villa, the big star who has been struggling and whose confidence might be shattered by starting the match on the bench?  My guess is that Pep will go with Villa and Sanchez alongside Messi.  The other possibility is Cesc, playing an advanced role along with Messi and then one of the aforementioned forwards switching wings to provide width.  Cesc and Messi have developed a great understanding with one another and Cesc brings dimensions that the rest of the team lacks, namely the abilities to: (1) crash the box from the midfield to provide a target for Messi's passes; and (2) shoot from outside of the box with accuracy.  If Real play defensively, then Cesc is the countermeasure.  Also, with his experience as a midfielder, he can be the one to harass Xabi Alonso - Real's fulcrum - when Los Merengues have the ball.

2. Does Mourinho play a third defensive midfielder?  Xabi Alonso and Sami Khedira seem like automatics.  Does he then add Lass Diarra to the mix in place of Meszut Ozil, who is slumping like Villa?  Is he going to play a pure counter-attacking game or is he going to press?  If it's the former, then he plays Diarra.  If it's the latter, then he plays Ozil.  As is always the case when Mourinho teams play Barca, it will be most interesting to see how aggressive Real are and whether they let Barca have the ball in non-dangerous areas.  Real were far more offensive in the Supercup matches in August and they have been scoring goals by the bushel in La Liga, so I am not going to assume that Jose parks the bus.

3. Does Mourinho go with Benzema or Higuain up front?  Benzema is the more technically gifted player, but Higuain is the superior counter-attacking weapon.  Again, Real's orientation will determine the selection.

4. Who plays right back for Real?  Is Alvaro Arbeloa healthy enough?  If not, does Diarra go there?  Does Sergio Ramos go there, knowing that Real are then shakier in the middle?  Does Fabio Coentrao play the spot?

5. Which Brazilian fullback is the bigger defensive liability: Marcelo or Dani Alves?  Mourinho usually puts Angel Di Maria opposite Alves because Di Maria is better at tracking back than Ronaldo.  In the past, this has meant that Real have been weaker offensively against a potential Barca defensive weakness, but Di Maria is in great form, so they don't have to make a sacrifice this time around.*  Barca have given up goals this year when opponents have gotten down the wings and then pulled the ball back to late-arriving attackers.  Real will almost certainly look to do this: Ronaldo and Di Maria getting into advanced positions, the striker making a run to occupy the central defenders, and then a midfielder  - Alonso or Khedira - arriving late to occupy the space vacated by the central defenders.  Conversely, Pep's decision on his front line will be interesting.  His right-sided attacker is going to get chances against Marcelo.  (The biggest goal of the five Barca-Real matches last season was Messi's opener in the Champions League first leg.  That came from Affellay skinning Marcelo and getting in a low cross that Messi knocked home.)  Who is that attacker going to be and can that attacker help out defensively when Marcelo gets forward.

* - Invalidating everything I just said, Mourinho had Ronaldo on the left in the Supercup matches and Dani Alves did a great job defending him.  The title of this paragraph is a little unfair, as Alves can be underrated as a defensive player.




6. How does the ref call the game?  The referee will be under enormous pressure.  Barca will want the game called tight, with frequent cards for hard fouls.  Real will want license to put in physical tackles.  Any decision to send a player off will be analyzed a million times over.  Does the ref want to be harangued by the Barca players on the pitch or Mourinho off of it?  And will Barca's players and Mourinho behave better after they all did themselves and their teams a disservice by their embarrassing conduct in the first leg of the Champions League tie last year?

Overall, I'll take a 2-2.