Bobby Good, Bobby Bad

Continuing with a semi-regular Sunday tradition, Bobby Cox inserted Jesse Chavez into a ties game in extra innings and watched Chavez lose the game with alacrity. Against the Dodgers in June, Chavez recorded one out. Yesterday, he didn't record a single out. Literally any option would have been better than Cox putting Chavez into the game. At this point, blame has to go to Frank Wren for allowing Chavez to continue to occupy a spot on a major league roster in which he can do damage.

Yesterday's game also illustrated the flip-side of Cox continually trotting out a reliever whose function in life is to make us all angry. The Braves found themselves in extra innings because Melky Cabrera doubled in the eighth inning with two outs and then came around to score the tying run when Chipper shot a ball into the gap in left-center. I was certainly not alone in complaining about Melky when he started the season in a major funk. Cox, a more patient man than just about any fan, stuck with Melky. Cabrera is now producing for the Braves, maybe not at an all-star level, but he is a league average outfielder (if you take out his terrible April). After the problems that the Braves have had in the outfield over the past several years, league average is nothing to sneeze at.

It's the Netherlands and Spain, so I'll be Switzerland

I feel very conflicted as to whom I will root for tomorrow. This is the problem that a sports bigamist can have. I have rooted for Holland since 1988, when I watched the Dutch play in Euro '88. (The tournament wasn't on in the U.S., but we were in Israel for three weeks and then in London for several days, so I saw everything but the final. I read about the final in The Manchester Guardian, which my parents got for the crossword puzzles. And you wonder why I'm an Anglophile.) The Netherlands played attractive football, they had cool uniforms and players with cool hair, and most importantly, they beat the Germans in Hamburg. If I would have known at the time that Ronald Koeman celebrated by wiping his rear with a West German jersey, I might have moved to Amsterdam right then and there. My affection for the Dutch was cemented when we saw them three times in USA '94 in Orlando, concluding with a 2-0 spanking of an Ireland team that I detested for aesthetic reasons. (I defy any human being to watch Ireland-Norway from 1994 without falling into a coma.) The Dutch fans were outstanding. They were a singing carnival; everything good about SEC fans without the nasty side. I was humming the tune from the Aida march for the whole drive back to Macon.



Side note: for years after the tournament, the expression that my brothers and I used for ripping a shot from outside the box was "give it a bloody Jonking."

When I was picking a club team in the aftermath of USA '94, I picked Barcelona in part because of the Dutch connection. Cruyff had played there, he was the manager there, they played the Dutch 4-3-3, and they had won the European Cup on a goal by Ronald Koeman. Plus, in the same way that I liked the Dutch for their opposition to the Nazis, I liked Barca because of the club's history as a bulwark against Franco. Being a Dutch/Barca fan seemed to make a lot of sense.

You can probably see where I'm going with this. I've been rooting for the Dutch for over two decades. I've been rooting for Barca for over a decade, to the point where I spend more emotional energy supporting them than any other team other than Michigan football. Over the past five years, I've become especially attached to the current core of Barca players. You know, the guys who are going to be over half of Spain's starting lineup tomorrow. If Spain win, then Puyol, Xavi, and Iniesta - the heart of the current Barca dynasty - are going to join the select group of Europeans who have won every major piece of silverware: their domestic competition, the European Cup, and the World Cup. Off the top of my head, we're only talking about the core of the West German/Bayern side from the 70s - Beckenbauer, Muller, Breitner, Hoeness, Maier - and the France side from the late 90s - Zidane, Henry, Desailly, and Thuram.

So here's the question: am I rooting for the uniforms or the players wearing them? My loyalty is to the Dutch. I had always hoped that they would win the World Cup at some point during my lifetime to reward a great collection of supporters and a culture that produces an obscene number of skilled players. A Dutch victory will validate that a small country doesn't need to play a conservative, limited style in order to compete, even if this is not the most expansive of Dutch teams.

However, I also have loyalty to and affection for the core Spain players. I watch these players once or twice a week for most of the year. With Michigan's football program attached to the bowl like a skid mark and Atlanta sports firmly in meh territory (subject to revision if the Braves keep playing like they have for the past two months), Barca have kept my sports sanity for the past two years. There have been more than a few occasions on which I've felt lucky that I liked Barcelona better than any other city in Europe when I was backpacking after graduating college in 1997.

This particular group of players are especially rootable. They play a passing style that is aesthetically appealing. They foul at a lower rate than other teams and rarely get carded. Their fundamental disposition is to attack, which means that they don't play boring games (as opposed to counter-attacking parasite sides that require the opponent to take risks for anything to happen). In contrast, this is harder Dutch team to love. I don't begrudge the fact that they play 4-2-3-1 in a relatively defensive fashion. Bert van Marwijk would be insane to throw everyone forward with his average back line. However, Mark van Bommel.



Arjen Robben is a diver with the most exaggerated pout I've seen since Bobby Hurley. Robin van Persie is a brat. Nigel de Jong broke Stuart Holden's leg. Jonny Heitinga is not good. I root for these guys when they put on the orange jersey, but I wouldn't choose to do so if they played for Neutral United.

So anyway, the only solution for my dilemma is not to make a decision. I'll just watch the match tomorrow with a smile on my face. I didn't like any of the teams that made the last four of the 2006 World Cup and, validating my opinion of those teams, the last three games were 1-0 on a penalty, 2-0 with both goals coming in the final five of 120 minutes, and 1-1 after 120 minutes with the most memorable event of the match being the best player of his generation imitating a Cape Buffalo. This tournament has been much better in terms of the quality of the knock-out matches and my favored teams winning, which I will of course view as being correlated. Rooting for two teams famed for getting their fans' hopes up with attractive displays and then crushing those hopes, usually in penalties, I never thought I would face the problem that has been flummoxing me for the past three days.

One final note: even though I did vote for Barack Obama, I would root for the U.S. over either the Netherlands or Spain.

Instathoughts on USA 2 Slovenia 2

Overall, a good result that feels strangely empty. The US shouldn't have many problems with an Algeria team that will almost certainly have one foot on the plane. (Note: I'm sure I was saying the same thing about our final match with Poland eight years ago.) It is very unlikely that a win over Algeria will not send the US into the knock-out stage. And with Germany losing and looking vulnerable, the premium for winning the group has gone out the window. I ought to be thrilled with the guts that the US team showed by fighting back from 2-0 down in the second half. (What was it that everyone says about this team being inconsistent?) Still, there's such a feeling of frustration because the winning goal was waved off because Michael Bradley managed to find himself in an "offside" position as a result of being tackled in the box. Swirl that one around in your mouth for a moment.

Lotsa thoughts:

1. The US looked really good on free kicks. Landon Donovan's deliveries were consistently excellent and we had guys crashing to the right spots time and again. It seemed like it was a matter of time before we scored on one. Also, I was a little surprised that Slovenia - a team with a reputation as an organized, defensive side - was so slack in marking our attackers. England will have a field day on set pieces if they get the opportunities.

2. I'll repeat my gripe from eight years ago: FIFA damages the World Cup by making nice with its broad constituency by having refs from tiny countries calling big matches. In 2002, South Korea advanced to the semifinals because refs from Ecuador and Egypt were intimidated by the Koreans' fantastic crowds. Today, the US was undone because of a crew from Mali. Honestly, does anyone think that a ref from one of the poorest countries in the world is better able to handle the speed of a world class game and the pressure of making calls in front of 80,000 fans with hundreds of millions watching all over the globe? I can't claim to be an expert on the domestic league in Mali, but I'm guessing that your average ref from any one of the major European leagues, not to mention the leagues in Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, the US, and Japan, would be better positioned to make a close call in a critical game.

2a. And FIFA's referee selection policies are made worse by its refusal to do anything to make sure that the right call is made. FIFA hasn't gone to two refs, it hasn't put refs behind the goals (yet), and it is totally against video replay. Any one of those fixes would have increased the chances that the right call would have been made on Edu's goal. It is very difficult to be a ref or a linesman. I can think of few calls in sports that are harder to make than offside because the linesman has to see two different places within a split second. Because of the low-scoring nature of the game, refereeing decisions take on out-sized importance in futbol. These are all reasons why FIFA should be doing more to get calls right, as opposed to its current policy of sticking its collective fingers in its ears and singing "Mary had a Little Lamb."

2b. The US has had a dreadful decision go against it in the last three World Cups: the handball on the line by Frings in '02, the penalty that ended our hopes against Ghana in '06, and now the travesty of a call on Edu's winner in '10. Can we think of any notable bad calls that have gone our way? The only one that comes to mind is the penalty that Mexico should have had when they were down 1-0 in the '02 Round of 16.

2c. All that said, in futbol, you just have to accept that calls are going to be missed.

3. Maybe my view is distorted because the US played with more urgency in the second half and Slovenia was sitting on their lead, but I liked the 4-3-3. Bob Bradley moved Maurice Edu into a proper holding role, which we don't have in the 4-4-2, put Michael Bradley into a more offensive midfield spot alongside Benny Feilhaber, and then pushed Donovan and Dempsey into forward positions. That formation makes sense for a couple reasons. First, the strength of this team is clearly in the offensive positions, so why not go with an offensive formation? Play to your strengths instead of compensating for your weaknesses. Second, the 4-3-3 gives more defined roles. Right now, we have two central midfielders, but their roles are mixed between offense and defense. In the 4-3-3, we would have Edu tasked with shielding the back four (which they desperately need) and Bradley in a more advanced position to take advantage of his Gerrard-esque ability to crash the box. The US has given up three goals in this tournament, all right down the middle and all in the space that would be covered by someone playing the classic Makelele role. The downside to a 4-3-3 would be that Dempsey and Donovan would have to run their tails off to provide help for the left and right backs. That said, maybe encouraging opponents to play down the wings and cross would play to the strength of our centerbacks. That certainly worked against Spain last summer, although Spain is a unique case.

4. Demerit and Gooch have played together for ages, but they are not doing a good job of communicating. Also, with Gooch slowed by his knee injury, we have two slow centerbacks and we can only get away with one.

5. Did anyone else notice on Landon's goal that he didn't have a passing option because Feilhaber ran into Dempsey? They both went to the same spot.

6. Boy, this tournament has gotten a lot better after the first set of games. The goals are suddenly coming in a flood. I'm happy to have been wrong.

7. Assuming that England beats Algeria by more than one goal, Slovenia is going to have to play to win against England. Let's see how a naturally defensive team does in that situation. They were in the same spot in their second leg match against Russia and they pulled it off, but it's easier to go for the win at home as opposed to at a neutral site.

Still Unlucky

Last August, I lamented that the Braves were underperforming their expected won-loss record. With their runs scored and runs allowed, they should have had more wins. 2009 was a continuation of an extended trend, as the Braves had consistently underperformed relative to their expected record since 2006.

Sure enough, we're six weeks into the 2010 season and the Braves are two games under .500, but with their run differential, they should be two games over. Normally, I wouldn't care about about a two-game disparity, but coming on the heels of four straight "unlucky" seasons, this is a a problem. I'm at a loss to come up with an explanation, so I need some help. The bullpen is normally the first explanation for a team underperforming its expected record, but the pen was good last year and it has been good this year. Here is the best I can come up with:

1. The Braves are not good at situational hitting, so they struggle to eke a run across when they really need one.

2. The Braves are slow, so they can't manufacture a run in a close game.

3. Bobby isn't a good tactical manager at the end of a close game.

4. Karma is punishing us for 1991-2005.

5. ???

Suggestions welcome.

Random College Football Thoughts

Because the season is a mere four-and-a-half months away!

• I expect that the response from most Georgia fans will be something along the lines of "are you f***ing crazy!?!," but do we have a slight desire to see the Florida offense do well under John Brantley? The last two years have been defined for many of us by increasing nausea at the way that Tim Tebow has been sold by the media. (Insert standard disclaimer here that this is not Tebow's fault.) He's been portrayed as the best college football player of all-time and then when that wasn't enough, he turned into a combination of Dick Butkus and Mother Teresa. Those of us who got annoyed by this pointed out that Tebow was playing in a clever offensive system, he was surrounded by terrific talent, and most importantly, Florida was supported by a bad-ass defense. Tebow got credit for the work of Brandon Spikes, Joe Haden, Carlos Dunlap, and friends as if the defense would have turned to jello without their inspirational leader. (If there's a way for some in the media to direct credit away from the fast black guys with dreads, they'll do it.) Tebow was a great player and I'd be an idiot for claiming otherwise, but the credit he received was disproportionate. So wouldn't it be a pisser if the Florida offense doesn't miss a beat when Tebow is gone? Admit it, in your heart of hearts, the idea of watching Brantley put up big numbers against Tennessee and Alabama while Gary Danielson tries to make sense of the world will be entertaining. (Danielson will almost certainly claim that Florida changed the offense fundamentally and that his claim that the spread is dying was correct. He'll be wrong on both counts, but that's what the party line will be.)

• Continuing on that theme, the summer is often the time in which I sort out my rooting preferences for the season, in part by sorting out feelings like "Tim Tebow annoyed me, but I never really disliked Florida, so what is my feeling on them now?" How do I feel about Alabama? I grew to like them last year because they were the counterweight to Florida, not unlike how I found myself in the bizarre position of briefly becoming a casual Cowboys fan in the early 90s because of my all-consuming disdain for the 49ers. (NFC West antipathy died hard.) Now? Does Bama need to be taken down a notch? Am I rooting for the Gators when they meet in Tuscaloosa? Another team about which I need to do some thinking is Notre Dame. The Irish are the alpha of my college football bete noires, but I do like and respect Brian Kelly. For once, I can imagine the customary "Return to Glory!" cover in SI and not be nauseated. And although Charlie Weis has gotten quite the comeuppance, a little tiny piece of me would be amused to see Notre Dame do well now that they have been liberated.

• There's plenty of time to take the temperature of Georgia fans about expectations for the season, but I'll be interested to see how much improvement is expected on defense. There's a natural tendency to assume that replacing bad coaches with good ones is a panacea, but things don't always work out like that. Take Florida State when they replaced Fredo Bowden with Jimbo Fisher. The expectation was that Florida State would get better immediately, but like Eastern Europe after the fall of the Berlin Wall, it took several years to root out the lingering effects of total incompetence. Removed from their most heated moments, I don't think that Georgia fans quite view Willie Martinez as being on par with Jeff Bowden, but the point remains.

• I'm a little disappointed in Dr. Saturday that he could list the worst coaching hires of the decade and not find room for the name "Bill Callahan." Storied program in area bereft of talent that has succeeded on the basis of a unique offense ingrained into the state from the pee wee level up and a famed walk-on program that allows the team to practice the offense chooses to abandon that offense to bring in a thin-skinned NFL coach to run a complex passing game that has never worked in college. How did that not lead to success?

A Few Random Footie Thoughts

When the Champions League draw took place, I was confident in the extreme that Barca would have no trouble with Stuttgart. In light of Barca's injury situation and Stuttgart's improved form under Christian Gross, I don't feel that way anymore. There's an argument to be made that Xavi is more integral to the team's success than Messi because Xavi is the fulcrum around which Barca's play operates (and also because Xavi has been more able to impose his style when playing for his country). Xavi will likely be out tonight, as will Dani Alves, who gives the team its width and its Plan B. Alves's absence on the right forces Puyol to play on the right instead of the center, which then brings Rafa Marquez into the mix and I don't trust him defensively. Marquez the central defender scares me. Marquez the defensive midfielder, I like. There aren't too many defenders in the world with the skill to do this:



If you are looking for a good, short, weekly post as a primer on soccer history, I highly recommend the Joy of Six feature that runs every Friday morning in the Guardian. For instance, last Friday's edition was a trip down memory lane to one of the most shocking, gutsy moves you will ever see from a coach: Arrigo Sacchi pulling off Roberto Baggio 22 minutes into a must-win match against Norway in 1994. Baggio was the world's best player at the time, Italy were in a must-win game against a defensive opponent, and Sacchi made the decision in thirty seconds to pull Baggio off when his team went down to ten men.

I am extremely excited by the prospect of the second leg of Lyon-Real Madrid after Lyon won the first leg 1-0. 1-0 is a great result for a home team in the first leg because it means that they only need to score once in the second leg to force the home side to score three to beat them. (My first experience with this phenomenon was the '97 semifinal between Dortmund and Manchester United, when I was just getting into club football. Dortmund won the first leg 1-0 and then got an early goal at Old Trafford. The rest of the game was academic. United melted under the pressure of needing three.) Now, imagine the pressure that is going to fall on Los Merengues when they take the field in the second leg. The club spent hundreds of millions of Euros to succeed in Europe, which their fans view as their birth right. Their arch rival, whom they could always taunt as being a choker in Europe, has won two Champions League titles since Real last won it. Real have been knocked out at this stage in each of the last five years. The final is at their home stadium. I normally root for the La Liga sides in Europe, even Real, but I am definitely amused by the idea of watching the faces in the crowd if Lyon exploit Real's weakness at left back and strike first.

As a football fan, it hurts to watch AC Milan look this bad. Several weeks ago, I was excited to watch the Milan derby after Milan had reduced Inter's lead and were in a fine vein of form. The match that ensued was a colossal ass-whipping by the Nerazzuri didn't pause even after they went down to ten men. How does a major club allow itself to have this bad of a backline? Are they not aware that left and right backs are useful to have? The same issues popped up against Manchester United, even with Pirlo and Ambrosini turning back the clock and having strong games in the midfield. Milan created a bunch of chances after getting a lucky bounce to go up 1-0, but they didn't extend their lead and then United embarrassed them every time they came forward, especially exploiting 93-year old reserve right back Giuseppe Favalli.

I like Chelsea over Inter. Until I have reason to believe otherwise, I am picking against Serie A teams in Europe. (On the other hand, Inter now have the link-up players - Sneijder and Pandev - that they never had before, so maybe this team is different?)

Manchester City-Liverpool: I would like those 90 minutes of my life back, please.

I feel very conflicted on Landon Donovan right now. On the one hand, he is playing very well for Everton. He's found a team in which he fits and he's showing that he can compete at the highest level. Thus, he should stay in England. On the other hand, he's the biggest American star in MLS, so the league might need him right now, especially with labor issues popping up. Thus, he should come home when the loan ends.

I Got Mixed Up Confusion, Man It's a Killin' Me

I have two competing thoughts in my head about the game tonight. On the one hand, the Zeitgeist surrounding this game is that Alabama is a clear favorite and shouldn't have too much trouble with Texas because Saban's defense will eat the Texas offense alive. This thinking comes from the recent success of SEC teams in national title games, along with the performances of the two teams in their conference title games. The former factor seems like a legitimate one, but the latter screams of a recency problem. Yes, Alabama looked great against Florida, but they were one game removed from escaping by the skins of their teeth on the Plains. This Alabama team is not a juggernaut like '08 Florida; their offense is too inconsistent for me to be confident that they'll roll tonight. To go all Herbstreit on you, Texas will be the team with a chip on its shoulder tonight. Also, Mack Brown has an epic record in close games and this game seems like it will be tight based on the fact that both teams have outstanding defenses and hit-or-miss offenses.

On the other hand, have we reached the point where an SEC/Big XII matchup in the title game should be viewed in the same way that an AFC/NFC matchup in the Super Bowl was in the late 80s and early 90s? Probably not because the sample size isn't as big and Texas is 1-0 in title games and 3-0 in BCS Bowls. However, I can see the analogy working. Alabama was tested this season. They played their best games on neutral fields against Virginia Tech and Florida, both of whom are better than any team that Texas played. Alabama coming through the SEC and vanquishing Florida and LSU is not unlike the 49ers coming out of the NFC after vanquishing the Giants, Redskins, and Bears. Playing Texas won't be novel for Bama, but the converse is not true. It also occurs to me that Bama has seen offenses like Texas's because there are plenty of spread-y teams in the SEC, but Texas has not seen an offense like Bama's (unless you count Nebraska and the Huskers are so bad on offense that they can't possibly count).

Anyway, I've talked myself into a quandary. If you put a gun to my head, I'd take the Tide in a close game tonight, but I'm one of those people who believes in the randomness of the universe and thus doesn't put a lot of stock in predictions. I'll just say that I've enjoyed the BCS games this year because they have been somewhat old fashioned, defensive games (after watching Michigan's abortion of a defense for 12 games, you can see why I'd feel that way) and I'm looking forward to a better version of the same tonight.

I Don't Know What I'm Supposed to Feel

In January 1987, John Elway drove the Denver Broncos 92 yards in roughly five minutes on the road on a bitterly cold day against Cleveland for a touchdown to tie the game at 20. The Browns were shell-shocked, lost the coin toss in overtime, and then watched Elway drive the Broncos against for the winning field goal. This afternoon, Tate Forcier drove the Michigan Wolverines 92 yards in a little less than three minutes in a driving rainstorm against Michigan State to tie the game at 20. Michigan then lost the coin toss, Forcier threw an interception on 3rd and five in overtime, and the Spartans scored a touchdown to win the game. I'm not a fan of dubbing every comeback led by a quarterback as Elway-esque, but geez, the parallels are a little strong, no?

What I don't understand is what Rich Rodriguez was thinking with his playcalling in overtime. As anyone who has read this blog over the past year knows, I'm a huge fan of Rodriguez. Michigan's performance so far this season bears out that confidence. That said, after his quarterback had just passed Michigan back from a 20-6 deficit in a game that they had no business sending to overtime, the playcalls in OT were surprisingly run-heavy. Michigan had failed to block the Spartans up front all day, so what were the Wolverines doing not putting the ball in the hands of their wunderkind until third and five?

Rodriguez didn't cover himself in glory in this game. His team wasn't as motivated as Michigan State. (This is often the case, given the fact that the Spartans roster has a number of players who were not offered by the Wolverines. Georgia fans, I think you can relate.) He is struggling to hold the offensive line together without David Molk. His decision to play Denard Robinson for a series after Michigan State went up 20-6 was indefensible and set back Michigan's comeback in terms of both time and field position. Worst of all, his decision to let Zoltan Mesko have a fake punt option on fourth and an inch from his own 17 was horrendous. I would have been fine with Michigan going for the first down deep in its own territory. The strength of the defense is defending in the red zone, so it's not as if giving State the ball inside the 20 is a huge loss. However, if there is one down in which a fake makes no sense, it's fourth and inches because the defense is prepared for it.

While Rodriguez deserves some blame, there's only so much that a coach can do when his offensive and (to a lesser extent) defensive lines are getting whipped. The fact that Michigan was even in position to rally and force overtime was the result of some terrible strategy by Mark Dantonio. True to his rock-ribbed, scowly Midwestern roots, Dantonio kept ploughing his tailbacks into the line to little success. Larry Caper and Glen "Fastest When Running Between Jail and the Practice Field" Winston combined for 36 carries and 87 yards. Meanwhile, Kirk Cousins was unstoppable when picking on Michigan's weak secondary and flaccid pass rush, both by throwing and by scrambling for first downs. Every boring run that Dantonio called kept Michigan from being blown out. Mark, here's a hint: if your team keeps converting on third and long, it might be a sign that you should be throwing the ball on first and second. The game illustrated the Allen Barra/Bill Walsh position that the "you have to run to set up the pass" maxim is totally wrong. Like Falcons coach Mike Smith, Dantonio doesn't know the strength of his own team. It would be one thing if Dantonio countered by claiming that the running plays freed up the passing offense, but the passing plays were working on third and long when the Michigan defense knew that they were coming. Dantonio seems constitutionally incapable of playing the style that his talent dictates, which might explain why his team is 2-3.

And in his attempts to mimic Lloyd Carr, Dantonio's decisions after Michigan scored with four minutes remaining to close to within 20-13 were idiotic. OK, the throw for seven yards on first down was a good idea, but the two runs between the tackles that followed were not. Both runs were snuffed out by a safety blitzing off the edge. On either play, if MSU would have called for a bootleg from either of the quarterbacks who had killed Michigan on the ground all day, then they still would have been running. Instead, Dantonio called plays that Michigan sold out to stop and he put the ball in the hands of a quarterback who has already shown an ability to drive his team for touchdowns in the fourth quarters of close games. Well done, Mark!

So coming back to the title of this post, where am I supposed to be when thinking about this Michigan team? They're 4-1 in a year in which I was hoping for 7-5. They have gone from Crompton-esque quarterbacking from SheriThreet to having a true freshman star. They didn't deserve to be in the game yesterday and yet there they were in overtime with a young team in its first road game against a jacked-up arch rival. That's all good. On the other hand, Rodriguez has seen his offense shut down by the in-state rival for the second year running. The offensive line appears lost without its center. The team is dependent on an undersized freshman quarterback who has looked gimpy at the end of each of the past three games. The defense cannot get off the field because its coverage issues pop up again and again on third down. That's all bad.

Someone help me out here.

Like Picking a Rooting Interest on the Eastern Front

Call me crazy, but as a practicing Jew, I am normally inclined to take the side of the recipient of an anti-Semitic slur as opposed to the deliverer. In this case, I'm not so sure. I mean, just look at this picture:



If a picture says a thousand words, then this shot of a preening, pretentious mug is an essay on why I haven't listened to sports talk radio in this town in weeks. I don't doubt that Rocker went apeshit on Shapiro. As Chris Rock said about the Siberian tiger than mauled Roy Horn, that tiger didn't go crazy; that tiger went tiger. I also don't doubt that Shapiro did nothing to de-escalate the situation and is likely reveling in the attention that the incident has created. I can only imagine what Mayhem was like on Monday morning.

(Two notes: first, I wasn't there, so this is all speculation on my part; and second, Rocker doesn't think he referenced Shapiro being Jewish. He doesn't deny using the term "faggot," I guess because it's more socially acceptable to be bigoted against gays than it is against Jews. Just ask Ann Coulter.)

Mourinho to Barca

There is an increasing amount of smoke indicating that Jose Mourinho will be the next coach of Barcelona. The latest piece of evidence is a statement from Lyon's President that Mourinho had turned down Lyon because he had already agreed to take the coming vacancy at the Nou Camp. This comes on the heels of various rumors that Barcelona have been in discussions with Mourinho, including an amusing tete a tete between Barca legend Johan Cruyff and Mourinho that led Mourinho to issue this rejoinder:

Mourinho upset Cruyff when he responded to criticism from the Dutchman of Chelsea's style of play, saying: "I don't want him to teach me how to lose 4-0 in a Champions League final because I don't want to learn that." The comeback was a reference to the 1994 European Cup final when Cruyff's Barcelona were beaten by Milan.

I would feel massively conflicted about Mourinho coaching the Blaugrana. So bear with me as I weigh through the pros and cons:

Pros

1. Mourinho wins. There is no denying Mourinho's talent as a manager. He won a Champions League and a UEFA Cup at Porto, hardly a European superpower, and then he won all manner of trophies at Chelsea. In all my criticism of Mourinho as a manager, I always tried to acknowledge that I would love him if I were a Chelsea fan because a fan always wants his team to win, first and foremost.

2. Mourinho can deal with egos. This, to me, is the strongest argument for Mourinho becoming the next head man at Barcelona. Jose had a ton of talent at his Chelsea, thus leading to the criticism that Chelsea bought their titles, but as Rafa Benitez shows on a weekly basis, spending a lot of money on players is no guarantee that success will follow. As Avram Grant is learning with every new complaint from Frank Lampard, managing the egos in a superclub's dressing room is a significant challenge. Mourinho was outstanding at getting stars to sublimate their egos for the good of the club. Given Barca's current problems with stars not pulling their full weight (read: Ronaldinho and Deco), Mourinho is exactly the sort of manager the team needs. In fact, he's the perfect coach to follow Frank Rijkaard, a more laid-back, player's coach. (For the record, I still think highly of Rijkaard. He's a quality manager and will have no problems finding a new position. I simply think that it might be time for him to go because his relationship with his players appears to have grown a little stale.)

3. Deco will play hard again. For many Barca supporters, Deco was the linchpin of the side that won the Champions League. Deco is still very popular at the Nou Camp, despite the fact that he has been injured a lot recently and his form has been fairly indifferent when he has been healthy. Deco played for Mourinho at Porto and thinks very highly of him. If Mourinho can get Deco back into top form again, then Barca will be a better side.

4. Mourinho is interesting. We won't suffer for having little to discuss. I look forward to him dubbing Bernd Schuster a voyeur.

5. Mourinho knows the club. Jose has worked at Barca before, so he (hopefully) understands the ethos of the club. This will be very important when we get to the...

Cons

1. His teams play shit on a stick football. Jorge Valdano was never on firmer ground when he ridiculed the Chelsea-Liverpool ties as "shit on a stick." Martin Samuel also described Mourinho's reign at Chelsea perfectly after Mourinho resigned/got the boot:

If José Mourinho’s football had been as dramatic and exciting as the manner of his departure, he would still be manager of Chelsea this morning.

That was Mourinho’s great irony. In person, he was challenging, entertaining, fiery, passionate, bold, outspoken, a man who would say the unsayable and not think twice about it, who could turn the cut and thrust of question and answer into a verbal battleground, explosions and casualties everywhere.

Had he taken that charisma on to the football pitch, he would have had a job for life spending the money of Roman Abramovich. Yet something happened to Mourinho when he took his personality into the sporting arena. He became another person: cautious, pragmatic, conservative. He talked like the last gunslinger in town and sent his team out with all the abandon of a junior accountant, Swindon branch.

Mourinho took talented teams and then played uninspiring, route one football that allowed Chelsea to take no chances defensively. I'll never forget Mourinho bringing an expensive squad to the Nou Camp in 2005 and then playing ten behind the ball for most of the game. I'll never forget Chelsea barely creating chances on their next trip to the Nou Camp in 2006 when they needed to win by two clear goals to advance. Mostly, I'll never forget the naps I took whenever Chelsea locked horns with Liverpool, another team loathe to take chances. Mourinho's style was fine at Chelsea, a club without tremendous history whose fans were simply overjoyed that Mourinho ended their long title drought and broke the Arsenal-United stranglehold on the Premiership, but it will not fly at Barcelona. Barca's slogan - More than a Club - really means something. The club represents something politically (Catalan pride, a liberal ethos, etc.) and it also represents something in terms of football. Barca cannot play unattractive, grind it out games. Even in the side's recent run of 1-0 games, they've at least been trying to score, even if they struggle to create and put away chances. (Forgive me for that last little flourish. I'll dismount from the soapbox now.) If Mourinho takes the Blaugrana on the road in Europe and plays for 0-0, he won't survive at the Nou Camp and deservedly so.

I have two reasons for optimism on this front. First, as I mentioned before, Mourinho has worked at Barca before and has to know that he will need to take a different approach. Second, Barca have better attacking players than Chelsea does, so hopefully, Mourinho's approach was dictated by necessity. I really don't know how he'll manage to create something boring and defensive out of Messi, Iniesta, and Eto'o.

2. He might bring in Frank Lampard. Right, a ballhog midfielder whose one skill is shooting off of the center-forward's knock-downs will fit in perfectly with a club built around passing and movement.

3. He says stupid stuff. Barca beating Chelsea in 2006 was almost as sweet as winning the Champions League itself a couple months later because it was sweet vengeance for Mourinho alleging that Rijkaard had intimidated Anders Frisk during the previous season. I'd prefer it if my team's manager didn't say incendiary things about every opponent. An occasional jab is fine, but accusing every opponent of conspiring against you gets old very quickly. Then again, given Catalans' feelings about Real Madrid and Castillian Spain, the odd allegation of conspiracy might go over quite well.

4. He doesn't maximize his talent. Mourinho remains the only manager who stifled Michael Ballack as a player. Ballack has been a success everywhere else: Leverkusen, Bayern, the German National Team, and now with Chelsea after Mourinho. The fact that Mourinho couldn't find a place for Ballack, or managed to destroy Andriy Shevchenko's career after Sheva was unstoppable in Serie A, ought to give Barca real pause before hiring Mourinho to coach a collection of very talented players.

White = Hardworking

That's the subtext from this gem from the easily-mocked Peter King:

Of the guys I've covered regularly in recent years, what's remarkable is the three players who stick out for their interest in constantly getting better and doing only what's best for the team. All three played this weekend. Manning. Tom Brady. Brian Urlacher. They love the game, respect the game, work at the game and treat other players with respect. It's what we all should be teaching our children, not that Reggie Bush crap we saw Sunday ... the pointing and taunting.

Among all NFL players, a significant majority of whom are black, the three who work the hardest and are most committed to the team are white. If there was ever a quote that best summarized the latent borderline racist stereotypes that middle-aged white sportswriters pile into their columns about hard-working white guys and loud-mouthed black guys, this would be it. I don't think that Peter King is consciously racist and I'm sure that he interacts well with black players. (He would really suck at his job if he didn't.) However, he, like most other writers, trades in racial stereotyping and this paragraph is pretty obviously an example.

This hits on something that I've wanted to discuss for several weeks. I feel a significant amount of white liberal guilt about my criticism of Michael Vick and that guilt intensifies with every call to 680 or 790 from Alpharetta about how Vick lives the "thug lifestyle" or he's "dumb" or "lazy" or "shouldn't drink from the same water fountain as me because that will lead to miscegenation." (OK, I made that last one up.) Some of those criticisms of Vick are probably true. He isn't very good at reading defenses and there are grounds to criticize his work ethic, in light of the fact that he fumbled on the final drive against Cleveland because he was clearly winded. However, those criticisms come with a lot of baggage in the form of unfair stereotypes that have been hurled at black quarterbacks (and black athletes in general) for years. There's no good way for me to distinguish myself from a latent racist when criticizing Vick's performance...other than to anguish in my guilt over it, I guess.

Anyway, I just wanted to get that out there.