As I watch the news and see the horrific tragedies happening around the World I can’t help but think how pathetic many football fans are. I would like to say it is the minority but it seems that this minority is either getting larger or just getting more media visibility, I am unsure which to be honest. Unfortunately I have, at times also mirrored some of the behavior which would put me in the category of treating football as a matter of life and death, which it certainly is not.

It has been a year since I last blogged and during that time I have watched the sport of football increasingly fool itself into believing it is the most important thing in the world. The truth is it is should be far lower on people’s priorities and not considered life or death for those who call themselves fans.

The saddest thing that I have heard in all my time as a football fan is the news of a Dutch linesman who was beaten to death by three players at a youth football match. Those players truly considered it a matter of life and death, they believed that the game was so important that they were willing to not only harm but kill another human being. What makes this even more tragic is that the linesman’s son was playing in the game. He watched his father killed on the field. It is remarkable how little coverage this has got, dwarfed by the fact that Messi has scored 86 goals in the past year, or the fact that AVB says Bale isn’t a diver. This guy was killed on the pitch and it is part of a bigger problem.

Whilst I am no fan of Rugby as a sport, you would never hear of anything like this happening. The players call the officials sir and if they even argue they receive a penalty and further chat and they are sent off. I did a quick google search for both “referee attacked in football match” and “referee attacked in rugby match” as you can imagine there was a big difference in the number of hits each search got.

I look around a football ground and see the vile insults being spewed and you would think that the opposition players were made up of murderers and rapists. If it isn’t distasteful chants about a tragedy the opposition suffered it is a personal attack on a player or manager. The recent hatred towards Rafa Benitez shocked me. Not the fact that there were those who disagreed with the appointment but that they felt it necessary to turn on someone because at one point in time he made fun of you, and also was the manager of another team. Imagine if you changed companies and as soon as you walked in the office everyone started shouting abuse at you… it is a preposterous notion but essentially that is what is happening.

Presumably the fan who attempted to confront Rio Ferdinand, once he had already been coined, had plans to attack him in some way, although the chances of him having some sort of plan are slim. I have heard people say that Rio shouldn’t have celebrated in front of the City fans, why not? Do fans have so little self control that the sight of someone else happy drive them to violence. I think fans need to have a long hard look at themselves and weigh up how important this game really is and to what lengths their disgusting behavior should be tolerated all in the name of club loyalty. Vincent Kompany said he was against netting because fans should not be caged like animals, well maybe if fans stopped behaving like them he would have a valid argument.

As Silva headed Manchester City ahead in their recent clash with Arsenal a loud cheer went up in the pub. Was I in a heavily partisan venue filled with sky blue shirts? No, it was the sound of people who had decided to make the little maestro their Fantasy Football captain that week, their decision had been vindicated. Similarly, others kept a keen eye on the other screen to see if Adebayor or Van der Vaart were going to show their true value. Surely at home against Sunderland was a banker for Fantasy points, you could almost hear people think. It seems no longer can you relax and watch a game for the pure enjoyment, it is now all about points.

Is this real? I'm not even sure anymore

My friend is a Coventry fan and as they sit firmly rooted to the bottom of the Championship he has all but given up on them. For him he can derive much more pleasure through his Fantasy team Fash FC. At least Fash FC have international stars on the team sheet and what’s more he can affect the performance and sculpt the team. The choice of game to watch on the weekend (for those of us that can choose between the 3 pms) is done on who we have playing that day. In the pub all the talk is of who is in your fantasy team and how your new transfer will fare. Is Fantasy Football taking over from real football (not to be mistaken for real tennis), or is this the bridge we all need between Football Manager and real life?

I even find myself growing fond of players who have done a good job for the team. Someone said to me recently that they couldn’t drop Lampard from their team, not after everything he had done for them in the past four seasons. Loyalty taken to the extreme, but in the end he was repaid as Lampard hit a hat trick against Bolton. I am sure deep down he thought that this was not a coincidence. As players come through for us other let us down. Early season backing for the normally consistent Darren Bent has been replaced in favour of  the red hot Demba Ba whilst Chelsea’s usually airtight defence is dropped quicker than you can say “high back line”.

Is it possible that we are starting to love our fantasy teams as much as our real life ones. At the beginning of the season every man and their dog had Jose Bosingwa in their team. Everyone except me that is. Due to genuine belief that I have the power to jinx players (originating from the time I dropped an out-of-form Gudjohnson from my team and he proceeded to score a hat trick the following weekend) I never pick Chelsea players. So when Bosingwa scored a 25 yard rocket against Norwich and I leapt out of my seat there was a twinge of disappointment as I realised how many people had the Chelsea man in their side.

When did people start caring about assists? In the past simply being told the score and scorers was enough, but now we need to know who last made physical contact with the ball before it reached the goalscorer, and then ponder whether it will be enough to earn valuable bonus points, tallying the score in our heads. I would not be surprised if, and would recommend that, broadcasters started including fantasy stats alongside the usual ones. I wonder if it affects our perceptions of players, are we now clouded by the stats? I was outraged last year when neither Berbatov nor Nani were nominated for the PFA player of the year award. How could this be? With 176 and 198 points respectively they were surely favourites. The stats don’t lie.

Nowadays in this new reality we find ourselves little details start to mean the world to us. I am sure I am not alone in cursing any manager who inconsiderately substitutes a defender after 59 minutes with clean sheet points impending. As the substitution becomes apparent I find myself willing the ball to stay in play, studying the clock as the seconds tick towards the all important hour mark and another 5 points on to my total. The only thing worse than this is the late tactical substitution. With the final whistle imminent you realise your captain, inexplicably rested, won’t play any part in the match. Whilst this is frustrating it does mean that he will in fact hand over the arm band to your Vice Captain who bagged valuable points earlier that day. Or so you thought. Then you to see him readying himself for three minutes of football in a game already won and earning you a grand total of two points. Also filed under Fantasy Football frustrations is a high scoring bench, most common this season by those foolish enough to think Swansea couldn’t keep on getting clean sheets, especially away from home.

It certainly makes some dull games more interesting and has added another dimension to football chat, but I don’t think it could ever be more exciting than the real thing, unless you are a Coventry Fan that is.

Is this really the best vantage point?

As a Chelsea fan I have resisted the temptation to write about Chelsea and their woes this season. Plenty has been written and there is a fair chance that whatever I say will be somewhat biased. However after last nights draw away at relegation threatened Wigan I had a long hard think about what was going wrong and who or what was to blame. I will take a brief look at tactics like the high line, how Chelsea have pressed the ball and whether we are playing the right formation but I also want to examine the bigger picture to try to identify some major problems that cannot be solved by a bit of tweaking or a new number nine.

The fall from grace of a team that won the Premiership 18 months ago and finished runner-up last season has been dramatic. AVB was brought in to shake things up and many expected drastic changes, but even Chelsea’s fiercest rivals would not have dreamt of this. Chelsea find themselves battling it out for a Champions League spot with four other real contenders. It is great for the league but bad news for Chelsea. However it is important that we put everything in perspective. Had AVB taken over last season he would have had a far easier task. Manchester City were still finding their groove, Spurs were still a couple of players short, Liverpool were in another one of their ‘transitional phases’ and Arsenal were inconsistent. It now appears that each of these teams have improved and Manchester United are about the same. All in all the Premiership is the most competitive for a number of seasons.

The new Chelsea manager came in with clear ideas about how he wanted the team to play but apart from Raul , Oriol Romeu and Juan Mata he has a squad of inherited players to work with. The sensible option in my opinion would have been a gradual transformation or to sign six or seven players capable of playing in the new system. It may not have been his choice or he may have wanted to give the current squad a chance, which is admirable, but flexibility is a must. It appears to me that AVB has very little flexibility in the way his team plays or his philosophy. The players in the current squad are clearly not capable of playing within the new system, or simply don’t want to, either way AVB has a problem.

After losing to Arsenal and getting beaten twice in a week by Liverpool the tactics were changed. How much of this was down to the players and how much it was down to the manager, I’m not sure. The current situation reminds me of when Avram Grant was in charge. The team didn’t know what the hell they were doing and stumbled through every game with no clear game plan. It was only  when the big games came up that the big players pulled together and prevailed. It worries me that the same thing is happening now. They may be old but the Chelsea team is still full of winners and as Drogba showed against Valencia this group can still turn it on when they need to. When we got through to the Champions League final it was in spite of Avram Grant not because of him. I remember at the final whistle, in the quarter final, against Valencia the players all ran to John Terry and other senior players to celebrate, Grant was left to celebrate alone. The current situation has a similar feel to it. I have no way of knowing for sure, but I think evidence suggests AVB does not have the full backing of the team.

Another possibility is that his tactics are simply wrong. There is much talk of the wrong players for his system and players needing to adapt. What if he is just a poor tactician and tactics that worked with Porto in their league just do not work in the Premiership or the Champions League, where the level of opposition is significantly higher. Is it possible that he can only play one way? Many believed that against Newcastle he adapted his tactics, the line was deeper and Chelsea countered. It was a throw back to the days of Mourinho. The result was a three-nil victory, this was followed by similar tactics to beat Valencia. Everyone wondered whether he would persist with this successful new / old strategy against Manchester City. The answer is no. For the first 15-20 minutes, and particularly in the first five minutes Chelsea pushed up and pressed, after just one minute thirty seconds they were punished as Balotelli slipped the half-hearted offside trap. AVB’s stubbornness had prevailed. The big question for me is what happened next. There are two options. First is that having been comprehensively outplayed for 20 minutes he ordered the defence to drop ten yards, for the midfield to only press in their own half and to play a more counter attacking style. The second option is that the players themselves sought to fix the problem and took it upon themselves to try to curb the increasing City pressure. Some might think the second option is far-fetched but I am not so sure.

Every game this season AVB has used all three substitutions. Presumably this is to keep players fresh for the heavy fixture schedule that faces a team fighting on all fronts, and also to ensure fresh legs for the final fifteen minutes where games are often won or lost. However is it the case that it is always right to use all three substitutions? Surely there are circumstances whereby the team should not be tinkered with. For example before an international break when there are no games coming up. According to AVB, not so. In his mind it is always right to use all three subs, no matter what the situation is. Rather than go through every game and analyse the substitutions and their success I will offer a telling stat. Chelsea have conceded a higher percentage of goals in the final fifteen minutes than any other team. Whilst I have witnessed him make positive substitutions which have helped win games for the blues, he is undoubtably not adept at utilising the right tactics to close games out. If I am right in thinking the substitutions are in order to freshen up the team, there is clearly a big down side. The team are now asked to press high and this is a tiring exercise which may help explain all the late goals. Players like Drogba, Lampard and even Ashley Cole will tire. The odd thing is that the former two lasted the full ninety versus Wigan, when they looked dead on their feet.

Against Wigan it was this tinkering that I believe contributed to Chelsea dropping two points. With the game on a knife-edge at one-nil to the blues he chose to take off Mata, and bring on Mikel. In order to shore up the team this would seem like a sensible substitution. However with the game at one-nil Chelsea still had not killed it off. Furthermore it meant reverting to the first half tactics which had helped give Wigan momentum. It was clear that the way to win the game was through attacking and scoring the crucial second goal. Keeping possession is also key when defending a lead, and Mata is one of the best players in the team for this. With ten minutes to go the goalscorer and our only threat, Sturridge, made way and we were basically shutting up shop, a sad site for a team supposedly with title ambitions. In fairness in Mourinho’s day this would not be a bad tactic as we had arguably the best defence in the world, this is certainly not the case anymore. Chelsea did the same thing agaisnt Blackburn and almost paid the price as they hit the woodwork three times. Yesterday they were not so lucky.

In thoery much of what AVB is doing is right but for whatever reason it is just not working and this is where experience and know-how comes in. He is trying to create unity by keeping disruptive players away from the team, but the result is a weakening of the squad and unfortunately upsetting some players. The two ‘banished’ players have been at the club a number of seasons and have been central, each in their own way, to our success. There is a fine line between discipline and dictatorship. He is also attempting to play a more exciting and attacking brand of football, but has not properly considered the defensive liabilities. The other issue is that he does not have the correct players to play a short sharp passing game. Even new signing Meireles is not suited to this style, and only Mata has the requisite skill level in the entire team to play the Tiki-taka Barcelona way. I may have slammed his substitution policy, but in theory it makes sense. The only issue is that the players coming on are not good enough and the players coming off are too important to rest. We do not have the security of a lead at the top of the table to be able to afford the risk of resting players or dropping two points from an unlucky late equaliser (for the record there is no such thing).

I worry not only that we do not have the players for AVB’s blueprint but that the Blueprint may not even be right, or the person who designed it the right man for the job. So what then? Do we allow AVB to spend 100 million in order to satisfy his system or do we bring in someone who has the experience and flexibility developed from working with different teams and players over a number of years? It is a hard one to call, and I am undecided. The biggest criticism of AVB I have is that he is naive. This is not a judgement on his age but a reflection on the manner in which he has dealt with situations. Who goes to Manchester United on an all out attack? This and the defeats to Arsenal and Liverpool have shown that his peers have the measure of him. Did Mancini get it wrong against Chelsea at the Bridge? Possibly, but that game could have gone either way and like AVB he is still learning his trade. Maybe if we give AVB the time Mancini has had we will be sitting pretty at the top of the league.

This may seem like a strange point to bring up but AVB never ever played professional football. Even though it was at a low-level, Wenger, Mourinho, Benitez and all the other managers whom people site as proof you don’t have to be a great player to be a great manager, all played professional football. Did everyone get swept up in the hype? If we take a step back and look at the big picture AVB has one very successful season under his belt. He has not even got any proof of success as a player. At the time of his appointment I was pumped up. I had read all the articles on what a fantastic young prospect AVB was and how his energy and attitude were exactly what Chelsea needed, and I agreed. We all wanted to see the new Mourinho, but with an attacking flair. In reality we have been let down. Carlo Ancelotti, was dull. He was calm considered and didn’t give the media many soundbites to fuel the fiction that now covers the vast majority of their back pages. However, he might just be feeling quite smug right now. Having won the double with an aging team he followed it up with a second place finish, maybe the latter was a bigger achievement than we give him credit for. It is hard to imagine that with him at the helm and the addition of three or four signings the team would not be a little more comfortable now and I think all would agree a Mourinho side would not capitulate in such fashion.

AVB has the arrogance of a winner, but not the trophies. He battles the media like a seasoned pro, giving them a metaphorical slap in the face before receiving one back in the 88th minute at the DW Stadium. He smashes three past Arsenal but concedes five in return. He is exciting no doubt and a big risk taker but is he really worth the gamble.

My final gripe is the incredible lack of discipline running through the team. Last season Chelsea were the 4th fairest team in the league. This season we are rooted to the bottom as the dirtiest team in the Premiership. Arsenal have long been criticized for their lack of discipline and it has without doubt undermined their title challenges every year. Part of the reason is Wenger’s unwillingness to take responsibility. It always seems to be someone else’s fault. This type of attitude can help form a siege mentality as long as the players ultimately know that something is wrong and it is rectified behind closed doors. However, like Arsenal, it seems Chelsea are doing little redress this issue and the problem starts with AVB.

For the first time in eight seasons it is highly possible that Chelsea will finish outside the top three. When Mourinho burst on to the football scene he claimed ‘I am not one from the bottle I am a special one’. He successfully out-fought and defeated some of the greatest managers and teams in recent years. To think that someone else could do the same may have been a tad optimistic. It might just be that he is really is special and that AVB is just one from the bottle.

I live in the UAE, a country which turns 40 next weekend. This is an extraordinary fact considering how much has been achieved in that time and the changes that have taken place. Their recent history is remarkable, but beyond that lies the tribal history of the country which is now almost unrecognizable but by no means forgotten. This got me thinking about one of football fans’ favourite taunts. The claim that an opposition club has “no history”. Now technically the UAE as a country has a limited history as it has been in existence for  a fraction of the time of other nations but this argument doesn’t really apply with most football clubs, except perhaps MK Dons.

The last straw in any football fan debate

For me it seems an odd insult, and one which lacks intelligence. All football teams have different histories, the only difference is that some clubs have had a more successful history. The chant aimed at Chelsea fans shouldn’t be “Care free wherever you may be, you ain’t got not history”. It should be “Care free wherever you may be, during your clubs history, you have failed to win as many trophies as us”, but that doesn’t really have the same ring to it, nor is it even mildly amusing. The first ever football club founded was Notts County, in 1862, so technically they have more history than any club in the world and can mock us all.

This also leads me to the question of what a “Big” club is. Manchester United fans are quick to put their rivals City down by claiming they are a not a big club and more ridiculous still is the claim that they will never be. First things first no fan has a crystal ball, except maybe that mad Pompey fan with the drum - it seems like the kind of thing he would own. So how big a club will be in 20 or 30 years time is anyones guess. Secondly Manchester City are already a big club. They are known worldwide and get around 45,000 fans at home, so we can safely say they are a big club. Add to this the fact that they qualified for the Champions League and are currently the best team in the country.

The trouble football fans have is seeing the grey area between black and white. You are either big or not, you either have history or you ‘, you are either good or rubbish. You would think this would make debates between rival fans dull and pointless but we still take the bait, although the word debate is probably a tad kind. I am as guilty as the next fan of falling into the “my club’s better than yours” trap, but why are we so bothered? You would never argue with a mate about whose job was better or house is nicer. For some reason it means the world to us to prove the opposition wrong. I will use the ”Big 6″ as an example, with City now included. I have also included Spurs although it doesn’t seem like the other top teams seem to care that much nor do I really get into any of these debates with Spurs fans. Maybe they are just more pleasant and modest individuals, or maybe it is because Spurs aren’t really a “Big” club *waits for tirade of abuse from Spurs fans pointing to FA cups and Harry’s revolution*.

The first point of the argument will usually be purely on current form and results, sometimes as short-sighted as the season in hand. Currently City win this argument although this will be countered by Chelsea fans who will claim based on last Monday they are now the best team, and joined by Arsenal fans who will mock their Champions League exit. United fans will normally stay quiet on this point knowing they have plenty of bullets for later in the argument. Based on current team strength this one goes to City.

The ”my team is better than your team” point will normally be countered by the manner by which the opposition has got their glory, this is very common amongst Arsenal fans who will claim almost anyone except them has bought success.  Chelsea and City will normally argue that they “don’t care” but Arsenal fans remain smug in the face of this, claiming they are building sensibly for the future, and you can’t really argue with that, although we do. Whilst they have spent some money they usually win in that category of team Top Trumps.

Next comes history. This has two different elements. The first focuses on how recent your team’s success is, and this is where City and Chelsea fall  down, as recent success is not as valued as highly and will be considered part of the current form argument. This comment will be followed up by claims that their fans aren’t ”real” or are “glory supporters” how this works with City I am not sure as they haven’t got that much glory yet, but details really are secondary in football fan debates. It is unfortunate for Arsenal with so much past success and even fairly recent success with the “Invincibles” that they get dwarfed by Liverpool and United who win this section hands down. There will then be a further showdown where United fans point out their record 19 titles and Liverpool fans point to 5 European Cups. Sorry United, they may be average now, but Liverpool win the history category.

With the main arguments out of the way, there is normally only one way for the argument to continue. This is normally when the team is taken off the table completely and it is claimed “well your fans are a bunch of c*nts” or something similar. A difficult one to disprove especially with some of the sub-humans we see at games. Now I do not want to claim any team’s fans are better than another’s and these are my personal observations and by no means a scientific process but it does appear to me that certain fans have particular traits. This is from observing first hand, being good friends with opposition fans and worst of all online forums.

It seems to me Spurs fans are fairly mellow, in the past they have seemed resigned to always falling short and therefore never had the opportunity to gloat. As a Chelsea fan I have always liked Spurs, not so much now they are good though. City fans seem to have found their voice recently and there is a certain confidence about them, and why not. Their main concern seems to be finishing above United though and you wonder if they would be perfectly happy in mid-table as long as United were below them. As a Chelsea fan I am biased, but I would say that, like AVB, we often feel we are not given enough credit and are misrepresented, we never claim to have been successful in the past but we are now so we will shout loud and proud about that. United fans are not as bad as they could be in my opinion. There is a certain smugness that they and Fergie posses but that is to be expected. The years of Premier League domination see them acting pretty calm in most situations knowing that they always have a fairly robust argument. Arsenal fans seem a little confused. They are not sure whether they are proud of the youth development programme that has obsessed Wenger, or annoyed at the lack of trophies. To be fair I think they are handling their barren patch well and accepting of problems in most debates. Finally this brings me to Liverpool fans. Now as a disclaimer I need to mention that my best friend is a Liverpool fan so I may be biased, one way or the other. It seems like the greatest trait that Liverpool fans possess is delusion. They seem unable to accept their current place in the pecking order. Every season they truly believe they will win the league and all of their signings are brilliant, until they inevitably prove otherwise. I will say this for them though, they are highly supportive of the team, manager and fiercely loyal. They are the fans that would rather die than admit that they aren’t as good as they thought at the start of the season, or Kenny might have made a bit of an error with Carroll. The depth to which they blindly support their team is unrivalled. As a Chelsea fan I must admit that if a Liverpool fan were to claim that the roar of the Kop beats any other I would have to agree, but fans alone don’t win you trophies, just arguments.

Barcelona: Celebrate the end of another boring game

By Michael Rowden

A certain Zlatan Ibrahimovic releases his book today, a tell all autobiography that gives a great, all-be-it one sided, insight into his time at the heights of European Football. Undoubtedly one of the more interesting sections of this book is his description of the time he spent at Barcelona under the watchful eye of Pep Guardiola, a man fast becoming potentially the best manager in modern day European football.

Zlatan’s time at Barcelona was surprisingly short considering the lengths Joan Laporta, Barcelona’s President at the time, went to get his hands on the Swedish maestro. I always wondered why a man who Barcelona signed on a 5-year contract for £40m would depart for Italy having only made 29 appearances for the best team in world football.

Regardless of what you may think of Mr. Ibrahimovic, I am well aware his reported ego divides many an opinion, I can totally relate to his frustrations with the current La Liga champions.

He is blessed with a superb level of skill and ability, which is why it’s no wonder he’s won the domestic title for whichever club he played for in 9 of the last 10 seasons. This includes stints with Ajax, Juventus, Inter Milan, Barcelona and now AC Milan. By anybody’s standards, that’s some record.

Zlatan’s description of his time in La Liga combined with my current strong opinions regarding Barcelona and the football they play got me thinking… Do Barcelona play good football?

There can be no doubting that Barcelona play a style of football that any opposing player will inevitably dread but for all their possession and tiki-taka cleverness, I can’t help but find them incredibly dull to watch. They are almost robotically precise and Zlatan’s description of the dressing room atmosphere does a good job of helping me understand why. He describes the likes of Xavi, Iniesta, Messi and Puyol as ‘quiet and unassuming’ and ‘happy to just take orders’ and that for me explains perfectly just why they are so boring. They take no risks.

If there isn’t the perfect opportunity, they won’t put the ball in the mixer and increase the tempo along with the heart rate of the watching audience, they’ll simply go backwards and start again.

Football is paid for by the fans, and fans are always happy when their team are winning but if I try and put myself in the shoes of a Barcelona fan, I think I’d rather switch my allegiance to Real Madrid.

What makes football such a global sport is that it’s so exciting no matter which team you hold dear. Barcelona however play as if they’re hell bent on boring the opposition and the paying public to death.

Their real thrust and vigor comes from 3 players – Lionel Messi, Dani Alves and David Villa. Remove them from the equation momentarily and what you are left with is a team that will easily hold 70% possession over 90 minutes but spend their entire time dithering between the half way line and the edge of the oppositions 18-yard-box without creating anything of substance unless one of the 3 mentioned above decides to step up to the plate. On the rare occasion that they do reach the byline, more often than not, the player in possession will put their foot on the ball and play it backwards, where the ball will inevitably end up at the feet of Xavi and Iniesta only for the whole, slow, painful and laborious process to start all over again. When was the last time you didn’t see them play a corner short?

Many rightfully admire Barcelona’s ability to retain possession so doggedly; often moving the ball so fast, the opposition never has time to close the ball down but in my not so humble opinion, I feel it may be this almost perfect style of football, that fits quite nicely into the term ‘anti-football’. The same term they are so keen to label arch rivals Real Madrid with.

Every time I get the chance to watch Spanish football on the goggle box, I do – mainly thanks to the brilliance of Sky Go. However, if it’s a game involving Barcelona, it’ll only be background noise; something I’ll glance at whilst doing other things just to check the scoreline such is the relative predictability of the end result and style of play.

On the other hand, if Real Madrid are playing, I’ll be fixated for the duration; more than happy to lap up the tension and excitement involved in fast flowing, counter attacking brilliance. Their style of play is far more akin to the EPL which is why I still believe that overall, ours is the best league in the world. If not on outright technical ability, then on pure excitement and unpredictability.

It now seems to be fashionable for every team to talk about copying Barcelona’s style of play. Even our own temporary captain, Frank Lampard, suggested as much, saying that England need to play more like Spain, after our 1-0 win over the World Champions in last weekend’s friendly. I for one, can only hope that this idea doesn’t come to fruition.

If it does then I’ll be cancelling my Sky Sports subscription, deleting Sky Go and forever cursing Pep Guardiola and his band of merry little men that have soured my love for European football almost to the point of no return.

Here at We Heart Football we have never been described as completely impartial. More likely we are biased, opinionated and some might say at times blinkered. This is not about to change, but in order to offer a balanced view Raffael Fernandes and Tom Gaunt will be giving two different perspectives on one, possibly misunderstood, player. Andy Carroll.

Carroll: Star potential?

Andy Carroll – A bit of perspective please

By Raffael Fernandes

Little over 12 months ago, a young centre forward from Gateshead walked off the pitch at St. James’ Park clutching the match ball with a spring in his stride, and a smile as wide as the Tyne. Newcastle had just demolished Aston Villa 6-0 and the youngster had raped, pillaged and plundered his way to a devastating hattrick on his first home outing of the season, wearing the number 9 shirt made famous by a long line of Geordie legends. Andy Carroll had announced his arrival in the Premiership, the latest ‘local boy done good’.

Roll the clock forward a year and Carroll wears the look of a man carrying the weight of the world on his shoulders. After all a lot has happened since then.

Carroll went on to score a further 8 times in the 19 league games that season, and was consequently involved in one of the most sensational transfers ever to have taken place in World football – let alone English football. Ironically it was the highly controversial transfer of another star striker, Fernando Torres, to Chelsea on the final day of the January 2011 transfer window that inadvertently changed this young man’s life forever. A merry-go-round, fuelled by Abramovich’s billions and LFC’s new owners’ desire to show they meant business, caused Carroll to emerge from the drama a few hours later holding the mantle of the most expensive British footballer ever, and the 8th most expensive in world history. Rarely ever has there been a rise so meteoric, and according to many – so unjustified.

A lot has been written in recent weeks about Carroll’s failure to find the net, and as worryingly, about the tendency of Liverpool’s play to become very dimensional with his inclusion on the pitch. It seems to many that Dalglish’s pass and move philosophy is totally at odds with Carroll’s lumbering frame, a final piece of the jigsaw that doesn’t seem to fit.

Whilst some of these points are very valid tactically, I’m not going to embark in a debate about tactical nuances on this article. Why not? Because (a) I think Carroll’s shortcomings so far are actually more psychological than tactical and (b) I am optimistic that Carroll and Suarez can in fact form a dangerous partnership under the tutelage of Kenny Dalglish, who let us not forget brought us the Shearer -Sutton strike-force and deadly duo Aldridge and Beardsley – but it will take time.

As far as I can see there is a long line of people who are tripping over themselves to write Andy Carroll off as an expensive flop. “I told you so” they will say, “He’s shit” and “£35m? You’re having a laugh”. So keen are these people to try to prove to each other that they were right all along, that they forget they were probably the same one’s who said “He’s gonna be an England great!” the year before when he was still wearing black and white stripes.

Herein lies my main point. Andy Carroll is still that local lad – he is still the same player he was a year ago, albeit a little more experienced. Nothing has changed – apart from a huge difference in perception now that he has a £35m tag around his neck. Imagine a jacket costs £50, but is sold in auction for £50m because it once belonged to John Lennon. It is still the same jacket, no different, but is it really worth £50 or £50m? Whatever Liverpool paid is irrelevant until we see if he produces the success to repay that £35m investment over the next 5 years, and the only person who can influence that is Andy Carroll himself.

Much has been said about his off the field shenanigans. This doesn’t bother me too much right now. He’s a young boy who seems to like a beer and have a laugh with his mates. Big deal. He’s also a very talented footballer – and hopefully that’s something he’ll now realise he needs to take more seriously. His decisive goal against Everton proves that he knows where the goal is and that skill is a rare commodity, just ask Arsene Wenger who has struggled to find a natural goalscorer as back up for Robin van Persie.

The biggest factor in Carroll realizing the potential he can fill is overcoming the psychological barrier of feeling like he is worth £35m. There is a chance he may never overcome it – and that would be very sad. Pulling a player out of the safety of his home town club and elevating him onto the history books due to a phenomenally inflated transfer fee is a reality he is going to have to deal with and overcome. He can no longer play with the “nothing to lose” youthful exuberance he did previously. From now every touch, every movement will be scrutinized and blown up.

Personally I think it could be another 2 years before we see the “real” Andy Carroll. At that point he’ll be 24 years old. The same age that Didier Drogba was when he moved to Chelsea for £24m, and by then who knows how much he will be worth?

Carroll: Super sub?

Andy Carroll – Is he a dud?

By Tom Gaunt

Before any Liverpool fans decide to petrol bomb my flat or send me a steaming shit in the post, I am fully aware that the headline is somewhat inflammatory and a tad premature but nonetheless I do stand by this question. I also do not think his goal in the Merseyside Derby can paper over the cracks. His overall performance was underwhelming, to say he looked rusty would be a compliment. However he did score, and I do respect his ability to pop up with  a goal. My issue is with the player as a package, and I will explain why.

I have never been in the anti-Carroll camp or been one of those who predicted he would be a flop and was an absolute waste of money, quite the contrary in fact. I thought although the price tag was ludicrous in itself, £35 million actually made him the 8th most expensive player in history and the most expensive British player ever, it was a fee that needed to be paid at that point in time and a good future investment. Now I am not so sure. The premise of this article is not to discuss whether he is worth the fee, where I stand on that will be apparent once you have finished reading, but to look at whether he is actually a good enough player to play for Liverpool and spearhead the attack for the foreseeable future.

The first issue is that he does not fit into the way that Liverpool are trying to play. Since Dalglish was appointed he has been attempting and on many occasions succeeding to play good pass and move football, a brand of football which has been missing at the club for a number of years now. In order to play this type of football you need mobile players with good movement, intelligence and touch. Unfortunately these are not skills Carroll possesses. He had a great start to the 2010-11 Premier League season scoring 11 times in 19 games, but this was for a club playing fairly direct football and with him as the focal point, he was not required to do much except rough up the opposition defense, win headers and finish whatever came his way. He did all this brilliantly. However much like Torres at Chelsea (I bet you were wondering how long it would be before he was mentioned), Carroll just doesn’t fit in. It puzzles me why he still gets game time ahead of Dirk Kuyt, especially as the intelligent Dutchman has such a good understanding with Luis Suarez.

Everyone will, I am sure, remember Liverpool destroy Fulham last season 5-2. As a Chelsea fan I was genuinely afraid. Had Liverpool finally clicked? Were they now on the verge of being a force to be reckoned with? That day Liverpool gave Fulham a footballing lesson, and it was no coincidence this was done without their £35 million man. I appreciate that Carroll has only played a handful games for Liverpool and did impress last year with two excellent goals against Manchester City and I believe he is a Premiership-quality striker and will always get a team goals, he is certainly a threat, but not the man to propel Liverpool into the top 4 or a potential long-term Anfield legend.

Two season ago Harry Redknapp said that the presence of Peter Crouch in the team was encouraging players to play long balls too often, essentially taking the easy way out. This has also happened at Chelsea with Didier Drogba offering the escape-ball a little too often. It is certainly beneficial to have the option and Arsenal have been criticized at length for their lack of muscle up front but for me it should be plan B. It was widely believed that Carroll would benefit from Stewart Downing’s crossing and that Liverpool may play percentages by peppering the penalty box with crosses for Carroll to head in, but it hasn’t quite panned out like that. Everybody knew that Downing was more than just a left winger, when he arrived on Merseyside. He had after all played on both sides of the pitch for Villa as well as occasionally through the middle. What has been a revelation, however, is how complete a player Downing has been this season. He has been taking up positions all over the pitch and is fitting in well with the pass and move philosophy. Whilst this is god news for Liverpool it is yet another reason why Carroll may not succeed, the man who was due to be his main supplier is proving too valuable to limit to a mere crossing machine. Since Carroll’s arrival I have watched Liverpool play with him and without, and there is a stark contrast, but that is not where my critique ends.

The expression “there’s no smoke without fire” springs to mind with all the recent talk of Carroll and his drinking. Whilst Kenny Dalglish, who is always the epitome of calm, brushed off the paper-talk others didn’t seem to be backing the Geordie with much conviction. Although both John Terry and Alan Shearer defended Andy Carroll but neither denied that the young player had a problem, this for me told a story in itself. This is also consistent with my belief that the player is short on intelligence and this can only be a bad thing for his new club.

If we look at the man as an individual his skills seem to be becoming conspicuous but their absence and he is looking more one-dimensional every game. I have heard fitness being blamed, but Carroll strikes me as a man whose natural level of fitness is not one of his strengths so I am not sure this issue will ever go away. Essentially they have bought themselves a target man who will probably score between 10 and 15 goals a season, and for me he could certainly be useful as an impact sub, albeit a very very expensive impact sub. In the long term I think he could do more damage than good, but only time will tell whether my knee-jerk reaction is justified.

This was first published on Caught Offside

The World Cup is the biggest stage in world football and not only do players from all over the World come together to compete and perform but so do referees. With officials from every corner of the World you can expect some inconsistencies, however the decisions below are just outright ridiculous. This is a list of 10 of the worst refereeing mistakes in recent years. I have stuck to decisions that I have seen and have video evidence of, if you can think of anymore let me know.

10. Netherlands  v Spain 2010 – Nigel De Jong Kung-Fu Kick

Howard Webb will probably want to forget the 2010 World cup final. It was supposed to be his finest hour but due to the Netherlands ugly tactics he was left with an impossible task. He brandished 14 yellow cards including a red for Jonny Heitinga, but he was actually very lenient letting Nigel De Jong commit what can only be described as a Kung-Fu kick on Xabi Alonso. If he had done that in the street he would be arrested, but Webb ultimately bottled it and just gave a yellow card.

9. Brazil v Scotland 1978 – Zico Disallowed Goal

Referee Clive Thomas was always known as a stickler for the rules, but in 1978 he possibly took it a little far. With seconds of the game remaining Brazil swung in a corner kick which Zico headed into the goal to win the match, or so he thought. Whilst the ball was in the air the referee had blown the full-time whistle and the goal was ruled out. The fact that the linesman made Brazil reposition the ball by the corner flag wasting valuable seconds made it all the worse. It did not matter in the end as Brazil went on to qualify, eventually going out on goal difference in phase two (when the world cup had a weird second league phase).

8. Argentina v Mexico 2010 – Carlos Tevez Offside Goal

Argentina may well have won this game 3-1 but the Tevez offside goal was the first and did make a big difference to the result. What made this decision so extraordinary is that it all happened fairly slowly, the linesman was perfectly placed to make the call and Carlos Tevez was not anywhere near being onside. In fact there were no players in between Tevez and the goal when the ball was kicked. He was a clear yard offside standing on his own. It is quite simply the worst decision I have seen at a World Cup, only the fact that it was not at a more crucial stage stops it from being higher up the list.

7. England v Germany 2010 – Frank Lampard Disallowed Goal

Everyone will remember how England were hammered 4-1 by Germany. The team who underperformed in every game of the tournament went out with their heads hung low. However maybe it could have been different. Having gone two goals down early on England fought back to reduce the deficit to one with an Upson header. With half-time looming Frank Lampard struck a looping shot from the edge of the box, it hit the bar bounced down, then bounced back up to hit the bar before it was scrambled to safety. In real-time it looked like it had crossed the line, in the replay it showed it was a yard over the line. Another terrible decision at the 2010 World Cup. That would have seen England go in to half-time at 2-2 and possibly with the psychological edge. Their lack of skill, fitness, intelligence and team spirit may well have seen them lose anyway but speculation is always fun.

6. Brazil v Turkey 2002 – Rivaldo Dive

Rivaldo is undoubtedly one of the best players of the last few decades, but in 2002 he really let himself down, and the referee played his part too. As Rivaldo took up his position ready to take a corner Hakan Unsal kicked the ball to him, fairly hard. The ball went about knee height and harmlessly bounced off the Brazilian. The apparent force of the leather ball filled with air threw Rivaldo to the floor clutching his face. The referee was fooled, and so to it seemed was the linesman stood two yards away with a perfect view of the incident. Unsal was given a red card. This referee’s actions may well have set a precedent for some of the play acting we see today which referee’s continue to be fooled by.

5. South Korea v Spain 2002 – Fernando Morientes Disallowed Goal

This could quite easily have been South Korea versus Italy as the refereeing was equally bad. Having already had two goals disallowed Spain went into extra-time. Joaquin broke down the right got to the byline and chipped the ball into the area, Morientes headed home, Goal! Not so fast. The linesman had flagged indicating the ball had gone out of play. This was quite simply a terrible decision as the ball was not even partly out. South Korea went on to win the game in a penalty shoot out.

4. Argentina v Germany 1990 – Rudi Voller Dive 

It seems strange that Jurgen Klinsmann got such a reputation for diving when it was his strike partner Voller who did it so masterfully on Football’s biggest stage. I am sure German’s will have a slightly different viewpoint on this. With the game tied at 0-0 and heading for extra time (seems a lot of bad decisions are made at this point) Rudi Voller broke into the box. The Argentine defender planted his leg close to Voller but no contact was made, Voller saw his chance and fell to the ground and the Referee blew his whistle. Andreas Brehme stepped up to win the World Cup for Germany. It seems Argentina and Germany are the kings of controversy this time Germany came out on top.

3. England v Germany 1966 – Geoff Hurst Goal

I may be English but that does not mean I have lost my vision. For a goal to be given the WHOLE ball needs to cross the line, this quite simply did not happen in 1966. Did it affect the outcome? Who knows, but Germany got their revenge in 2010 so I guess we are even.

2. Argentina v England 1986 – Diego Maradona Hand of God

Probably the most famous of all controversial World Cup incidents, or perhaps that is just from an English perspective. Quite how referee Ali Bin Nasser did not spot the Argentine captain punch the ball we will never know, but he must have thought Maradona had quite a leap on him. Replays suggest the referee had a decent view of the incident which makes it all the more puzzling.  Argentina went on to win 2-1 and the goal proved decisive.

1. France v Germany 1982 – Harald Schumacher Foul

With the game tied and heading towards extra time Michel Platini puts Patrick Battison through on goal. He gets top the ball seconds before the goal keeper Harald Schumacher and shoots wide. In what can only be described as an assault, Schumacher leaps into Battison knocking him out cold. Battison suffers three broken teeth and a damaged vertebra. Dutch referee Charles Corver decides to not even give a free kick, when Schumacher should have been sent off and facing a lengthy ban. Germany went on to win the match in a shoot out with Schumacher saving two penalties.

Eduardo: Cheat

For some time we have been debating how to deter cheats in football. In recent times cheating has become more prevalent and cheats are getting better at it. Two decades ago when the Premier League started it was a rarity to see a player dive, even leading to players like Jurgen Klinsmann standing out as a “Diver”, he was the exception not the rule. Fast forward 15 years and now there is barely a player in the top division who has not only dived but has also perfected the art. The rise to prominence of an apparent new rule stating that any contact made in a tackle is a penalty has not helped the cause. We now see players actually kicking an opponents leg and then buckling under the impact, which in my eyes should be a free kick the other way, but to referees and pundits alike this is a clear penalty because there was “contact”. However cheating is not the problem I will be discussing today (for that you can read The Beautiful Shame). I want to look at potential solutions to what I believe is a virus spreading throughout the game and spiraling out of control.

An in-depth analysis of refereeing trends or a comparison of various cheats around the world and how various punishments  have effected them is not necessary. I believe the solution is very simple and is not original in the slightest, but nonetheless a solution which is readily available. Retrospective action. For a few years now video evidence has been used in order to punish bad challenges or off the ball incidences not spotted by the referee. What I cannot understand is why it has to be an event not spotted by the referee. In essence one could walk over to a player punch him in the face but as long as the Referee gives you a yellow card that is the end of it. Last weekend Ashley Cole caught Javier Hernandez with a reckless late challenge which could have broken his leg. The referee chose to give him a yellow card, and at full speed the challenge just looked clumsy. On reflection it was, as Alex Ferguson put it, a ‘shocking’ challenge, but the referee did not have the benefit of video replay to help him. In Referee 2.0 I discuss the use of video technology during games and the slowing of the game being an argument against, but for retrospective action you do not need to slow the game or get everything 100% right during the game. You are just making sure you at least punish the right people afterwards.

Getting back to cheating I have a few ideas. The first action would, in my opinion, get rid of 90% of diving or ‘simulation’ as it is now, for no apparent reason, called. The solution is to give any player caught diving, retrospectively, a 5 match ban. This of course is very harsh, but that is not without reason. Diving is something which is premeditated. A player, when diving is fully aware of what they are doing. Unlike a late challenge or an instinctive handball, actions which a player’s body may do through reflex or lack of timing, when a player dives they are making a conscious decision to do so. The mind decides on the dive before the body. Because of this heavy bans will stop players from diving, in the long run. Sure there will still be players who will take a dive in the last minute of a Cup final or title decider knowing a 5 match ban is on its way, but are happy to take the risk.

Moving on from diving the next area of contention is red cards. I think I am correct in saying that to date in the Premier League not one red card has ever been rescinded, or if it has then the number is less than five. Compare that to the number of players who have been wrongly sent off. The FA seems to be fixated on not wanting to undermine referees by showing them to be wrong after a match, but quite simply retrospective action will make their jobs a lot easier. The most recent example which springs to mind is the sending off of Alex in the League Cup last night. He got the ball cleanly and therefore a foul should not have even been given. The referee did not have the best view and we can excuse him this small error, but why should Alex and Chelsea now suffer. The mistake should be admitted and the ban lifted and everyone can move on.

The same goes for feigning injury. We can all remember Sergio Busquets sneaky peak after getting Motta sent off. That was on one of the biggest stages in football and seen by millions. UEFA had the perfect opportunity to make an example of Busquets and single him out as a cheat, but they decided not to. Whether it was because they did not want to tarnish beautiful Barcelona’s reputation or thought that he had not done anything wrong we will never know, but increasingly the authorities are turning a blind eye to cheating. Part of the issue seems to be that you cannot prove if someone is hurt, and I do understand this. We have all seen the Sergio Busquets incident and it is clear cut, but what about someone that was until recently considered an honest player. Below is footage of Thierry clutching his face after a clash with Carlos Puyol in 2006. He is clearly cheating and should have faced a ban, but after the game he still claimed his innocence. I think that UEFA and other governing bodies have to also accept that players will lie after the event too and will stop at nothing to gain an advantage, so any pleads of innocence should be taken with a pinch of salt.

UEFA almost made a breakthrough in 2009 when it retrospectively banned Eduardo for diving in order to win a penalty. Unfortnately they rescinded the ban based on the fact that there was ‘contact’. As I have mentioned earlier, contact does not render the challenge a penalty. The fact of the matter is that Eduardo simulated being fouled by the Goal Keeper in order to win the penalty. That could have been a turning point for Football, but instead they did a u-turn choosing to support the cheats instead. Everytime I see a dive or a feigned injury it saddens me, but what is even sadder is that people just brush it off as ‘part of the game’. We shouldn’t take cheating so lightly and neither should Football Associations.

I will eave you with a video of a man taking cheating to the next level. He actually hits himself with his opponents hand!

Twitter and Football: Good match?

By Tom Gaunt

Twitter has recently become the hot topic for the sporting media to discuss, or more accurately certain Footballer’s use of Twitter. With this in mind I thought I would offer my thoughts on the subject.

The main gripe people seem to have is that Footballers are representing their club and therefore must censor what they say. Surely they should simply write the well-worn phrase “These views are my own and not those of my company” or in Footballer’s case “my Club”. This is, of course, what got Nathan Eccleston in a spot of bother last week. Liverpool felt the need to publicly denounce a tweet of his so as not to be associated with his views. They were probably right to do so, but it does raise the question of when a Club should get involved.

I read an article a while back, mocking Rio Ferdinand for commenting on the Rooney swearing saga, saying (or rather tweeting) that there were bigger problems in the world, like civil wars in Libya and the Ivory Coast or the tsunami in Japan. Whilst Rio may not be an academic or possess a PhD in politics, I am not sure intellectual snobbery is necessary. Surely we should be happy that he has an idea of some of the issues the World, outside football, is facing. Most people, including those of you reading this article, will comment daily on subjects well outside their areas of expertise, forcing ill-informed opinions on anyone who will listen. The difference is that Rio has over a million people listening, but raising awareness of issues in even a small way should be praised not mocked. The journalist continues, pulling Rio up for using the word ‘lynched’ and suggesting unless he is talking of the public execution of a person without trial he should not be so liberal with the word. This is a bit rich coming from a journalist; a group of professionals who intentionally and freely mislead their readers with their lexicon on a regular basis.

Joey Barton has faced similar derision of late. One journalist poked fun at Barton using ‘his book of quotations’ suggesting he was tricking people with some kind of faux-intelligence. So what do we want from our Footballers? It seems we are comfortable with the banal drivel that we usually hear from pundits and many ex-footballers doing the media circuits; or “model professionals” like Michael Owen or Cesc Fabregas on Twitter. That is not to say there is anything wrong with this middle of the road commentary. However, I feel we need Footballers out there that have an opinion and want to express themselves, as long as it does not cross into unsavory areas, and to date I am not sure any have.

Recently Liverpool felt that a young reserve player, Nathan Eccleston had crossed this line with his 9/11 related tweet. He tweeted “I ain’t going to say attack don’t let the media make u believe that was terrorist that did it. #OTIS.” It was insensitively timed (on the 10th anniversary of 9/11), and the fact that Liverpool is now under American ownership made it an immediate issue for the Club. I think Liverpool dealt with it in the right way and most seem to have forgotten about it. The fact it was a low profile player no doubt helped the cause. My issue is not with Liverpool’s reaction, but with whether Eccleston is entitled to tweet, what is his opinion, to his followers. He did not say anything racist or show any prejudice. He did not comment on the tragedy itself nor did he suggest that it was not a terrible event for which people are rightfully mourning. He was merely commenting on the circumstances of what happened and what he believes to be a conspiracy. Whilst many may think this an outlandish suggestion, if you should Google “9/11 conspiracy theories” you get 62 million results. He is not alone in his beliefs.

So where does a club draw the line? Who decides what stance a Club takes on a particular issue raised? Is it the Press Office? The Board? The Manager? Are we now to suggest we must believe everything we read in the media? The main thrust of Eccleston’s tweet is that we should not. Do the media now dictate what is true and false? What if a Manchester City player had tweeted the same thing. With their owners coming from the Arab World and being of Muslim faith would their attitude have been different? Why should a player share the same beliefs as the Club and how do they know what the Clubs stance is on all issues before they speak or tweet?

I imagine the sensible thing is to stop all players from tweeting and thus eliminate the problem, but don’t we live in a free country with refreshingly limited censorship? I like to hear what Footballers think and what they have to say for themselves and I too think there is more to 9/11 than meets the eye. Since I have been following Joey Barton on Twitter my opinion of the man has completely changed. I still think he has a violence issue and cannot condone what he has done in the past but he comes across as an intelligent man who has more than decent communication skills. I have never been a big fan of Rio Ferdinand but he made the point on Radio 5 live that Twitter brings the fans closer to the players and I have to agree. In a Football World of millionaires with such a gulf between a Club’s stars and the common fan this can only be a good thing.

In summary, what is the worst Footballer related thing that has happened on Twitter? Barton saying he was leaving Newcastle? Frimpong speaking out at Piers Morgan? Rooney having a pop at a fan? Ryan Babel shaking his head? These are hardly crimes and I agree with Rio when he suggests there are bigger things to worry about in the World. On the flip side Footballers will regularly retweet good causes or charities for fans and I just don’t think the downside can compare.

I hope we can embrace the new breed of ‘thinking’ Footballers. After all, their career is a short one and all they are doing is promoting their brand. I am sure Rio Ferdinand will be a millionaire outside of Football once he retires; you can already buy all manner of paraphernalia from him. Let’s not put them back in a box marked ‘thick’ just because we are not sure how to handle the situation.

Ferguson: Hopping mad

By Tom Gaunt

This week Kenny Dalglish called for greater communication between Referees and Managers, and who could argue. It seems every week another manager is throwing their toys out of the pram. This was a refreshing approach. He did not insult any particular referees but suggested they had not had the rub of the green recently, I think Liverpool fans may agree. He invited referees’ chief Mike Riley to Liverpool’s Melwood training ground and they had an adult discussion and clear the air talks. All very mature. To believe that Kenny merely required some answers to a few questions  which were troubling him would be naive. I think this may have been a shrewd move. However this article is not designed to examine Dalglish’s motives, whatever they are I still think it was a smart move. With American owners and with their unproven yet undoubtedly forward thinking Moneyball approach, I wouldn’t be surprised if Liverpool were ahead of the game on this one.

What I really want to discuss is the psychology behind refereeing and whether teams are paying enough attention. From a managers perspective there seems to be two common modus operandi. The first and most prevalent is intimidation. Managers will comment before a match that they do not think they will get any decisions and at times have gone as far as commenting on the individual official. In the same vein managers often condemn a referee’s performance in the post-match interview. Does this work? I think it would take the sort of analysis of data which only Steven Levitt would have the patience to compile, so we will just have to speculate. Many have suggested Alex Ferguson has been a master of this over the years, and this may well be true. It is possible he does have a science to what he does.

The second and less commonly adopted method is getting on the referees good side. Kenny Dalglish may have hoped that through his hospitality and adult discussion the team will be treated more favourably in future. I am fully aware that some hospitable treatment may well go on post-match and behind closed doors but we  know this for sure. It seems that current manipulation tactics are rather ill-conceived, or not even given a moments thought. Perhaps it is unsporting or dishonest to try to manipulate the referee but I am not sure we can claim football to have a high moral compass, so I will assume they are just archaic in their approach.

For a multi-billion pound industry I think most would agree football is behind the times, we aren’t even using technology for example. Surely clubs should be doing everything they can to gain an edge in matches and tip the scales in their favour. I am not condoning manipulation of referees but I think it is something which has naturally come into the game, and if teams want to maximize it they need to be more scientific. Over the past two decades since the inception of the Premiership the pressure on referees has increased. Not only in the media but on the pitch. It has become commonplace for players to surround the referee in protest at a decision. Ironically this is most common when a player is sent-off which is probably the worst time as until now I have never seen a referee overturn a red card. The big change I have noticed in the past five years is that refs are changing their mind, seemingly on appeal. This may be ruling a goal out for offside after players have pleaded for him to check with his assistant. The amazing thing is that the goal on occasion is ruled out for offside, when surely the assistant would have flagged. In reality, however, it may be a case that the ref is just giving themselves a little more time as they realise that they may have combined to make an incorrect decision. I think we can all sympathize. What is the point of all this? What it proves is that the referees behaviour and therefore decisions can sometimes be changed by the actions of the players on the pitch. So why not take it a step further.

As previously stated referees are human and therefore just as predisposed to follow the rules of human behaviour like any of us. Just like a teacher may pick on a certain pupil without realizing or a parent may favour one of their children referees are not impartial. Psychology journals are littered with studies on every imaginable aspect of human behaviour. For example some believe we are more likely to be sympathetic towards those similar to ourselves – Suedfeld & Bochner’s ‘Helper-sufferer similarity’ study, for example, looked at how we are more likely to help those who are most similar to ourselves.  We will even like someone more just because they have the same name as us. With regards to the Premier League, it may be that referees are more sympathetic towards the plight of British players over foreign players – Phil Dowd was less than sympathetic towards Nani’s horrific injury last season when he was mauled by Carragher. This is a pure hypothetical and I am not saying Dowd does have a biased but it is an illustration of my point.

From my own experience in amateur football in the UAE where we have a mix of predominantly Arabic or predominantly British teams and referees from both backgrounds also, the pattern is clear. There is a massive favouritism towards the referees fellow countrymen or race. This does not make them racist, it is a natural deep-rooted behaviour for many of us. Now these are of course amateur refs doing a good deed for very little money so we can expect a certain lack of impartiality – but if referees in the top league have just 1% of this bias it could be the difference between a team winning or losing a game.

So what should managers or teams be doing? Well I think that there should be a far greater effort made to understand the psychology of refereeing and analyze individuals behaviour. One of the biggest irritations in football today is the lack of consistency from referees. We will then later and completely separately comment that refs are “only human” when in fact these two things are inextricably linked. It is the very fact that referees are human that causes the lack of consistency. This is where I believe managers are missing a trick. It may be the case that behind the scenes they really do have the requisite level of sophistication, but having watched the majority of managers spitting blood and stomping up and down the touch-line like an angry toddler, I very much doubt it.

At a basic level players can be told “Mark Halsey doesn’t take any lip so don’t mouth off too much or you will get booked” and I am sure players can also work this out themselves. The most commonly seen method is that of appealing for everything, and it works. If ten people tell you something you will normally believe them. How often have you seen a ref make a decision apparently on the players reaction? If we dig deeper, however, it may be that some referees favour particular types of players, or are more likely to consult with their assistant on certain decisions. Some of a more fragile nature may even react to constant complaining about a certain decision by ‘evening things out’ later in a game. It might be that by putting an arm on the shoulder of a particular ref as you walk off for half time and sharing a joke they will favour you more later in the match. There are an abundance of proven ways of manipulating people’s behaviour to gain more trust or create a connection, this is an area mainly unexplored in football.

Referees have an extremely hard job and I am not accusing any of a lack of impartiality this would be unfair, but I think there may be room for clubs to manipulate the situation, if they are not already. Don’t be surprised if Liverpool’s luck starts to change a little after their sit-down with the refs.

]]> http://weheartfootball.com/2011/09/16/kenny-dalglish-in-bed-with-the-referees-a-look-at-referee-psychology/feed/ 0 tagaunt fergie