Glory for Chelsea, defeat for purists

Chelsea finally proved that money can buy you everything as they claimed their first ever Champions League after beating Bayern Munich 4-3 on penalties.

Roman Abramovich's dream of a European triumph was realised after a 9 year quest, and one of the Russian's first signings , Didier Drogba, made the difference.

At a time when Andy Carroll fetched £35 million, the £24 million to Marseille looks a snip considering his eight years of service. Say what you like about the Ivorian's theatrics, he has decimated the continent this season and has been the best striker in the PL for the last five years.

Chelsea needed their striker to be in superb form as they were on the backseat for the majority of yesterdays final. Their win was also down to no small portion of luck; the Germans created enough chances to win, as did Barcelona and Napoli in the previous rounds.

After some woeful performances under AVB, the foursome of Ashley Cole, Petr Cech, David Luiz and Gary Cahill were all magnificent in Bavaria, as they have been since the exit of the Portuguese manager.

That it took the exit of one of Europes finest young coaches to kickstart their season is troubling, but under Bobby Matteo Chelsea have gone back to basics, and in Europe this proved to be the difference.

Abramovich reportedly has a grand vision of Chelsea playing as 'Barcelona in blue shirts' but yesterdays win was more reminiscent of Stoke in blue shirts, as Chelsea defended for the whole match before scoring with their first corner.

Of course a team of Bayern's stature should be able to defend a set-piece, but Chelsea played to their strengths and it proved effective. AVB tried to change Chelsea's reliance on the direct ball to Drogba and ultimately lost out.

Chelsea clearly rode their luck in Europe. If Barcelona or even Napoli had been less profligate they would have eliminated the blues and Chelsea didn't exactly read the textbook on defending your way to victory.

Mourinho's Inter Milan showed several defensive masterclasses en route to their 2010 win, and with a midfielder of Wesley Sneijder's guile were always a threat, a 3-1 over Barca indicative if their abilities. By contrast, Chelsea showed vulnerability. They gave away two needless penalties (both saved) and it really did seem as if fate would fall their way.

Worse squads have won the Champions League, but the plucky fight of this Chelsea this campaign is remarkable. Despite being outplayed in several games, Di Matteo's side simply took their chances and after eight years practise they finally held their nerve.

Two hands on the title?

Sir Alex Ferguson conceded that Manchester City had two hands on their first Premier League title yesterday after the Citizens overcame a battling Newcastle side 2-0 on Sunday.

Barring a slip-up against lowly QPR, or a ridiculous goal-swing, Roberto Mancini looks to be on his way to his fourth league title, and his first in England. City deserved the win over Newcastle, but it was their manager who deserves most of the credit for his game-changing substitution in the 61st minute.

Replacing the, again ineffective Samir Nasri, for the on-paper more defensive midfield bruiser, Nigel de Jong, Mancini relieved some of the defensive duties on Yaya Toure and within 10 minutes the Ivorian went on to score the all important first goal.

At the time of Mancini's substitution I imagine City fans up and down the country were cursing their Italian and obviously defensive manager in a game that they needed to win, but the tactical switch proved to be telling and looks to have wrapped up the title for City.

Mancini was heavily criticised in his first year and a half in Manchester for being too cautious and was superbly vindicated by his substitutions and tactics today. A dangerous Newcastle side were well contained and Manchester City's cosmopolitan squad showed no sign of choking in this match.

With a five point lead over Mancini and his team, Ferguson had United in prime position a month ago. The defensive mistakes that have blighted the last few United performances can be accused, but the anaemic side that Ferguson put out in last weeks derby was a real turning point and a huge tactical error from the Scot.

Ferguson has had success hitting teams on the counter in the past, notably against Arsenal with Ronaldo running riot, however in the 'unmissable' game last week the United midfield were almost embarrassed by Man City's midfield engine.

A midfield of Scholes, Giggs, Carrick, Park and to a lesser extent Nani, has no dynamism to it and Manchester City were able to press incredibly high-up the pitch, much like Barcelona. Sir Alex got his tactics spectacularly wrong that night, in trying to match City up on the pitch and in effect try to take the draw, he played straight onto the hands of Mancini.

Player-to-player you would argue that City are by far stronger than the individuals in the United team. Aguero and Tevez are much better than Rooney and Welbeck, Hart beats De Gea, Kompany and Lescott are the best defensive pairing in the league, whilst Silva and Toure have carried City through several games this year. What has cost City at stages this season is their inability to always perform to their maximum potential, whereas United tend to over perform in more matches.

Rather than stick to their attacking flair, provided by the outstanding Valencia and Young, Ferguson tried to shut up shop and contain the most potent attacking side in the league. It went badly wrong and the tactical gamble looks like costing United the league.

Meanwhile, in the Budweiser Cup there was a rather predictable result as Chelsea just about did enough to beat a poor Liverpool side. Chelsea bossed the game for 60 minutes and it took the introduction of Andy Carroll to stir Liverpool into some response.

Carroll looked as if he had entered a time-warp and was reminiscent of the player that terrorised defences during his time at Newcastle. He gave John Terry a torrid time and somehow managed to dance round the former Engalnd skipper to score for Liverpool.

He was unlucky not to equalise, after Petr Cech pulled off a superb save to deny him his second, though you could argue the striker ought to have scored, heading it into the ground would have given Cech no chance. I would take Carroll to the Euro's and his third goal in four Wembley appearances may just have done enough for the Geordie.

Peter Crouch was propelled to the top of the England strikers queue after scoring a worldie and then doing little else, but for me Carroll can alter a game more dramatically and is most definitely one for the future.

Deplorable as he is, Ashley Cole was magnificent on Saturday and the left-back now has seven FA Cup winners medals. His form this season has been patchy, but since seeing Leighton Baines take his traditional place in the PFA team of the year, Cole has turned in superb performances both domestically and in Europe.

As for King Kenny, he is in for an arduous summer. Liverpool needed the FA Cup to avoid their season being branded a failure and are still £100 million worth of investment away from challenging the top four.

The Liverpool midfield is woefully ill equipped and Steven Gerrard was culpable on Saturday evening. Spearing and Henderson were the sitting midfielders, but after proving inefficient, Gerrard kept dropping back to just in front of his defence to pick up the ball and as a result the Liverpool midfield has well out of shape.

Liverpool have not replaced Mascherano and Alonso and with Gerrard on the wane for the last two seasons, they may be looking at three new midfielders before they can start competing again.

Remember Demba Ba?

Deconstruction of the 'people's choice'

England ended months of doubt on Monday as Roy Hodgson was confirmed as the new England manager on a four year deal. 

Instead of backing England's new man, the mainstream media seem to have developed a complex because Hodgson is not Harry Redknapp, dubbed the 'people’s choice'.

When Capello departed, in early February, Redknapp was immediately assigned the role as favourite to replace the Italian, despite little evidence to support his elevation. Redknapp was cleared of tax evasion on the same day as Capello's exit, which sparked debate that these things were 'meant to be'. Now Redknapp was out of court the England job was his to stroll into. 

A comparison of the respective managerial records of the two men is telling:

Redknapp – Won: 518, Drawn: 317, lost: 437, Win percentage: 40.76. League titles: 0, FA Cup Wins: 1, CL Quarter Finals: 1, Premier League Manager of the Year 2009/10

Hodgson – Won: 408, Drawn: 283, lost: 257, Win percentage: 43.04. League titles: 5, Europa League Finals: 1, UEFA Cup Finals: 1, LMA Manager of the Year 2010


The 64-year-old Hodgson has been managing since retiring at 28 and his coaching experience has taken him off to Scandinavia, Internazionale, the Premier League, Finland, the UAE before returning to the Premier League, succeeding at Fulham and West Brom.

Redknapp might boast an FA Cup win with Portsmouth in 2008, but in total the former West Ham player totals more relegations than promotions. The FA Cup victory with Portsmouth is an inflated prize; in winning in 2008 Redknapp spent way above the typical means at Portsmouth and the club entered administration two years later.

The 65-year-old is not solely to blame, but the signing of John Utaka on £50,000 a week was disastrous, with the Nigerian pace-merchant only leaving in January 2011 after scoring 10 in 90.

Both men have almost three decades of managerial experience and are only just gaining wider recognition. Redknapp worked the lower football leagues for years, while Roy learnt his trade in Sweden winning several titles.

In terms of recent success the obvious comparison is Redknapp making it to the last eight of the Champions League with Spurs or Hodgson reaching the Europa League final with Fulham.

Both were impressive, but for a squad of Fulham’s stature and lack of substantial investment, to go all the way to the final in 2009 is an incredible achievement, surpassing getting a very good squad of players to the Champions League quarters.

Hodgson also boast more than 80 games at international level. He guided the Swiss to third place in FIFA’s world rankings in 1994 and came three points from taking Finland to their first ever major competition in 2008.

He was head-hunted to be a UEFA’s chief scout in 1996, and in this role produces dossiers on all the major club sides and national associations in European football, experience that could prove vital this summer.

Compare this with Harry Redknapp’s continental experience and all the media favourite can point to is one game in Europe with Portsmouth and one season in the Champions League with Spurs.

To compare the two is a complete mis-match and begs the question, why was Redknapp so widely tipped as favourite for the head role? What does Redknapp count as an advantage over Hodgson? What evidence is there to confer Redknapp as the 'people's choice'?

The lack of evidence to advance Redknapp as an international manager was glossed over by journalists and former players over the last few weeks, with most resorting to that assertion that Redknapp is a good man-manager.

That these qualities were even deemed important for the next England manager suggests why England are almost decades behind teams on the continent and in the Americas.

Hodgson completely surpasses Redknapp technically; his training drills are infamous for their complexity and duration. By contrast, Redknapp leaves training exercises to a coaching team of Joe Jordan and Kevin Bond and once famously told new-signing Roman Pavlyuchenko to “run around”.

Despite these deficiencies Redknapp was dubbed the ‘people’s favourite’ by the majority of the media and their indignation at being proved wrong by the FA exploded on Monday as Hodgson was finally confirmed.

I could find only one journalist who had positive thoughts on Hodgson’s appointment, from the Telegraph’s Henry Winter, with the rest keen to express outrage that their pal Redknapp was impossibly overlooked.

Redknapp has a reputation for being a good talker, his press conferences and Range Rover interviews would always provide journalists with a ready-made sound bite. He clearly had a closer relationship with the media than Hodgson who only has six years’ experience as a manager in England.

Hodgson has had to endure a torrent of negative articles about his style of play, his lack of man-management (despite none of these people having worked under him) and the pieces conclude with his disappointing six months in charge at Liverpool.

To condemn a man’s entire career based on one six month spell is at best simplistic and at worst a falsehood. Hodgson has tremendous experience and prestige around the footballing world, which is not replicated among the British press

The assumption that Harry Redknapp could come in and make the same old group of players start knocking it about like Real Madrid is a wild presumption. Tottenham played good football this season because of the players they have, not because of Redknapp. 

From a completely rational decision process it is clear that England under Hodgson would be the greatest fit. Hodgson has international experience, gets the best out of his players, is tactically astute and is a great choice to develop the St George's Park project. Redknapp is clearly a good manager, but his acclamation as the 'people's choice' was unwarranted and is to gloss over the superior candidate; one who has won over the Football Association, if not the media.