How Positive Can Not Scoring Be?

It's really funny how Barcelona and many corners of the European press are STILL whining about Chelsea being defensive. I know sometimes I do that when Chelsea meet teams that are less interested in playing football than conducting defence practice and come with parked buses, but it is always the prerogative of the superior team to break down the inferior one no? And Barcelona are superior to Chelsea, make no mistake, and going to the Nou Camp to try beat and beat them at their own game will just be plain stupid.

As luck would have it, Barcelona will now go into the second leg shorn of two top centre-backs Puyol (suspension) and Marquez (injury). More than a slight glimmer of hope for Drogba and gang to batter our way through, that is what I smell. Of course, this would not have mattered if Chelsea had been "positive", "brave" and "plucky" and went on the attack in the first leg, only to be ravished and lose 3-1 or something.

So, while grabbing an away goal (which wouldn't have been deserved but football runs like that) would have made the night almost perfect (oh Drogba!), kudos to the entire team for a result that would not have done any damage to team spirit, morale, togetherness, Cech's confidence and, as circumstances would have it, Chelsea's chances of reaching Rome.

You'll Never Walk Alone... Unless You're Branislav Ivanovic

When Fernando Torres sweetly passed the ball past Cech and into the Chelsea goal, I was only barely halfway through my chips. What swept me then was this unpleasant sinking feeling that it was gonna be a long long night.

But never in my wildest imagination did I envisage Chelsea totally silencing the Kop and storming back with three goals. And not even the most starry-eyed romantic would have scripted the unlikely matchwinner to be Branislav Ivanovic.

Truth is, while I pride myself to be pretty good at deconstructing what goes WRONG when Chelsea falter, I am at a loss attempting to explain what went so ultimately right, why every single player was so impressive and playing so far above themselves, even Malouda. But I’d try anyway.

1. Michael Essien: Stop Gerrard and you stop Liverpool. Thought it would be simple enough for managers to grasp but apparently not. The Golden Guus, however, did, and Essien did just a brilliant shackling job on Gerrard which left Torres largely isolated and confined Stevie G to a few speculative long-range shots. Provided significant impetus in going forwards as well, and basically was here, there and everywhere. Which proves that he is not really human.

2. Didier Drogba: Missed two gilt-edged chances to put this tie beyond a shadow of doubt and totally humiliate Liverpool, but led the forward line excellently, putting himself about and bullying Carragher and Skrtel into submission. Held the ball up admirably allowing the likes of Lampard and Essien to join the forward play in doing so. Constant pain in the Liverpool arse.

3. Michael Ballack: He seems to not do much, and commentators, pundits and everyone else love to slam him. Yet every manager in his playing career loves him. I posit that he must be doing something right. Tends to cover more ground than anyone and contributes aerial ability and experience. And his through ball that set Malouda off to cross for the 3rd, truly worth its weight in gold. Loses the ball a bit too much for my liking though.

4. Ashley Cole: Kept Kuyt quiet by his constant forays upfield, making it necessary for Kuyt to shadow him and therefore be far away from goal, further isolating Torres.

5. Branislav Goalmachine Ivanovic: Unlikeliest matchwinner with two powerful headers from two corners. His zigzag run into the box for the first goal was simply classic, completely bamboozling the Liverpool defence and their zonal marking system. Did not forage forward as much as Cole, but took on Albert Riera in a more conventional manner as a defender and kept him comfortably in his backpocket. Secretly has lots of pace - as the commentator remarked, “where does he get all that pace from?”

6. Salomon Kalou and Florent Malouda: Tracked back in defence diligently, defended from the front well, putting Liverpool’s fullbacks under constantly unwilting pressure. I still won’t call them true wingers per se, but Kalou caused a few problems with his willingness and ability to dribble and take on places and Malouda had an exceptional game (by his standards), not giving the ball away and actually responsible for two crosses that led to goals, including the brilliantly-weighted first-time low cross to Drogba for the third. Okay there, credit where it’s due.

7: Guus Hiddink: Tactical genius. Please please pleassseeee don’t go! And how could you bear to????

I've only picked out the above honourable mentions, but of course like I had mentioned early in the post, the entire team was oustanding and played above themselves, delivering a scintillating display of attacking football (wow never thought I'd say this with Chelsea) and playing Liverpool off the park. What a slap in Scolari's face, sadly.

On Video Replays in Football

In the debate about video replays in football, there are conservative apologists who are vehemently against it, decrying the potential loss of the "spirit of the game", or even going as far to suggest that using technology amounts to killing the soul of the sport.

My response to them, respectfully, would be to tell them to get out of their caves and smell the coffee, which these days are made with rather complicated electronic coffee machines that I admittedly am not very good with.

The very nature of sport these days, in particular football, with the influx of commercialisation and megabucks, has been transformed into that of multibillion businesses, with the involvement of television conglomerates and worldwide audiences, sponsors from all over the globe and multinational billionaire owners. Costs of failure are getting higher, as the prizes for success are. By extension, failure due to refereeing errors is getting more and more costly.

Case in point, in Jeff Winter's highly reductive but nonetheless illuminating "League Table of Injustice" (after 30 games), which is Winter's view on how the league table should look, taking into account big refereeing booboos like wrongly disallowed or given goals, clear penalties not given or wrongly given etc, Chelsea top the table (Which pisses me off obviously). To be fair, the difference between 1st and 3rd is not that great financially, even if it is the league title in question.

Middlesbrough and Newcastle however, are 15th and 16th respectively in the "what should have been" league table, but 19th and 18th (relegation spots) in reality after 30 games. Assuming that this table stands at the end of the season, they both can be said to have lost their fight for premier league survival due to refereeing mistakes. This would cost, firstly due to loss in television revenues, roughly 20 to 30 million pounds. Also, the better players move on at cut-price transfer fees, the club receive lesser revenue through sponsors and etc, and the club may find it hard to recover from this crippling financial leak. The "parachute package" given to relegated clubs by the FA truly is band-aid to bullet wounds, and we have seen certain clubs which have been relegated sink like a stone and further down the league hierarchy. Sheffield Wednesday, Nottingham Forest and Leeds spring to mind.

If Sheffield United could successfully sue West Ham for fielding Carlos Tevez and thus contributing to their relegation to the tune of 10-20 million pounds, I do not see how the likes of Middlesbrough and Newcastle cannot sue the FA for those sums, providing they are able to come up with a creative and solid dossier on how the referees have contributed to their relegation. A stretch I know, but the West Ham case is every bit as ridiculous.

Therefore, I am an advocate of the use of video replays, and I propose a system not unlike tennis these days. In tennis, each player has 3 challenges to burn; an incorrect challenge leads to one of their 3 chances being struck off, a correct one leads to the wrong decision being overturned. Each replay generally takes about 30 seconds to a minute, the replay is played out on the big screen and the crowds are always excited.

In my view, such a system would not disrupt the flow of the game too much. The authorities can limit each replay and time of consideration for referees to a minute, the time for which will be compensated for in stoppage time. A minute is not far off the time that a game is stopped for injuries or substitutions (especially where the substituted player walks off slowly). Managers are entitled to a maximum of two incorrect challenges, and we have a fairer, happier game all-round. Referees have a chance to redeem their mistakes, and losers have less to complain about.

Thing is, no one would possibly listen to me and my ranting.