A Chance for Someone New?

With the US Open starting today, there has to be a chance of an outsider taking a debut Grand Slam title for the second time this year. None of the usual suspects are on top form and some of the next generation such as Raonic and Dimitrov are starting to turn potential into ability. Both reached maiden Slam semi finals at Wimbledon and in the near future that may well become victories. Flushing Meadows also has a tendency to be a productive tournament for players who only win one or two in their career. Rafter, Safin, Hewitt, Roddick, Del Potro and Murray all won their first major in New York and none have managed more than 2 in total.

Perhaps it's because it's later in the season and so there can be fitness issues affecting the field. The fatigue element may well have played a part in Federer failing to win since the last of his 5 consecutive titles in 2008, aged 27. He has won each of the other Slams since he last triumphed in New York, but not even reached the final here. The Swiss star's dominance coming to an end has brought about a season of the title changing hands each year. The last 6 years have produced 5 different winners (only Nadal x2) and no-one has defended their title from the previous year. That trend will continue again with this edition with Nadal's withdrawal due to injury.

Nadal's absence means that since his Grand Slam debut aged 17 at 2003 Wimbledon, he has been missed 7 majors, including one in each of the last 3 years. To compare, Federer's debut was at Roland Garros 1999, also aged 17. Since then he has never been absent, missing out only 1999 US Open main draw by losing in qualifying. Tomorrow he will appear in his 60th consecutive Grand Slam. Nadal will not overhaul Federer's record of GS titles, because his absence (and injury) record limits how many he has the chance to win. Rafa has actually only won 1 Slam outside of Roland Garros in the last 4 years and it's pretty unlikely he'll still be at the top of his game when he's 32.

Normally you'd think that Nadal's absence would mean the title is pretty much a guarantee for Murray or Djokovic. As it happens, both have been on a fairly feeble run of form, the Scot losing in the QFs of his last 3 tournaments, the Serb in the last 16 of his last 2. Of course they will rise to the big occasion but in the significantly tougher side of the draw, (Djokovic, Wawrinka, Tsonga, Murray, Raonic, Isner), it will take a mighty turn of form for either of them to be holding the trophy aloft in a fortnight. Federer has shown at Wimbledon that he is still in the hunt for the majors and with a relatively weak route to the final (Karlovic, Fognini, Dimitrov, Ferrer), he may well put the American drought behind him. That being said, his performance the last two years doesn't fill you with confidence if you're a Fed fan (2013 Last 16 loss to Robredo, 2012 QF loss to Berdych). For once, none of the major players look like safe bets.

Hence why it might just be the time for a breakthrough from someone new...

Who's Daring to Dream?

Among the many things I love about the World Cup is the huge variety of opinions, articles, talking points, disagreements and perspectives it provokes. Go on any decent website and there are as many different articles as you could hope to read, discussing every possible aspect of the tournament. You can read about the teams, players, previous tournaments, the infrastructure, the impact on the hosts, impact on previous hosts, basically anything.

But without doubt the best thing (possibly including the matches, that remains to be seen) is the debate (yes I mean arguments). Who's in your All-time XI, who's in your fantasy team, who will win the Golden Boot, do Messi/Ronaldo need to win to be considered among the best players ever, who should start for England and how far will we get? There is virtually nothing on which you'll find yourself in complete agreement with someone else. If you do, the only thing I can recommend is you debate things a bit more.

Of all the contentious issues, there is one that most clearly identifies the optimists, pessimists, realists and idiots. How will England do? 
A couple of years ago I wrote a post about England's chances going into Euro 2012. Before the tournament, there was a genuine sense of realism about the England football team and our chances in such a way that there was no huge feeling of devastation when Diamanti tucked home the decisive penalty. Winning the group failed to inspire any genuine hope and rightly so given the insipid performance produced against the Italians.

So with it all kicking off on Thursday evening, how are we feeling this time around? There's a certain satisfying symmetry with England starting where they left off in the Euros, aiming to avenge that defeat and put right the dour and lacklustre style of play from 2 years ago. Lots has been made of the exciting young talents of Oxlade-Chamberlain, Sterling, Lallana and Barkley but whether they're quite enough to inspire blind optimism in a naturally wary nation remains to be seen. Surely it will be the same old story. Surely warm up draws against the might of Ecuador and Honduras tell us all we need to know. Surely...

I can't help myself, I'm going to put it out there that by 1am on Sunday morning, there'll be the faintest of glints in the eye of even the most cynical of England fans. 

Wen's Arsene Gunner Be Gone?

The big question for Arsenal is how long do you stick with Arsene Wenger? 

This week's 3-0 win over Milan merely papers over the cracks in what is yet another trophy-less campaign for the Gunners. A season of thoroughly inconsistent results has included an 8-2 defeat at Man U but massive 5-3, 7-1 and 5-2 wins over Chelsea, Blackburn and Spurs respectively. A thumping defeat in the San Siro may have been followed by a convincing second-leg victory, but the fact is that Arsenal have fallen short of the Quarter Finals, and are out of every competition by early March, with a lot of work left to do to qualify for Champions League football for next year. 


There is little doubt that Wenger and Arsenal's policies and philosophy are admirable in terms of investing in youth and playing attacking, attractive football. But what good is investing in youth if you then sell the young players when they have matured and have the experience and steel required (e.g. Fabregas, Clichy, Nasri)?

And if you look at the youth investment policy, how well does it stand up to close scrutiny? Exceptionally gifted players like Fran Merida, Denilson, Jay Emmanuel-Thomas and Mark Randall have all been sold/released despite showing great promise. Some of the best young talent that Arsenal are known for (Walcott, Ramsey, Chamberlain) have been bought for big fees (£9m, £5m, £12m) from smaller clubs, rather than genuinely brought through the youth set-up (notable exceptions are Wilshere, Gibbs and Frimpong). 


In some quarters they are admired for not spending big, and in others they are admonished for not putting the financial backing to the ambition of the fans. No-one is suggested they have spent in the manner of City, Chelsea, Liverpool or United, but the last time they didn't spend at least £10m on a player during a season was in 06/07 when Eduardo was the top signing for £7.5m. And don't think that all of those signings have been the youngsters with unbridled talent and potential: Arshavin £15m aged 27, Koscielny £10m aged 24, Mertesacker £10m aged 26, Arteta £10m aged 29, and as of today, Podolski £11m aged 26.

'98 FA Cup Final scorers - sold for
a combined profit of £40,500,000

They do collect big on a few players (most notably Overmars, Anelka, Fabregas, Nasri and Adebayor), but being a property developer is not really what most north Londoners want for their club. What difference then between Arsenal making a profit off such names and Southampton doing the same with the Ox and Walcott? 


In the last 20 years Arsenal have spent a net £21.6m (£17 of which was before Wenger), compared to Newcastle £99m, Spurs £175m, Man U £177m, Liverpool £226m, Man City £487m, Chelsea £516m*. No question then that financially Arsene has worked wonders to be competitive for so long, but which Gunner wouldn't gladly have traded another £100m or so for another couple of cups? It may have made the move to the Emirates financially viable but another Premiership title or two would have made Highbury perfectly inhabitable for a while longer.
*thanks to www.transferleague.co.uk for all the transfer spend stats. 

So would a win against Birmingham in last year's League Cup Final have made such a difference? Had Wilshere's left-footed hit dipped two inches lower and not struck the crossbar, all of the talk of the Gunners not having won anything for years would be redundant. Would any consideration of the great Arsenal Wenger being sacked consequently be dismissed as absurd? Similarly, is the discussion entertained purely because they failed to convert more than 1 of their 20 shots on goal?


In a time when managerial positions seem so fragile (just ask AVB, Gary Megson or Lee Clark), the likes of Ferguson, Moyes and Wenger are quite simply inspirational. Harry Redknapp is now 10th on the list of longest serving current managers in England, and he's been with Spurs for less than 4 seasons. Put it like this, Di Matteo is already climbing out of the relegation places, currently sitting 3rd bottom after a total of 4 days in charge. He'll be pressing for the playoffs soon. 


Of course the longevity of a manager is a positive thing for a club and for a chairman to show faith and consistency is fantastic and universally lauded, but is there a time to draw the line and recognise that no more progress can be made by the incumbent? How long can a policy of "building for the future" be sustained? Man U seem to do that and win the league while they're waiting. And what does it say for a club's ambitions when all the talk after being knocked out is of a "brave spirit" and "positive signs"? It sounds like the English national teams...


What it comes down to is the simple question; are Arsenal moving forward and becoming more competitive under Wenger or not? 




*I appreciate I've presented a pretty one-sided perspective on this but I am not actually convinced Wenger should go, just putting some things out there. Intrigued to see if any Arsenal fans want to have a say? Or Spurs/Utd/Chelsea etc. fans for that matter?!