Champions League Brexit

Another round of Champions League matches and another set of disappointing results for the English Premier League clubs. Between them, they have 5 wins from 16 matches this season. The results for Arsenal, throwing away a three goal lead, and Manchester City, folding to a home loss and down to nine men, were most alarming. On current form, only Chelsea, who top their group, look likely to proceed to the latter stages. 

This pattern has been similar over the last few seasons. Since Chelsea won the 2012 trophy, they have been the only one English side to reach the semi finals. In 2013 no team made beyond round 16. In the years 2005 to 2012, English clubs were in the final 7 seasons out of 8. This may be a temporary blip, but there is a sense that despite their wealth, English clubs have fallen a way behind the Spanish giants, Bayern and even Italian clubs like Juventus. 

Manchester City have retained a perverse Cityitis in Europe, where they conspire to make a hash of matches, seem lacklustre and strangely disinterested. The argument goes that they are just adjusting to continental style, but their team is made up of the cosmopolitan Euro elite. The mindset most likely is that European glory still seems like a luxury to enjoy, rather than a burning ambition. When the other Manchester club returned to the Champions League in 1993, they sought to rekindle the glory days of the 1950s and 1960s, particularly the 1968 triumph. Reviving this legacy eventually led them to winning in their sixth season back. City doesn’t have a historic European Cup legacy to draw on and they may well improve by their sixth season, but the club hasn’t invested enough. The Champions League for many players, managers and clubs elsewhere is an obsession, but City don’t seem remotely obsessed. 

For Arsenal and Arsene Wenger, it has been an obsession. Such that, he neglected the club’s domestic cup aspirations for many years. The closest he came, was most likely in 2004, when the Invincible team, seemed Invincible in Europe as well. The 5-1 win in the San Siro in November 2003, was probably Arsenal’s best ever European performance. But with matches building up, it was one trophy too much and they lost in the quarter finals to Chelsea. Arsenal did reach the 2006 final and could have won, but a self inflicted defeat, set the template for the second half of Wenger’s Arsenal career. Since the break up of the 2006 team, Arsenal have only in patched made any impact in Europe. The 2009 season ended in a semi final defeat and a fairly comprehensive one.

Chelsea look most comfortable and undefeated. The experience of their squad should take them to at least the semi finals. Mourinho has won two European cups, both in his second seasons, as he is now at Chelsea. John Terry has played in 2 finals and played in 7 semi finals. They may be slowly progressing through their group, but will most likely be one of the favourites once the quarter finals arrive. 

Liverpool will feel the most underwhelmed by their current campaign. Mostly due to expectations. When they had their previous Champions League run from 2002 to 2009, they had some incredible wins including Istanbul 2005. The squad at that time was not much better than it is now, but Rafael Benitez showed a great European knowledge. With only one win out of four, albeit two matches against Real, this has been a flat campaign. Poor domestic form has been carried into Europe. Perhaps if Suarez was still there, it could be different, but with a manager without European pedigree and a low confidence squad, the results have been poor. 

The Wenger Epoch

So Arsene Wenger has reached 18 years as Arsenal manager and he retains by some distance the  position of longest serving Premier League manager. With such a lengthy spell and all that experience, you would think he would have wider respect and wisdom. But it is unclear where he lies in the spectrum of long serving managers. Is he an Alex Ferguson or a Dario Grady? 

Wenger certainly has considerable respect in the game. He has won eight major trophies and achieved a remarkable consistency at the top end of the league. He has created elegant attacking teams, broken many records for unbeaten streaks and developed rough cut diamonds into world class players. Who knows how many more trophies he might have, had Arsenal adopted Chelsea style spending from 2004 onwards. 

Opposition fans can’t believe Arsenal supporters could consider that another manager would be better. But his critics exist. Mostly a faction of Arsenal fans who are frustrated by perceived under performing, short sighted transfer market activity and a misguided faith in certain players. Perhaps if Wenger had won his eight trophies at regular intervals, he would received measured credit. But Wenger won seven trophies in his first 7 full seasons. Then went 9 seasons without a trophy. This year’s FA Cup broke this interminable drought. So Arsenal fans lament as they know the standard has declined from Wenger epoch part 1. There is a constant craving for the new Tony Adams, the new Patrick Viera, the new Thierry Henry. These players were developed by Wenger rather than bought so money is less of a factor. But success now is driven mostly by money rather than a manager’s ability to nurture. Look at United’s panic buying this summer.

A question to be asked of Wenger is whether a change of style limited his success in the fallow years or was it really just the limited cash to continue competing with Chelsea and Manchester United. The turning point was clearly after the 2004-2005 season. Arsenal won the FA Cup by not playing well, had finished strongly in the league, but sold their captain Viera. Investing at this time may have kept Arsenal at the top, but Wenger looked to rely on new signing Alexander Hleb and the emerging Cesc Fabregas. An unproven talent at that point. The next season 2005-2006 was disappointing in the league but redeemed by a Champions League final, narrowly lost. The further sales of Lundberg, Pires and Bergkamp’s retirement broke up the Invincible team. The move to the Emirates stadium limited the spending on new players. 

The early Wenger teams had tall muscular players like Viera, Silva, Bergkamp and the inherited back four. The style was strong defence with quick counterattacking style relying on quick breaks from Pires, Henry and Lundberg. At some point around 2006, Wenger shifted to smaller nimble players adopting one touch style akin to Barcelona’s tika taka. Was the 2006 final defeat a catalyst or did Wenger see this as the route to the European holy grail? One consequence of this style shift was a lack of resilience to tough tackling technically inferior teams. Arsenal gained a reputation for weakness against these teams, especially in the north west of England, especially against Bolton. The theory was that technical talent would make these tactics irrelevant. Arsenal would just pass their way to victory. But football never works like that. 

Arsenal did make significant transfers through the barren years. Arshavin cost 15m. Rosicky - undisclosed but similar. But this was more than offset by selling the quality of Cole, Fabregas, Van Persie and Nasri. The youth players rarely made it to first team regulars, except for Wilshere or Gibbs. New signings often performed well below expectation: Gallas, Silvestre or Gervinho

These “barren” years were characterised by regular collapses of form in March and April with cup exits and dips in league form.

At this point in time Wenger may have one of his strongest squads. World cup winners mix with a core of English players and established talent like Alexis Sanchez and Aaron Ramsay. But.. but questions remain. Winning the league will be difficult for Wenger considering the depth of Chelsea and Manchester City. The Champions League does turn up occasional un-fancied winners  - Porto in 2004, Liverpool in 2005, Chelsea in 2012 - but more likely is another exit in round 16 or quarterfinals. This asks what is there left for Wenger to achieve. There is additional money to spend but his critics accuse him of myopic transfer activity - basically avoiding buying a defensive midfielder. 

Ryders in the Storm - a superior golf event

Graeme McDowall suggested that due to fatigue Ryder Cup matches should be held every three years. Panic erupted amongst European and most American fans… Three years would surely be too long to wait for an event that far exceeds the standard excitement for a golf tournament. How did this sporting fixture develop to such a cauldron of tension, nerve and passion. Other team golf events are merely an afterthought for the money centric golf pro. But the Ryder Cup, where no direct prize money is awarded (sponsorship opportunities are likely if you do a ‘Poulter’), brings these homogenised pros to tears and touches a nerve that this most individualistic of sports rarely touches. Here are five reasons why the Ryder Cup can claim to be golf’s premier event. 

1. Let’s start with a factor that can only occur through years of experiences and mystique. Yes the Ryder Cup History. Most viewers and probably many golf pros have forgotten who Samuel Ryder was or anything that he achieved in his life but he bequeathed a cross Atlantic tournament - that’s all you need to know. And funnily even though the matches have been played since 1927, it is only really since 1985 that the matches have generated any true level of excitement. The famous 1969 match and Nicklaus concession was the exception. Most matches prior to 1983 were one sided with Great Britain then expanded to Europe being second class golf citizens to the US golf aristos. But since these upstarts turned the tables on their supposed superiors the battle has flared up. At first this was a win for the European underdog aided by their golden generation of the late 1980s. USA fought back proving that once they played less as individuals they could be not too shabby. Since then it has developed into a cross Atlantic passion fest with the obligatory fist clenched salutes and spectator songs - U-S-A vs Ole Ole Ole. This ‘history’ is filled with anecdotes of personal triumph and tragedy. The rotation of new venues and captains adds to this dynamic. Each match has had its own momentum, its own critical turning points (missed putts / holed putts, i.e. to do a “Poulter” - five birdies in a row to turn the match on its head) and its own coup de grace with one, often unlikely, player holing the winning putt. Most golf fans would struggle to remember past majors from years past, but past Ryder Cups have their own fables. Built up over the years, the ‘history’ is what makes this the event it is. 

2.   Ok another obvious reason here. Sports can be clearly divided into team and individual formats. Some individual sports have their team events like athletics relays and cycling, to an extent. But golf doesn’t do it much. For golfers outside US and Europe the opportunities are thin. Travelling round the globe in expensive soulless hotels, hours on the practice range, leads to a reclusiveness for the modern pro. The Ryder Cup is the perfect chance to forget this isolation and hang out with your mates. That is certainly how the Europeans have approached it since the 1980s. Having that camaraderie has extracted several extra putts and long drives out of the Europeans. It has helped players who are out of form. It has shared the responsibility when the matches have turned towards the other team. When Bernard Langer missed the crucial putt in 1991, he was clearly the player who ‘lost’ the cup, but surely that was also any of his team mates who failed earlier to get extra half points themselves, that would have won it as well. For the Americans the sense of team is less openly displayed. Nobody could say that the ‘team’s of 1991 and 1999 were not passionate groups. But these wins were mainly built on their patriotism and great play. The trend up until recently was for the Americans to be stronger in the singles. Their individualism being superior to Europeans collectivism. A bit of a cliche yes, but the matches of the 1990s saw regular singles wins for USA. Since then as Europeans players have travelled wider and had notable recent successes in US majors, as well as many players in the world top 10, the individual strengths of Europeans has grown. Europe have won the singles in 5 of the last 6 matches. 

3. My third reason is going to probably bore the non-golf fan here. It is the matchplay format. Played less so on the tour. It creates a different dynamic for the matches than strokeplay. The intention is to win holes. So players literally go-for-it on many shots, not playing percentages. Why worry about getting a bogey, just go for an eagle. Don’t ever leave a putt short. Bravery is often rewarded. The slow grind of a tournament means that a cautionary approach can make a difference after 4 days. But if you are only playing two matches in a Ryder cup why hold back. The four ball format also enhances this. If my partner is safely on the green, then that gives me more scope to go for the pin. The foursomes format of alternate shots is an interesting escape from regular golf as it denies a player his natural rhythm. Tiger Woods has struggled in this format. The ultimate golf individual, this format must have made him tear his hair out. Coping with a partner who leaves you in trouble would fracture his control freakery. Playing this alien format, brings the best and worst out of the players.

4. After that technical interlude, lets return to the visceral. Passion has to be considered a major factor in the Ryder Cup’s appeal. We’ve mentioned the homogenised prosaic golf pro before, but the cup unleashes air pumping, grimaces and tears like no other golf event, and not even like most sporting events for that matter. Tony Jacklin and Sam Torrance flooded the Belfry in 1985 and did so in further wins as captains. Mark Calcivecchia was disconsolate after halving with Montgomerie when 4 up with 4 to play in 1991. So much so that he was still looking miserable when they actually won. Notable ice-man Faldo broke down in 1995, although Seve’s tears set everyone off. And don’t mention Olazabal in 2012 who was quivering (justifiably of course) after victory. It means so much to these players. The passion exceeds sportsmanship in 1991, but tension plus passion equals great sport. 

5. Tension cannot exist in a vacuum and is the product of sporting environment. A source of this sporting tension is from the matches often being razor edge close. The matches of 1989, 1991, 1995, 1997, 1999, 2010 and 2012 were all decided by a point or less. When it goes to the wire, every shot seems crucial. Players know this from day one. Careless early losses could prove critical on Sunday. And this tension manifests itself in alarming ways. The 18th at the Belfry with water on drive and approach proved fatal for many players in 1989. Short putts have been missed by many great players. Whilst the Europeans played superbly on Medinah’s last day in 2012, the Americans quite honestly did choke as well.