And so, a devastating fortnight for English clubs in Europe draws to a close. For the second time in three years, we have no representative in the Champions League beyond the last 16. Even more worryingly, it's the fourth time in five seasons that no English side has made it to the quarters of the Europa League. And never before have both happened in conjunction. So what has gone wrong? How has a league extolled for its pace and power, ranked as one of the top two leagues in the world, deteriorated when it comes to the European competitions?
However, as the stats above suggest, twas not always thus. Between 2004/2005 and 2008/2009, we had at least one English side in the Champions League final every year, and two in 2007/2008! That was less than ten years ago, and I'm struggling to understand what's changed in the intervening period.
Or maybe it's a trend thing. Here, I find a little bit more evidence. From the introduction of the Champions League, there was a six-season period where no Premier League side made it out of the group stages. However, this was the early 90s. The Premier League was not seen as the all-conquering force in world football that it is today, with the enormous spending power available. Equally, it's worth noting that just one side entered the competition from the English league. Compare that to the capitulation that saw three exit the Champions League in the past two weeks, and you see how unfair the comparison between the two is.
So, we've seen that English clubs are struggling to find their great historic form in the Champions League at present, but is it any different when we look at Europe's secondary club competition? Do we have previous heights that we simply aren't hitting?
The short answer - no. Unlike the Champions League, where England at least has an illustrious past, the country has had just eight teams get to the quarter-finals or beyond - and three of those came in the same season! (2012-13 for those who care). According to this recent history, it's hardly a surprise to see English clubs fail to make the cut.
What's more worrying is who the English clubs are being beaten by. For this, I want to look a bit more closely at this season now. In the Champions League, Liverpool failed to make it out of a group consisting of the Spanish side in third place last year (albeit Real Madrid), a Swiss side and a Hungarian debutant. Although the other three managed it to make it through groups far harder than that (bear in mind City's group of Bayern Munich, Roma and CSKA Moscow), they perished to the French champions, runners up and Spanish runners up. This has left a octet of three Spanish sides, two French teams, a German, an Italian and a Portuguese. Now, the three Spanish and the German I can accept, but the other five are all eminently beatable by the likes of Chelsea, City and Arsenal. So the questions remains, why didn't they?
The Europa League is even worse. FA Cup runners-up Hull were beaten before the competition even began, dumped out on away goals by Belgian side Lokeren. Though both of our entrants into the group stages made their way safely through to the Round of 32, where they were joined by Liverpool, both the Anfield club and Tottenham were dumped out at this stage, losing to Besiktas and Fiorentina respectively. Finally, Everton's annihilation at the hands of Ukraine giants Dynamo Kiev (can't you almost feel the sarcasm?) caps a simply horrendous season in Europe for English clubs. Again, look at at who's left. Two Italians, two Ukrainians, a Spaniard, a Russian, a German and a Belgian. Of those, I would perhaps rank three (Wolfsburg, Sevilla and Napoli) more highly than the likes of Spurs and Everton. But with none of those teams playing our sides, how do we not have more representatives in the last eight?
Perhaps we need to look at the mindset of British clubs when it comes to the European game. Here, there are a couple of potential factors. However, as my title suggests, these are by no means deliberate choices made by English clubs to the detriment of performances in Europe, merely an unintended consequence.
Firstly, just look at the respective value of league and European competitions for English clubs. Last season, champions Manchester City received £24.7m for winning the Premier League title, with additional TV fees taking the total received by the Blues to a whopping £96.5m. Just to prove that English football does not unfairly benefit the champions, fourth placed Arsenal claimed a total of £92.8m. Bear in mind that this is before the mammoth TV rights deal from BT and Sky that sees the Premier League pocket in excess of £5.1bn. If we compare that to the total received for Champions League participation and progression, we see a stark difference. Liverpool's exit in the group stages earned the club just £7.67m in prize money and TV rights, while last season's winners of the competition, Real Madrid, secured £41.5m. The Europa League difference is even more stark. Spurs, who finished sixth in the Premier League, made almost £90m in domestic competition, whilst only securing £4.27m for their participation in the Europa League. With this difference, it would surely come as no surprise for clubs to, either consciously or subconsciously, focus more heavily on domestic competition.
In comparison, foreign clubs do not have the same financial incentive at home. Barring Barcelona and Real Madrid, who combined secure almost half of the annual La Liga TV rights, currently valued at around £482m, the rest are relative paupers, with current champions Atletico Madrid securing just £31m - pittance when compared to the Premier League. It's a similar story in Italy, where Juventus take home a financial package to rival England, but second placed Roma manage only £52m, just over half that of the Turin side. In Germany, it is even more obvious, with the likes of Bayern Munich, Borussia Dortmund and Bayer Leverkusen all taking around £18m in TV rights. With such a large disparity, it is hardly surprising to see teams from these nations taking a greater interest in European competitions, and also explains the rise of Eastern European nations, who without Champions League and Europa League money would perhaps struggle financially.
In terms of a conscious effort to prioritise the league in England, we can see evidence of this with squad selection from the likes of Spurs and Everton in some Europa League ties, with the Londoners in particular coming under scrutiny for fielding seemingly weakened sides. However, this is not the case for Europe's premier competition. With much made of Roman Abramovic's desire for European glory, none of the English participants have obviously favoured domestic competition - demonstrating that either this is a subconscious element, or needs explaining by some other means.
The second factor is a simple one. The fact remains that English sides are still not playing to the style of the European game. If you look at recent winners of both the Champions League and Europa League, neither have used power over pace. Arguably the best European side for some time, the Barcelona from the late 000s/early 2010s, had not a single truly powerful player, with Gerard Pique and Carles Puyol the only ones to add real steel to the play. Flair has always been the key factor in Europe, as demonstrated by the goalscoring abilities of both Lionel Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo.
And yet, English sides continue to buy tall, powerful players. Take Manchester City, for example. This January, requiring a striker, their eyes turned to Wilfried Bony, a man famed for his strength and power, but not for his speed. This signing more than any other signifies the inherent importance placed on the Premier League over the Champions League, even if they do not make that conscious decision themselves.
English sides have traditionally been powerful, in order to cope with the more robust elements of the English game, particularly when facing lower league opposition. To this end, I think it will be quite different to marry the two objectives going forward. Therefore, from a purely business standpoint, it makes no sense to look to win the Champions League at the expense of the Premier League, regardless of what Roman Abramovic may say. A subconscious uncoupling it may have been, but it would be to the detriment of English clubs' finances to reconnect with European competition any time soon.
Analysis of sporting events, talking points and controversies.
Sunday 22 March 2015
Saturday 14 March 2015
England's XI: Consistently Inconsistent?
And so, despite a frantic Premier League season, which sees congested races for both the Champions League and to avoid relegation, our attention turns to the national team. Just for that few times a year when fans can stop acting like idiots to antagonise one another (for a good example of this, please refer to Aston Villa fans' outrageous and ridiculous pitch invasion in their FA Cup quarter final against West Brom), and act like idiots together (ok, not a great step forward, but every little helps!).
However, for fans of England, there has been very little to cheer in recent years. The team has gone progressively backwards (arguably since 1990), culminating is the abysmal showing at the 2014 World Cup. For those of you that don't remember, allow me to share the statistical highlights. Two goals. One point. The worst English World Cup campaign since 1958. Feeling suitably morbid? Then we'll continue.
Since the Brazil aberration, England have done what England do best - given their fans false hope of a recovery. Six straight wins since the World Cup, albeit against the likes of San Marino and Estonia, has inevitably lifted the spirits of England fans - who have to be some of the most overly optimistic supporters on the face of the planet.
But what is the reason behind England's recent decline? As much as club sides and the lack of 'home-grown talent' often take the blame, deservedly so in many cases, I believe I may have uncovered an additional reason. If we look at the last three long-term managers of the national side, we see a clear trend. As with Louis van Gaal's much maligned Manchester United side this season, constant chopping and changing of players and systems can have a disastrous impact on form and performance. Here, England have previous. In his 37 games in charge, Roy Hodgson has used a remarkable 60 players - in just three years! This averages out at introducing 1.62 new players every match, which cannot be good for securing a consistent team.
However, I mentioned that this is not a Hodgson-specific issue. Fabio Capello, Steve McClaren and Sven-Goran Eriksson also all regularly rotated their squads, selecting a disproportionate amount of players for the number of matches played. If we discard Steve McClaren, who selected 45 players in his 18 woeful games in charge of the national side, there is an ongoing trend. Sven selected 67 in his 72 games, at an average of 1.07 new players per game, while Capello's average is 1.5 new players per game, having used 63 men in his 42 game reign. If we add in Hodgson's current average, we see that since 2001, England have been introducing more players per game. It cannot simply be coincidence that Sven's two World Cup resulted in quarter-final appearances, Fabio Capello's one saw them escape the group, while Hodgson's, well we can't forget that! But naturally, instead of looking closer to home, we blame the foreigners!
So, getting back to the crux of the article, who would I select for the current England squad that may end the problems with consistency? And who would start the upcoming games against Lithuania and Italy?
Though I've bemoaned the constant chopping and changing of the previous England administrations, I will make a couple of additions to the list. However, I would expect that this side will be around for at least the next five years, taking us back to the 'Golden Generation' mentality that we had under Sven.
My England Squad:
Goalkeepers: Joe Hart (Manchester City), Fraser Forster (Southampton), Jack Butland (Stoke City)
Defenders: Luke Shaw (Manchester United), Ryan Bertrand (Southampton), Gary Cahill (Chelsea), Calum Chambers (Arsenal), Phil Jones (Manchester United), John Stones (Everton), Nathaniel Clyne (Southampton), Kieran Gibbs (Arsenal)
Midfielders: Raheem Sterling (Liverpool), Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain (Arsenal), Jordan Henderson (Liverpool), Jack Wilshere (Arsenal), Adam Lallana (Liverpool), Ross Barkley (Everton), Theo Walcott (Arsenal)
Forwards: Wayne Rooney (Manchester United), Daniel Sturridge (Liverpool), Danny Welbeck (Arsenal), Harry Kane (Tottenham Hotspur)
The most telling thing about this squad? In five years, just five of the above will be over 30 years old, and those include two goalkeepers, who can continue late into their thirties (just look at Brad Friedel and Mark Schwarzer!). As a result, barring injuries, this can certainly be the bedrock squad for the next few years, and while I wouldn't expect England to trouble the winner's enclosure, this is certainly a squad capable of escaping the group stages at any competition!
As for my first XI, here's who I would start if all were fit:
Hart, Bertrand, Cahill, Chambers, Clyne, Sterling, Henderson, Lallana, Walcott, Rooney, Sturridge
For me, Hart will remain England's number one for the next five years, while the form of both Saints wing-backs give me encouragement for both of their futures. For centre-back, while Gary Cahill adds steel, it was a toss-up between Chambers and Jones, with the Arsenal man's age and potential counting in his favour.
In midfield, there are not many surprises - the Liverpool connection between Sterling, Henderson and Lallana was Spain-esque, a technique that has been proven to work in the past, while Theo Walcott just edged out his club mate Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain.
Up front, common sense prevailed. There can be no doubt that Harry Kane is having a sparkling season, but he has not yet done enough to displace either of Rooney or Sturridge at present. However, with Rooney at 29 years old, have we found the successor? Only time will tell, but the signs are there that England may have found its next number 9 (or is that 10?).
However, for fans of England, there has been very little to cheer in recent years. The team has gone progressively backwards (arguably since 1990), culminating is the abysmal showing at the 2014 World Cup. For those of you that don't remember, allow me to share the statistical highlights. Two goals. One point. The worst English World Cup campaign since 1958. Feeling suitably morbid? Then we'll continue.
Since the Brazil aberration, England have done what England do best - given their fans false hope of a recovery. Six straight wins since the World Cup, albeit against the likes of San Marino and Estonia, has inevitably lifted the spirits of England fans - who have to be some of the most overly optimistic supporters on the face of the planet.
But what is the reason behind England's recent decline? As much as club sides and the lack of 'home-grown talent' often take the blame, deservedly so in many cases, I believe I may have uncovered an additional reason. If we look at the last three long-term managers of the national side, we see a clear trend. As with Louis van Gaal's much maligned Manchester United side this season, constant chopping and changing of players and systems can have a disastrous impact on form and performance. Here, England have previous. In his 37 games in charge, Roy Hodgson has used a remarkable 60 players - in just three years! This averages out at introducing 1.62 new players every match, which cannot be good for securing a consistent team.
However, I mentioned that this is not a Hodgson-specific issue. Fabio Capello, Steve McClaren and Sven-Goran Eriksson also all regularly rotated their squads, selecting a disproportionate amount of players for the number of matches played. If we discard Steve McClaren, who selected 45 players in his 18 woeful games in charge of the national side, there is an ongoing trend. Sven selected 67 in his 72 games, at an average of 1.07 new players per game, while Capello's average is 1.5 new players per game, having used 63 men in his 42 game reign. If we add in Hodgson's current average, we see that since 2001, England have been introducing more players per game. It cannot simply be coincidence that Sven's two World Cup resulted in quarter-final appearances, Fabio Capello's one saw them escape the group, while Hodgson's, well we can't forget that! But naturally, instead of looking closer to home, we blame the foreigners!
So, getting back to the crux of the article, who would I select for the current England squad that may end the problems with consistency? And who would start the upcoming games against Lithuania and Italy?
Though I've bemoaned the constant chopping and changing of the previous England administrations, I will make a couple of additions to the list. However, I would expect that this side will be around for at least the next five years, taking us back to the 'Golden Generation' mentality that we had under Sven.
My England Squad:
Goalkeepers: Joe Hart (Manchester City), Fraser Forster (Southampton), Jack Butland (Stoke City)
Defenders: Luke Shaw (Manchester United), Ryan Bertrand (Southampton), Gary Cahill (Chelsea), Calum Chambers (Arsenal), Phil Jones (Manchester United), John Stones (Everton), Nathaniel Clyne (Southampton), Kieran Gibbs (Arsenal)
Midfielders: Raheem Sterling (Liverpool), Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain (Arsenal), Jordan Henderson (Liverpool), Jack Wilshere (Arsenal), Adam Lallana (Liverpool), Ross Barkley (Everton), Theo Walcott (Arsenal)
Forwards: Wayne Rooney (Manchester United), Daniel Sturridge (Liverpool), Danny Welbeck (Arsenal), Harry Kane (Tottenham Hotspur)
The most telling thing about this squad? In five years, just five of the above will be over 30 years old, and those include two goalkeepers, who can continue late into their thirties (just look at Brad Friedel and Mark Schwarzer!). As a result, barring injuries, this can certainly be the bedrock squad for the next few years, and while I wouldn't expect England to trouble the winner's enclosure, this is certainly a squad capable of escaping the group stages at any competition!
As for my first XI, here's who I would start if all were fit:
Hart, Bertrand, Cahill, Chambers, Clyne, Sterling, Henderson, Lallana, Walcott, Rooney, Sturridge
For me, Hart will remain England's number one for the next five years, while the form of both Saints wing-backs give me encouragement for both of their futures. For centre-back, while Gary Cahill adds steel, it was a toss-up between Chambers and Jones, with the Arsenal man's age and potential counting in his favour.
In midfield, there are not many surprises - the Liverpool connection between Sterling, Henderson and Lallana was Spain-esque, a technique that has been proven to work in the past, while Theo Walcott just edged out his club mate Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain.
Up front, common sense prevailed. There can be no doubt that Harry Kane is having a sparkling season, but he has not yet done enough to displace either of Rooney or Sturridge at present. However, with Rooney at 29 years old, have we found the successor? Only time will tell, but the signs are there that England may have found its next number 9 (or is that 10?).
Saturday 7 March 2015
One Man Team: How Much Of A Miss Was Aguero?
We all remember these words: 'Balotelli... Aguerooooooooooooo!' Martin Tyler's commentary of the famous final day of the 2011/2012 season has been immortalised over the last few years, but it's the goalscorer who wrote himself into City folklore. Since joining from Atletico Madrid for a club record £38m in July 2011, Aguero has been an integral cog in the City machine. The record Premier League goalscorer, eclipsing his countryman Carlos Tevez, Aguero has scored an impressive 69 goals in 110 City games.
As a result, I have to admit, as soon as I saw Sergio Aguero hit the deck in the third minute of City's game with Everton in December, I feared for the Blues' season. Such has been the form the little Argentine has been in this season, he had carried them through the tough spots, most notably in Europe.
This has led to so many pundits calling City a one-man team. However, we have seen numerous examples - perhaps more than in recent seasons - of numerous clubs seeming overly reliant on one player. With Aguero back to full fitness, was this the case with City, and is it any worse than any of their competition?
Before I look at statistics, it is important to consider the form of Man City during Aguero's injury. In the seven games including the one he departed early against Everton, City were unbeaten, winning six. Even more impressively, City scored 12 goals without a recognised striker, conceding just three. That seems to indicate that although Aguero has been a key player for City, carrying them through certain games, he is not the be all and end all.
But let's look at the stats, shall we? Interestingly, as I showed before, City have performed exceptionally well as a team since the Argentine has been unavailable. This form is certainly far superior from anything seen while Aguero was playing, averaging 2.6 points per game in the league without him while only managing 2.0 points per game with him. This certainly doesn't support the notion of a one-man team, though the return of David Silva from injury certainly will have helped City's cause.
On a more individual level, as a striker, Aguero's primary role is to score goals. Certainly, he has been the most in-form Premier League striker this season, rivalled only for this role by Diego Costa's excellent start to the year and Harry Kane's storming mid-season. But has he been so dominant in the Manchester City scoring stakes that suggests he has an abnormal amount of influence going forward?
Up to 6 December, the day Aguero was injured, Manchester City had scored 29 Premier League goals. Of those, the little Argentine had scored 14 - almost half. On top of this, Aguero also contributed to over 50 per cent of City's Champions League goals, dragging them through what appeared to be an impossible task in their group.
While that seems like a significant proportion of goals for an individual to score, it's worth looking at whether it is unusual, either for Manchester City, or the whole of the Premier League. Last year, Yaya Toure's 20 Premier League goals represented just 19.6 per cent of the total, though with injury denying Aguero for most of last season, this is perhaps not the most representative. In City's first title-winning season, Aguero scored just a quarter of their goals in the league, almost half of his current contribution this season.
But are City's rivals any better? Below is a table with the top Premier League goalscorers of each team, and their contributions in percentage to the total scoring charts:
Arsenal: Alexis Sanchez - 13/52 (25%)
Aston Villa: Christian Benteke - 4/15 (27%)
Burnley: Danny Ings - 9/24 (38%)
Chelsea: Diego Costa - 17/53 (32%)
Crystal Palace: Mile Jedinak and Dwight Gayle - 5/30 (17%)
Everton: Romelu Lukaku - 7/28 (25%)
Hull: Nikica Jelavic - 8/25 (32%)
Leicester: Leonardo Ulloa - 7/22 (32%)
Liverpool: Steven Gerrard and Raheem Sterling - 6/38 (16%)
Manchester City: Sergio Aguero - 17/59 (29%)
Manchester United: Wayne Rooney and Robin van Persie - 10/45 (22%)
Newcastle United: Papiss Cisse - 11/32 (34%)
Queens Park Rangers: Charlie Austin - 15/27 (55%)
Southampton: Graziano Pelle - 8/33 (24%)
Stoke City: Mame Biram Diouf, Jonathan Walters and Peter Crouch - 7/33 (21%)
Sunderland: Steven Fletcher and Adam Johnson - 4/22 (18%)
Swansea City: Wilfried Bony - 9/32 (28%)
Tottenham Hotspur: Harry Kane - 14/43 (33%)
West Bromwich Albion: Saido Berahino - 12/23 (52%)
West Ham United: Diafra Sakho - 9/36 (25%)
As you can see, based on the statistics, Manchester City actually rank eighth in terms of 'one-men teams' for scoring, with both Chelsea and Tottenham higher on that list. However, it is surprising to see that Arsenal not higher on that scale, as Alexis Sanchez has been seen as the leading light in their season. However, with Charlie Austin and Saido Berahino most prominent in the 'one-man team' stakes, perhaps, because the emphasis is not placed as heavily on the mid-table to relegation threatened teams, they are not placed under the same level of scrutiny as those higher up?
Clearly, Sergio Aguero has been Manchester City's most important player this season - even more so than some of their rivals - but there is certainly credence in the claims that this season has seen an increasing number of clubs relying on an individual to perform. While we have seen Arsenal and Chelsea discussed in the media, the likes of Leicester, West Brom and QPR have all seen players carry their seasons. Maybe Aguero isn't the only one-man teamer around, but he certainly is the most high profile. When fully fit and in form, he is arguably in the top five players in the world. I only wished he stayed fit for longer.
As a result, I have to admit, as soon as I saw Sergio Aguero hit the deck in the third minute of City's game with Everton in December, I feared for the Blues' season. Such has been the form the little Argentine has been in this season, he had carried them through the tough spots, most notably in Europe.
This has led to so many pundits calling City a one-man team. However, we have seen numerous examples - perhaps more than in recent seasons - of numerous clubs seeming overly reliant on one player. With Aguero back to full fitness, was this the case with City, and is it any worse than any of their competition?
Before I look at statistics, it is important to consider the form of Man City during Aguero's injury. In the seven games including the one he departed early against Everton, City were unbeaten, winning six. Even more impressively, City scored 12 goals without a recognised striker, conceding just three. That seems to indicate that although Aguero has been a key player for City, carrying them through certain games, he is not the be all and end all.
But let's look at the stats, shall we? Interestingly, as I showed before, City have performed exceptionally well as a team since the Argentine has been unavailable. This form is certainly far superior from anything seen while Aguero was playing, averaging 2.6 points per game in the league without him while only managing 2.0 points per game with him. This certainly doesn't support the notion of a one-man team, though the return of David Silva from injury certainly will have helped City's cause.
On a more individual level, as a striker, Aguero's primary role is to score goals. Certainly, he has been the most in-form Premier League striker this season, rivalled only for this role by Diego Costa's excellent start to the year and Harry Kane's storming mid-season. But has he been so dominant in the Manchester City scoring stakes that suggests he has an abnormal amount of influence going forward?
Up to 6 December, the day Aguero was injured, Manchester City had scored 29 Premier League goals. Of those, the little Argentine had scored 14 - almost half. On top of this, Aguero also contributed to over 50 per cent of City's Champions League goals, dragging them through what appeared to be an impossible task in their group.
While that seems like a significant proportion of goals for an individual to score, it's worth looking at whether it is unusual, either for Manchester City, or the whole of the Premier League. Last year, Yaya Toure's 20 Premier League goals represented just 19.6 per cent of the total, though with injury denying Aguero for most of last season, this is perhaps not the most representative. In City's first title-winning season, Aguero scored just a quarter of their goals in the league, almost half of his current contribution this season.
But are City's rivals any better? Below is a table with the top Premier League goalscorers of each team, and their contributions in percentage to the total scoring charts:
Arsenal: Alexis Sanchez - 13/52 (25%)
Aston Villa: Christian Benteke - 4/15 (27%)
Burnley: Danny Ings - 9/24 (38%)
Chelsea: Diego Costa - 17/53 (32%)
Crystal Palace: Mile Jedinak and Dwight Gayle - 5/30 (17%)
Everton: Romelu Lukaku - 7/28 (25%)
Hull: Nikica Jelavic - 8/25 (32%)
Leicester: Leonardo Ulloa - 7/22 (32%)
Liverpool: Steven Gerrard and Raheem Sterling - 6/38 (16%)
Manchester City: Sergio Aguero - 17/59 (29%)
Manchester United: Wayne Rooney and Robin van Persie - 10/45 (22%)
Newcastle United: Papiss Cisse - 11/32 (34%)
Queens Park Rangers: Charlie Austin - 15/27 (55%)
Southampton: Graziano Pelle - 8/33 (24%)
Stoke City: Mame Biram Diouf, Jonathan Walters and Peter Crouch - 7/33 (21%)
Sunderland: Steven Fletcher and Adam Johnson - 4/22 (18%)
Swansea City: Wilfried Bony - 9/32 (28%)
Tottenham Hotspur: Harry Kane - 14/43 (33%)
West Bromwich Albion: Saido Berahino - 12/23 (52%)
West Ham United: Diafra Sakho - 9/36 (25%)
As you can see, based on the statistics, Manchester City actually rank eighth in terms of 'one-men teams' for scoring, with both Chelsea and Tottenham higher on that list. However, it is surprising to see that Arsenal not higher on that scale, as Alexis Sanchez has been seen as the leading light in their season. However, with Charlie Austin and Saido Berahino most prominent in the 'one-man team' stakes, perhaps, because the emphasis is not placed as heavily on the mid-table to relegation threatened teams, they are not placed under the same level of scrutiny as those higher up?
Clearly, Sergio Aguero has been Manchester City's most important player this season - even more so than some of their rivals - but there is certainly credence in the claims that this season has seen an increasing number of clubs relying on an individual to perform. While we have seen Arsenal and Chelsea discussed in the media, the likes of Leicester, West Brom and QPR have all seen players carry their seasons. Maybe Aguero isn't the only one-man teamer around, but he certainly is the most high profile. When fully fit and in form, he is arguably in the top five players in the world. I only wished he stayed fit for longer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)