Bitesize Rants #1 (Revisited): Football Hooliganism and EURO 2016

My post on football hooliganism couldn’t have been more aptly timed. The levels of violence witnessed in French cities over the last couple of weeks has been shocking, and some of the videos of English and Russians in Marseille doing the rounds on Twitter were absolutely abhorrent.

Before we rush to judge fans from either of these nations as the sole perpetrators of this behaviour, it is worth noting that this is not an isolated incident. During this tournament alone, there have been reports of fighting by Welsh, Irish and Croatian fans.

This builds on my previous post on the Respect campaign in the UK, which is actually part of a wider movement created by UEFA in 2008, designed to 'work towards unity and respect across gender, race, religion and ability'. So far, it has consisted of a video where different people say 'No to Racism' in various languages, which does nothing but demonstrate that there are some weird looking footballers of all races (which I suppose is equality!). 

But I digress. My main point is that, just as with the UK, it doesn't appear to be working. Now some may suggest that this is still just a minority, and while that is true, it doesn't detract from the fact that this is happening just as much (if not more) than it was 10 or 15 years ago.

So what can be done? Well, first of all, UEFA need to be strong and make good on their threats. This 'suspended ban' stuff is laughable, and for two reasons. Firstly, because I can make a strong bet that the majority of those guilty of this violence couldn’t care less about the football, or their team, and have only turned up to fight.

Secondly, because this punishment means precisely nothing. I understand jurisdictional issues, but I refuse to believe that the French are saying that UEFA are not allowed to punish! It just makes a mockery of the penal system, and demonstrates the weakness of the organisation.

So a tip to UEFA – if you want to say you have a ‘zero tolerance’ policy on anything, please actually stick to it. Stop making pointless videos and get rid of those hooligans that have turned up just to fight. And to those English ‘fans’ that are guilty of this, I wish our jurisdiction allowed us to refuse you entry back.

The FA's Response: Changing Attitudes?

It's almost like the FA read my last blog post on England. As I made my recommendation to start blooding the younger generation of English players, in order to maintain a more consistent approach in the future, the English governing body made its point. Greg Dyke, who has been a strong proponent of introducing further English quotas, has outlined his plan for the future of not only the Premier League, but the English national side.

If you want to read the full proposal, look here, but I'll just give you the highlights. The headline suggestion is that instead of the eight players currently required to be "home-grown", there will need to be 12, meaning that by 2020, the Premier League will be made up of a minimum 45 per cent of English players. There is also a change to the definition of "home-grown". Rather than the three years that a player must have been registered with the club before his 21st birthday, Dyke wants the three years to have been served before a player's 18th, ensuring that young talent continues to be nurtured by English clubs, instead of simply buying it in. Finally, he included a new requirement that two of these "home-grown' players must have been trained by their current club, meaning that all clubs have to place emphasis on their youth programmes.

So, should this come into operation today, how would this affect the current squads? Having looked at the sides registered by our top flight clubs after the September transfer window, I've outlined the amount of English players in each of their squads below:

Club	Players	Home grown (%)
Arsenal	8/23	35%
Aston Villa	16/25	64%
Burnley	18/24	75%
Chelsea	3/20	15%
Crystal Palace	15/25	60%
Everton	8/25	32%
Hull City	13/25	52%
Leicester City	17/24	71%
Liverpool	9/19	47%
Manchester City	8/24	33%
Manchester United	12/24	50%
Newcastle United	9/25	36%
Queens Park Rangers	19/25	76%
Southampton	9/20	45%
Stoke City	12/25	48%
Sunderland	12/21	57%
Swansea City	12/25	48%
Tottenham Hotspur	6/23	26%
West Bromwich Albion	10/23	43%
West Ham United	14/24	58%
Total	230/469	49%

Now, it's important to remember that this does not include the currently defined 'U-21s', who do not require registration. This may seem irrelevant, but it's worth noting that the likes of Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain, Hector Bellerin and Harry Kane all fit into that bracket, and would all require registration under the new regulations. This may naturally boost the numbers of English players in the Premier League, but it's worth noting that there are only 11 of the 20 sides in the Premier League that would currently satisfy the proposals.

There is also a more significant trend. As we get further and further up the table, the percentage of English players gets less and less. The sides that would currently satisfy the new regulations sit in the following positions: 4th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th. With most of these sitting in the bottom half of the table, does this not just suggest that the best players (i.e. the ones that win titles) are not English?

With this not currently being the case, how do we breed the next generation of footballer, and even more so, encourage them to be successful? All of these new regulations may be completely irrelevant if our youth system does not produce the quality of English player we require to be competitive agains the likes of Spain, Germany and Brazil?

So maybe it's more pertinent to consider the national make-up of our youth sides, as this will give a better representation of the impact of these new regulations. As with the first team, I've listed the English contingent below:

Club	Players	Home grown (%)
Arsenal	16/22	73%
Aston Villa	13/18	72%
Burnley	17/27	62%
Chelsea	20/27	74%
Crystal Palace	17/17	100%
Everton	22/29	76%
Hull City	32/33	97%
Leicester City	15/21	71%
Liverpool	9/16	56%
Manchester City	14/29	48%
Manchester United	24/28	86%
Newcastle United	26/34	76%
Queens Park Rangers	7/14	50%
Southampton	15/19	79%
Stoke City	14/20	70%
Sunderland	22/30	73%
Swansea City	24/30	80%
Tottenham Hotspur	16/22	73%
West Bromwich Albion
West Ham United	16/24	67%
Total	339/438	77%

With the exception of West Brom, whose youth side I could not find, all bar Manchester City have youth sides with at least 50 per cent home grown players, giving rise to the hope that greater regulations around minimum English quotas will make a significant difference. This, coupled with the kind of investment that the likes of City are putting into their youth setups, shows that youth football has become a priority, and with English talent currently dominating the academies up and down the land, it looks like a positive step.

Another recent event that may significantly impact the way that our youth development works is the recent enormous rise in TV rights for the Premier League clubs. With clubs now set to receive a significant pay packet, there will be more to invest on our younger talent. However, the growth in funding for Premier League clubs inevitably inhibits the lower league sides from producing their own players. The likes of Wilfried Zaha, Scott Sinclair and Will Hughes, who came through the Championship youth system are likely to become less and less frequent, as the bigger clubs continue to steal the best talent. Though the Premier League points to the £1bn that the lower league clubs will share from 2016, it is worth pointing out that despite a rise of 70 per cent in overall TV rights fees, the lower leagues have only seen a 30 per cent rise in their cut - maybe not so generous after all?

However, will these make any significant difference to the national team? Or even the performance of our clubs in Europe, as outlined in my previous article? Well, in terms of the national team, it will inevitably help us produce a greater calibre of player, and more consistently. However, it is perhaps our own arrogance that makes us believe that we are in the same bracket as Spain and Germany when it comes to creating players. We are typically impatient, meaning that players are not given the chance to develop when it comes to the national team, and often to their downfall.

Ultimately, we need to accept that we are not good enough when it comes to football. We may have created the game, but we are no longer the kings of it. As a result, just 23 English players played Champions League football last year, compared to 76 from Spain, 51 from Germany and 55 from Brazil. We would be naive to think that we can change that substantially overnight, but it is certainly true that we can bolster those numbers, so perhaps a quota of English players is a good first step.

But now I'm going to be facetious and use a political argument (the election is just a matter of weeks away!). Can you imagine any other industry in the country proposing this? And further still, it being widely accepted? If I turned round and made a public comment that 'XX sector should reserve 50 per cent of English jobs for English people', I'd be signed up to the BNP and ostracised by practically everyone else! But chuck in a ball and a net, and people are falling over one another to support what may otherwise be branded as racist and discriminatory!

Ok, back to the serious argument. I do support the ideas to an extent, though I do suspect it will have a negative impact on the quality of the Premier League. However, this may not be a bad thing when it comes to competing in Europe. Let me explain why. A lower quality Premier League means lower TV rights and prize money for domestic competition. As I mentioned in my earlier post, it is this financial disparity between the Premier League and the Champions League that may have a detrimental impact on the performance of English sides, even if only subconsciously. This proposal may make Europe a larger priority, and we may at last return to seeing English clubs in the latter stages.

This argument is strengthened by the announcement made by UEFA last week. Clearly Michel Platini had been reading my blog too (or so I'd like to think!), as both of the major competitions in have raised their prize money for competitors. For the Champions League sides, all will now share £872m - up from £696m - or an average of £8.7m each, which represents a 38 per cent increase. In the Europa League, it is an even bigger jump, nearly doubling from £972,000 to £1.7m per team. With Europe offering a larger financial reward, and the potential for the domestic game to lower its rewards, could we begin to see a greater emphasis placed on these competitions?

In terms of the national side, I think there is a better alternative to the quotas. In most of the top European nations, leading sides are allowed to submit 'B' teams, who compete at a slightly lower level. These are not like reserve team games, as they are extremely competitive and against teams that are seeking promotion, and offer younger players some game time in conditions similar to those of the normal team. This has seen the likes of Xavi and Iniesta come through the ranks at Barcelona, and was part of the reason for the recent success of the German national side. As such, I would look to implement such as system in England, possibly around Conference level.

The ideas presented by Greg Dyke are not bad ones, and certainly have their advantages when it comes to European competition, but if we're expecting us to take the world stage by storm in the next few years, then we're deluded. It will be a long, slow process to take England back towards the top, but maybe this is a good first step.

Citeh's European Woes: Why Is It Going Wrong?

Four years of Champions League experience, and City have got exactly nowhere. A last 16 appearance, equalled by Celtic and Basel, and bettered by Cypriot minnows APOEL Nicosia in the same time period. So what's gone wrong for the richest club in the world, champions of one of the world's most competitive leagues twice in the last three years?

In fairness, though this is not a complete excuse, a lot has been said about the bad luck City have suffered when it comes to the Champions League draws they have received. In the last four years they have been drawn alongside the runners-up twice and a semi-finalist, and only once have they been among the favourites to emerge from their group. This particularly stark when we compare their misfortune in draws to Chelsea's opening few draws in the Champions League (2003-2006):

Manchester City                                                          Chelsea

2011 - Bayern Munich, Villareal, Napoli                      2003 - Sparta Prague, Besiktas, Lazio

2012 - Real Madrid, Borussia Dortmund, Ajax            2004 - Porto, CSKA Moscow, PSG

2013 - Bayern Munich, CSKA Moscow, V. Plzen        2005 - Liverpool, Real Betis, Anderlecht

2014 - Bayern Munich, CSKA Moscow, AS Roma     2006 - Barcelona, Werder Bremen, Levski Sofia

As you can see from the two draws, on only one occasion (2004) can Chelsea claim to have had as difficult a group as City, but it is also worth bearing in mind that Paris Saint Germain were not the European force that they are now, and as a result finished bottom of the group that year with just one point. Other than that, Chelsea have had a fairly simple journey to the last 16 as group winners, giving them a preferable draw going forward. On the other hand, on the one occasion City did make it out of their group, their second place finish meant they were paired with a Lionel Messi-inspired Barcelona - hardly an easy task!

However, the draw alone should not be to blame. In order to win Europe's premier competition, you have to be prepared to beat the best, whether that is in your group or in the final. So what has been the cause of City's abject failure in Europe? As any player that has been involved in cup matches can attest to, individual errors can have a catastrophic effect on a team's continued involvement. We can certainly see evidence of this from City here. Joe Hart's indifferent form in Europe was most obviously epitomised by his errors during City's home tie against Bayern Munich in 2013, which saw the Blues concede a pair of goals from handling errors, losing the game 3-1. City's front line has also been accused of mis-firing in Europe, with Edin Dzeko often singled out for punishment.

However, it is the current season's City scapegoat that has got my back up most. The reason for this is very simple. On every channel that provides live football there is an ex (and usually bitter) Red passing comment on City's performances - is that fair? I can't imagine Liam Gallagher turning up at Old Trafford to cover the United game for Sky, any more than seeing Shaun Goater do the commentary for Sky. However, while Michael Owen simply makes self-evident statements for BT Sport, Roy Keane berates everyone (not just City) for ITV, and Gary Neville, to his credit, has attempted to become more impartial in his work for Sky Sports, it is Paul Scholes' attempt at punditry for ITV that most irritates me.

Scholes' comments on Yaya Toure's lack of form earlier this season were perhaps a little harsh, particularly considering that the Ivorian had been the first midfielder to score 20 goals in a Premier League season since Frank Lampard in 2010, but he is entitled to his opinion, and were generally fair. However, since then he has made additional comments on the midfielder's performances, before again berating the City man in his punditry. What's the saying? Once is an accident, twice is coincidence, but three times is deliberate.

There is a part of me that looks at this through cynical eyes. As a self-confessed United fan, Scholes would likely do anything to de-stabilise one of their greatest rivals, particularly if he is jealous of their success at present. With the majority of City's key names like Kompany, Silva and Aguero starting the season in excellent form, it is Yaya Toure that is yet to hit the heights we saw from him last year. He is therefore an easy target, and a way to try and put pressure on the Manchester City midfield. Let us not forget, Scholes is a man who almost attempted to stab Pablo Zabaleta with his studs in his last derby match - he is hardly likely to be the epitome of impartiality. So let's all just take his words with a pinch of salt, eh?

After my customary mid-blog rant, back onto the reasons behind City's failings in Europe. I think some of the blame has to be directed at the manager, particularly on the way that City's sides in Europe have been set up. The game against Roma was a prime example. It is almost like both Pellegrini and Mancini before him thought that because they tend to blow away teams at the Etihad in the Premier League, they will automatically do that in the Champions League. As we have seen, this is not the case. The attacking 4-4-2 formation that has tended to be employed has left City woefully exposed on the counter attack, which we saw time and time again against Roma, and with neither Navas nor Toure willing to chase back, the defence were left short on numerous occasions.

Another key aspect to think about is the fact that City have struggled to break down teams who come to the Etihad to defend and counter i.e. good defensive performances. In City's very first Champions League game, City kept good possession against Napoli, but were unable to break through. Frustration eventually took its toll, causing sloppy play and eventually a goal for Edinson Cavani on the counter. They clearly haven't learnt their lessons, as the Roma game was almost a carbon copy of this. Ironically, City tend to perform better when they are the defensive side, with some of their best performances in the Champions League coming away from home. Victories against CSKA Moscow and Villareal and narrow defeats against Real Madrid and Bayern Munich have all showed promise, but demonstrate the very different teams  they should use for home and away games.

My Manchester City Champions League home team (4-2-3-1)
Hart, Clichy, Kompany, Mangala, Zabaleta, Fernandinho, Lampard, Nasri, David Silva, Yaya Toure, Aguero

My Manchester City Champions League away team (4-2-3-1)
Hart, Kolarov, Kompany, Mangala, Zabaleta, Fernandinho, Fernando, David Silva, Yaya Toure, Milner, Aguero

So what are City's prospects going forward? Until they get a bit of luck, either with the draw or refereeing decisions, they are unlikely to progress much further. Confidence among the squad for European games seems at an all time low. Once they have got themselves into the quarter finals or beyond for the first time, they may have a chance. However, until then, Yaya Toure's quote of 'winning it for the fans' seems a million miles away.

Tactics Talk: Manchester United vs Bayern Munich

Manchester United (4-3-3): De Gea, Buttner, Ferdinand, Vidic, Rafael, Giggs, Carrick, Fellaini, Welbeck, Rooney, Valencia

Bayern Munich (4-5-1): Neuer, Rafinha, Martinez, Boateng, Alaba, Lahm, Schweinsteiger, Ribery, Robben, Kroos, Muller

Living in and around Manchester, I have seen first-hand the change in mood surrounding the Old Trafford club in the last six months. The fall from grace of one of the most successful clubs in the world has come as a shock to many, and as a City fan, not a moment too soon for me. But it speaks volumes that Manchester United came into this match having lost their last two games at Old Trafford by resounding 3-0 scorelines against two of their largest rivals, and were considered rank outsiders for this one. Just 12 months ago, United were leading Jose Mourinho's Real Madrid until Nani was debatably dismissed. Fast forward a year, and United fans saying 'if we don't get thumped I'm happy' epitomises the lack of belief in their aging and underperforming side.

With key men in Robin van Persie and Patrice Evra unavailable for selection, United had every right to be pessimistic. But in Wayne Rooney they have one of the form players in the Premier League, and he would need to be on the top of his game to keep United in it. By contrast, Bayern Munich had already sewn up the Bundesliga title with 7 games to go, and were looking to repeat the domestic and European quadruple that they achieved last season. Pep Guardiola's side have picked up where Jupp Heynckes left off, with many calling it 'improving on perfection'. As such, though they were without the suspended Dante, the side looked perfectly capable of breaking United down.

The opening exchanges saw, as expected, the German side retain a considerable amount of possession. In fact, by the time we reached half time, United had only managed to keep their feet on the ball for less than 30% of the time. With this inevitable, United would have to begin the game solidly in defence, whilst remaining open to the counter attack. This they did well, with Danny Welbeck a constant annoyance for Jerome Boateng. However, in Arjen Robben and Franck Ribery, Bayern have two of the best wingers ever to have graced the game, and it was down the wings that the German side were getting joy. With United seemingly camped on the edge of their area, it would take a moment of magic to catch them out.

And yet it didn't come. For all of Bayern's slick (dare I say it) 'tiki taka' football that Guardiola made so famous at Barcelona, Munich just could not break down a strong and committed United defence. Marshalled by stalwarts Nemanja Vidic and Rio Ferdinand, the United back line looked considerably stronger than it has in many Premier League games this year. Guardiola's aversion to long range shooting also meant that the short stuff would continue, and United maintained their defensive solidarity, much to the annoyance of the Bayern coach.

Their strength at the back enabled United to press a little higher when defending, forcing a few errors from the usually reliable Bayern midfield. Manuel Neuer seemed similarly error-prone, with the touch happy goalkeeper having to slice the ball anxiously into touch as Welbeck and Rooney chased down the German.

First half hour: United's defending means they didn't deserve to be behind but Bayern's possession has been mesmerising. It seemed only a matter of time...

The game then began to open up. My initial reaction to this was 'this could get messy for United now', but it strangely favoured the English side. With the game stretched, they were able to maximise their effect on the counter, bringing them their first real chance, and the best chance of the game so far. A quick breakaway from a corner, coupled with a timely slip from Boateng left Welbeck in one-on-one with the onrushing Manuel Neuer. However, instead of smashing the ball beyond the keeper, the United striker inexplicably elected to attempt the dink over the head of the Bayern man. Safe to say it was easily caught, and the chance was gone. As was the half, but United had shown sufficient promise that fans knew they were not about to cave.

This was reaffirmed by Moyes' half time substitution. The elderly (and supposedly injured) Ryan Giggs was withdrawn in favour of the more attacking-minded Shinji Kagawa. With United looking more of a threat going forward, the game quickly became end to end, with the Germans once again dominating possession, but United having as many chances. However, that killer pass just wouldn't come, and for United, it was from set pieces where they looked most likely to damage Bayern. And do it proved. Abysmal marking from a corner left Nemanja Vidic free to expertly glance a header into the bottom corner to a thunderous reception around Old Trafford. The departing captain handing United a enormous leaving gift, and suggesting that a huge upset on the cards.

Second half hour: With Bayern now rattled and behind, United's defending looked ever more impressive - definitely a United period.

However, despite Bayern being on the back foot, they can always punish you. Just 8 minutes after going behind, a fluid move from the European champions left Bastian Schweinsteiger free to slam an excellent finish into the roof of David de Gea's net. With their advantage nullified, United once again reverted to type, knocking long balls up to Marouane Fellaini, and allowing Bayern onto them. But as with the whole game, their defence remained firm. Their defensive task did get more difficult when Alexander Buttner, in for the suspended Patrice Evra, had to leave the field having aggravated an injury. His replacement, Ashley Young, meant a real reshuffling of the back four, bringing Antonio Valencia, who was already on a yellow card and fortunate not to have been dismissed for a lunge on Phillip Lahm, back into right back.

As the game meandered towards its conclusion, with neither side really threatening, Bayern brought Mario Gotze, the highly rated German international on for the fairly ineffective Toni Kroos. As United searched for a winner on the break, Moyes turned to his instinctive finisher and (though he would not want the title) super-sub, Javier Hernandez. Neither really had any impact. The only remaining talking point came in the shape of a second yellow card for Schweinsteiger for a late challenge on the (slightly OTT) Wayne Rooney. Whilst this came in added time, and therefore carried no significance to this game, it could very much affect next week's. With both Javi Martinez (who picked up another booking to rule him out) and Schweinsteiger unavailable, Guardiola will have a slight headache at central midfield for the second leg.

Final half hour: Neither side did enough to win the game. Whilst Bayern's possession stats are incredible for the away side at Old Trafford, they did little to demonstrate why they are the European champions and how they have blown their league away this season. Draw a fair result.

David Moyes, for all his detractors (of which last weekend's banner illustrates there are fewer of than the media would have us believe), got his tactics spot on. He is an expert in defensive management, and this was evident against Munich. Though they head to the futuristic Allianz Arena still as rank outsiders, another performance like that may just see them pull off the impossible.

UEFA Super Cup 2013: What A Difference A Year Makes

                                  What a difference a year makes... 8742 little hours... After their complete obliteration at the hands of Atletico Madrid, and in particular Radamel Falcao, in the UEFA Super Cup in 2012, Chelsea this time lined up against Bayern Munich for the same trophy last night. Unlike last year, in which Chelsea had started the night as Champions League champions, and favourites, last night the Londoners began as distinct outsiders, and Europa League holders. With Bayern Munich sweeping all aside on their route to the Champions League title last year, and with the highly sought-after Pep Guardiola now at the helm, there were few that suggested that Chelsea would realistically win. However, with Mourinho back at his spiritual home, Chelsea were quietly confident. And history was on their side...

                                    Last May, Chelsea were in a vastly similar position, in which they lined up against a heavily favoured Bayern Munich side. This was not for the UEFA Super Cup, but for the most impressive European accolade available, the Champions League. Further supporting Munich's tag of favourites was the fact that they were playing on home soil, at the Allianz Arena. The early predictions looked fairly accurate, as the Bavarians set about their English opponents. Chances came and went, with Olic, Gomez and Robben all coming close, with the latter rapping the post with a low drive. Chelsea offered little in the way of forward motion, with Solomon Kalou having their best opportunity. However, as the game moved towards the last ten minutes, Bayern upped the pace, which paid off almost immediately. Toni Kroos placed an excellent cross to the far post, which was met by Muller. His downwards header bounced off the floor and into the roof of the net, handing Bayern a valuable 1-0 lead. With time ticking down, Chelsea won a corner. Another fantastic delivery from Juan Mata found Didier Drogba, who powered the header past Manuel Neuer to send the game into extra time.

                                       In extra time, the pattern of Bayern dominance continued. Just 5 minutes into the extra period, a poor challenge by Drogba on Franck Ribery earned the Bavarians a penalty. However, Robben's spot-kick was poor and easily saved by Cech. The rest of the extra time was tight and uneventful, meaning that the game went to the lottery of a penalty shootout. After Bayern scored their first, Mata could only find Neuer, handing the Germans the advantage. The next four penalties were all scored, including one by Manuel Neuer himself. Ivica Olic was the next man up, but his tame penalty was saved by Cech to his left. After Ashley Cole levelled the match at 3-3, Bastien Schweinsteiger would take the critical penalty. The Bayern captain could only hit the post, meaning that Drogba had the chance to win the Champions League for Chelsea. The Ivorian striker, who had already agreed to move to China with Shanghai Shenhua, knew that this would be his last kick as a Chelsea player. Placing the ball confidently, he sent Neuer the wrong way to win the trophy for the Londoners. Just one year and a few months later, few would see the replay being as similar.

                                         However, it is worth examining the recent history of this Super Cup. Bearing in mind the reputation of the respective competitions from which the two clubs qualify, you would always expect the Champions League winners to be victorious in these games. However, if we look at the last ten matches in the Super Cup, the record is much more even than would be anticipated. Based on the last 10 editions, including last night, the score is Champions League 5 Europa League 5. Even more startling is the fact that the winner has alternated between the Champions League winner and Europa League winner for the last 10 years. Particularly surprising results over the last decade include the 2006 final, in which Sevilla demolished a Ronaldinho inspired Barcelona side 3-0. The 2010 final was also shocking, as the Jose Mourinho managed Inter Milan side was comprehensively beaten by Atletico Madrid, with goals from Forlan and Aguero condemning Mourinho to his second Super Cup defeat. It remains the only trophy that Mourinho has competed for and not won. Last year's final also involved Atletico, as they destroyed the Chelsea side 4-1, with a first half hat-trick from Falcao.

                                           With the evidence of the last decade, it should not have come as too much of a surprise that Chelsea performed admirably during last night's encounter. From the beginning, they made it clear that they would not simply defend, and that they were highly capable on the break. This was proven just 8 minutes in, as a lightning fast counter from Eden Hazard found new-boy Andre Schurrle. The German's cut-back fell neatly into the path of Fernando Torres, who expertly volleyed past the helpless Neuer. Every year there is speculation over whether the Spaniard would reclaim his form, but this finish implies that form is temporary but class in permanent. After the goal, Chelsea had to withstand some heavy pressure from the German champions, but they continued to pose a threat on the break. As the half-time break drew close, Brazilian midfielder Ramires picked up a silly yellow card for a challenge on Ribery, which would come back to haunt him later. Nevertheless, the English side managed to hang onto their lead going into half-time.

                                              Mourinho's team talk would have been very much along the lines of 'keep going, and do not concede early'. But this team talk went out of the window within two minutes of the restart. After a good attacking start, Chelsea lost the ball to Franck Ribery. He jinked inside a couple of defenders before unleashing a powerful shot. Though the shot was close to the goalkeeper, and error by Cech allowed the ball to fly off his hands and into the net to level the scores. Chances then came by for both sides, with Oscar wasting the best one for the Londoners. However, the game turned after 85 minutes. After a poor touch, Bayern substitute Mario Gotze went into a challenge second favourite with Ramires. The Brazilian's challenge was robust, and arguably two footed, leaving the German prostrate on the floor. This prompted a second yellow card for the midfielder, leaving Chelsea in trouble. The remainder of the match took place in Chelsea's half, with long range shots peppering Cech's goal. But the breakthrough did not come, meaning that another 1-1 draw after 90 minutes, and another 30 minutes of extra time.

                                                  Extra time started with a bang for the English side, as they reclaimed the lead just three minutes into the extra period. Eden Hazard, who had dominated the Bayern defence all game, managed to skip inside of Phillip Lahm and fire a shot towards goal. Similarly to Bayern's goal, questions must be asked about the goalkeeper, who failed to deal with the shot, allowing it to fly past him. Having claimed the lead, Chelsea then decided to shut up shop, defending deeply and requiring their goalkeeper to redeem himself. And that he did, making stunning saves to deny Mandzukic from point blank range. As time ran out, the shots were coming in from long range, and Bayern had resorted putting crosses into Chelsea's box. It looked impossible to break through the wall of blue defenders, until the very last kick of the game. A hopeful ball was flicked on by Mandzukic to the feet of Javi Martinez, and the Spanish international managed to beat Cech at his near post to ensure that the contest went to penalties.

                                                     Remembering the events of May 2012, both sides would have been well aware of each other. This time, the penalties began with 8 consecutive successful penalties, taking the contest effectively into sudden death. After Xherdan Shaqiri found the net (just) for Bayern, the weight fell onto the shoulders of Romelu Lukaku. After a stuttering start, the penalty was weak, and easily saved by Neuer. This ensured that Bayern earned revenge on their English opponents, and claimed the Super Cup, retaining the incredible alternating run between Champions League/Europa League clubs. Chelsea will take solace in the fact that Bayern are currently considered the best team in the world, and Chelsea were within one kick of beating them. This will not prevent the agony for Lukaku and the rest of the squad, but it does show just how far the Londoners have come.

UEFA Champions League Draw: Fairness or Retain the Status Quo?

                             Today was the day in which Europe's elite learnt their fate for the next few months of continental competition. For some, this was considerably more daunting than others. With the way in which the groups are determined, plenty of good sides end up with with groups far harder than others, which some people have argued is unfair. This post will explain the current way of determining the 'pots', and analyse its fairness based on the accusations made of it. I will then try and give another viable alternative to the current system, that could work out in a fairer way. Finally, I will examine the current season's groups, assessing the relative difficulty of them, and who is likely to progress.

                               If we begin with the way in which the groups are drawn, it is first important to explain some of the relevant terminology. The way European competitions are drawn is this: the sides are divided into four seeded 'pots'. Each group will have one team from each of the four 'pots'. Rules also dictate that teams from the same country cannot meet one another in the group stages, often leading to a set of complicated circumstances. However, the most complex of the issues is how the 'pots' are decided, that is, which teams are placed into which 'pots'. With the exception of the holders, who automatically go into pot 1, the way in which this is determined is by the 'European Club Coefficients'. This is calculated from two sets of data. The most important of these is the previous European results in each of the last 5 seasons. A team receives a number of points for qualifying for the Champions League group stage (4), and more for subsequent wins and draws whilst in the competition (2 and 1). Should the side reach the last 16, a further 5 points are added, and an extra point is added for every round they progress past that point. This contributes for 80% of the overall coefficient. The other 20% consists of the club's 'association coefficient', meaning that the league in which the side plays contributes to their overall coefficient. Combined, these create a system in which teams can be ranked and, from this, pots and subsequently groups are decided.

                                However, arguments have been raised that this system of determining groups is flawed and militates against up-and-coming clubs, whilst allowing established mediocre clubs to retain their status. There are several examples of this, and especially in recent years. Firstly, the treatment of Manchester City in the Champions League draw in comparison to their English counterparts. In both of their previous seasons in this competition, they have been awarded 'groups of death'. In their inaugural season, they faced the German giants and eventual finalists Bayern Munich, Italy's high-flying Napoli side and Spain's dangerous Villareal. Year 2, if anything, got even harder, pairing City with three fellow champions of their respective leagues. Real Madrid, Borussia Dortmund and Ajax is a ridiculously tough group, and one that may well have unfairly been dealt. Had that group occurred in City's first season, when they had zero European experience, and had only managed to finish 3rd in the Premier League, it would have been excusable. As a result we can write off the first season as an unfortunate by-product of their inexperience. However, after a year in which they narrowly missed out on qualification from the toughest group in the competition, and claimed their domestic league title, I think the second year group is absurd. If we compare their plight to the fortune that Arsenal usually receive, we see a startling contrast. Arsenal, although they have qualified for the Champions League every year for the last 15 years, have not threatened to win the competition in the 5 years measured by the coefficient. In terms of their league form, they have made a habit of scraping a 4th place finish in recent years. As league form is not taken into account, Arsenal are consistently placed in the 1st pot, ensuring that they receive a greater chance of progression from the group stages. I believe this is incredibly unfair, as it somewhat undermines the idea of 'Champions' League. If those who finish 4th are placed in a vastly easier group to the league champions, what is the point of winning the domestic competition?

                                 In case you just think that this is a City fan out for a bit of a rant, I will cover a couple more examples. What this system appears to do is not account for who has the best team, and judge accordingly. I accept this would be incredibly difficult to do in a way that is not already covered. For example, good sides in poor leagues can often rest players in their domestic campaigns and still win, guaranteeing qualification for next season, and ensuring that the entirety of their focus is on getting out of their group. Sides like Ukraine's Shakhtar Donetsk typify this, as they were placed in Pot 2 this time around, despite most agreeing that most of Pot 3 were also better than the Eastern Europeans. In the last couple of years, Celtic have attempted this, with it coming to fruition last season. If we compare this with non-champion sides from highly competitive leagues, we see another unfair area. Looking at Napoli in particular, they were unable to rest any of their top players in their domestic league or the Champions League campaign of 2 years ago, inevitably taking its toll on one. For the side from Naples, this took its toll on their league form, meaning that they failed to qualify for the following year's competition. This has a disastrous effect on their coefficient, ensuring that they receive a far tougher group than the sides from easier leagues.

                                 Finally, for those who are interested in conspiracy theories, or just really dislike Michel Platini (the second of which I probably fit into), there is another criticism of the system. As the coefficients are decided by UEFA themselves, which Platini heads, he arguably could be biased one way or another. Given his hypocrisies over the spending of English clubs whilst exonerating his own Paris Saint Germain side, it seems an odd coincidence that PSG, who have had minimal European experience over the last few years, and only reached the quarter-finals last time around, have moved into Pot 2 this season, whilst last-years finalists Borussia Dortmund, who also have a stronger European pedigree, remain stuck in Pot 3. Whether this is truly a sign of corruption, or simply an insufficient prize given to those that progress to the latter stages, it is difficult to tell. As much as I would like Platini to be dethroned and disgraced, I think that the system simply fails to adequately reward the semi finalists and finalists.

                                    Looking at the system, I would change it in the following ways to rectify some of the problems listed above. Firstly, the coefficient system as a whole is not a bad idea, however, I feel the 80:20 ratio of European to domestic competition is too much. I think 70:30 or even 65:35 would be more appropriate to prevent the smaller teams resting players and gaining an unfair advantage. I also think that the top leagues' champions should also be guaranteed places in the top 2 pots. This would prevent the unfair treatment of teams like City, and would also prevent just top 4 sides like Arsenal constantly being placed in the top pots. I do not advocate placing champions all in pot 1, as that completely ignores previous European experience, but the top 2 leaves sufficient wiggle room. Finally, I would also scale down the bonus for getting out of the group to 3, and then add 1 point for every round negotiated, and 5 to the eventual runner-up. This will allow those that have been most successful in the previous campaign to reap the full reward for their efforts. Though I am certain that this system would have alternative problems, I am sure that it would solve many of the current ones.

                                    The result of this system is this year's draw, which has shown the benefits and problems with the current system. Based on the club coefficients, pot 1 consisted of holders Bayern Munich, along with Barcelona, Real Madrid, Manchester United, Arsenal, Chelsea, Benfica and Porto. Pot 2 had Atletico Madrid, Schalke 04, CSKA Moscow, AC Milan, Marseille, Shakhtar Donetsk, Paris Saint Germain and Juventus. In Pot 3 was Manchester City, Ajax, Borussia Dortmund, Basle, Bayer Leverkusen, Galatasaray, Olympiakos and Zenit Saint Petersburg. Finally, Pot 4 had Real Sociedad, FC Copenhagen, Viktoria Plzen, Celtic, Steaua Bucharesti, Anderlecht, Napoli and Austria Vienna.

Group A: Manchester United, Shakhtar Donetsk, Bayer Leverkusen, Real Sociedad
                   Not the easiest group, but by no means the hardest. After the second pot was drawn, fans of Manchester United and David Moyes would have been very happy. The final two sides will make life difficult for the new United manager. I would still expect the English champions to get out of the group, but there may well be one or two bumps along the way. Bayer Leverkusen would be my tip for second, unless United have another 2011/2012 style capitulation.

Group B: Real Madrid, Juventus, Galatasaray, Copenhagen
                     A case of three into two doesn't go in this group, with Copenhagen seemingly destined for the nul point mark. Despite Galatasaray's impressive performances against Madrid last season, I expect them to be the side that has to exit. As for the winner of the group, I think a Madrid side consisting of Bale, Ronaldo, Casillas, Benzema et al will have enough, but I expect it to be a close run thing with Juve.

Group C: Benfica, Paris Saint Germain, Olympiakos, Anderlecht
                      One of the contenders for easiest group of the night, with PSG the likely beneficiaries. After another summer spending spree, the Parisians should find this group fairly straight-forward, leaving Olympiakos and Benfica to fight it out over the final qualifying position. Benfica get my vote, with the previous experience of Champions League qualification vital.

Group D: Bayern Munich, CSKA Moscow, Manchester City, Viktoria Plzen
                      Though the holders will present a challenge, this is a considerably easier group than either of the two previous draws for the English side. With the quality they have in their ranks, I fully expect them to get themselves out of the group stage for the first time, though perhaps only as runners-up. I expect that escaping the group is the expectation this year, with anything else seen as a bonus. Bayern should win the group, and I wouldn't bet against them reaching a third consecutive final.

Group E: Chelsea, Schalke 04, Basel, Steaua Bucharesti
                        Probably my pick for easiest group, with Chelsea the firm favourites to progress as winners. Schalke only qualified in 4th place in Germany, and the other two have come from less well know footballing nations. I expect the Germans to join the Londoners in the last 16, but I wouldn't be surprised if either of the other two upset the apple cart a little.

Group F: Arsenal, Marseille, Borussia Dortmund, Napoli
                         Certainly a contender for the hardest group of the night, with all four coming from competitive footballing nations. Though the Gunners were top seeds, I would not be at all surprised to see them fall at the first hurdle this time around. The pedigree and experience of the Borussia Dortmund side, along with the expensively assembled and impressive Napoli outfit will present an incredibly difficult test. Without significant spending on improvements, I think this could be the first English side out of this year's Champions League.

Group G: Porto, Atletico Madrid, Zenit Saint Petersburg, Austria Vienna
                            Though not the toughest group, this has the potential to be one of the most intriguing. All three of the top pots have the realistic potential to make it through, and though one would expect Austria Vienna to perish, they could be the APOEL Nicosia of this season.

Group H: Barcelona, AC Milan, Ajax, Celtic
                              And we finish with the hardest group of them all. As Neil Lennon visibly sunk into his chair at the announcement of his team's participation in this group, this said all that needed to be said about the state of Group H. Unlike others, which will have a handful of interesting fixtures, this group has the potential to have an enthralling game every time (especially if Celtic perform against Barcelona the way they did last time around!)

                                        
                                      The draw for this season's Champions League has thrown up a few gems, with a couple of classics in the offing. I do hope that the hardest groups live up to expectation, and we genuinely see the best 16 teams in the competition progress. Unfortunately, thanks to the coefficient system, I fear that this will not be the case.