Even after many years as a football fan, the sensationalism of the English media is still surprising. Although at times frustrating, I guess it’s good that football gets most of its breathtaking drama from how the media constructs the narrative of the season. For the past two weeks, the supposed demise of Frank Lampard was dominating the media. One goal and one petulant Argentinean later, the narrative has shifted focus. Still, I think what has eluded the Frank Lampard story is a reasonable analysis of what his role at Chelsea has become.

Contrary to some opinions, I don’t actually think Lampard’s performances have decreased significantly since the end of last season. Before he came back from injury, the team wasn’t performing and Lampard’s influence was no less tame than the rest of the team. Unless you’re Fernando Torres, it’s hard to get singled out when the entire is rather poor. And yes, I’m including the end of the season when Chelsea made a late title run. There was an improvement in the results, but the difficulty we had at breaking down opponents was just as defined.

So, how can we explain this new and, in my opinion, largely overblown criticism of Lampard? The simple answer is Andre Villas-Boas and the new direction he is taking Chelsea. Specifically, Villas-Boas has changed the make-up of Chelsea’s philosophy and for the first time in almost a decade, the team is playing without a role designed specifically for Lampard. This is more than just playing with Lampard because Chelsea managers in the past have had to get along without Lampard due to injury. Yet, even without Lampard, the philosophy of the team rarely changed. Another player slotted into Lampard’s role and Chelsea marched on. The most notable replacement was Michael Ballack under Avram Grant. With that said, I should further explain what I mean by the Lampard role.

The role of Frank Lampard in a midfield three has remained constant under Mourinho, Grant, Scolari, Hiddink and Ancelotti (geez, there’s a lot of them). It’s essentially a free role for Lampard that is supplemented by the other two midfielders. When managers diverged from this set-up, the team usually stuttered. There were brief periods where both Mourinho and Grant tried to play Ballack ahead of Lampard but in both cases, Ballack gave way to Lampard. That’s not to say that Lampard strictly operated in attack, because he’s always gone box-to-box, but being the focal point of the transition from defense to offense meant he could get forward without having to worry about leaving the midfield exposed.

With AVB, this role doesn’t exist, with or without Lampard on the pitch. This season, it seems as if AVB’s preferred midfield three consists of Ramires, Mikel and Meireles. With these three, there is no player who operates like Frank Lampard. Instead of two supporting one, it’s one (Mikel) supporting two. You can see this notably with Ramires, who is on his way to being Chelsea’s player of the season now that AVB has broken the shackles Ancelotti put on him. This is a more attacking midfield and it requires more movement and energy, and Ramires is perfect for it. Well, given that Frank Lampard is 33, he has been particularly exposed by this new-look midfield that requires enough pace to transition from offense to defense quickly.

In the first half against Valencia, it was clear to me that Lampard, unlike Ramires, did not have an easily defined role. What I mean is that I didn’t understand what Lampard brought to his position that only Lampard could bring. Although still not at his best, the second half was much better and there were signs that Lampard was starting to use his particular abilities to mold a role. In the build-up to his goal, Ramires makes a very Lampard-esque central run into the box. Lampard, instead, anchors Ramires at the top of the box, where he eventually scores from. Just before that goal, Lampard actually floats a ball over the top to Ramires, a fellow midfielder, who breaks through for a one-vs-one with the keeper. Do you remember Lampard ever putting Ballack in on goal? For me, this is a sign that Lampard is striking a balance between offense and defense that is necessary to play in AVB’s midfield. There were other times when he got forward and Ramires anchored (see Torres’s saved volley from the six-yard box). Distribution and positioning have always been Lampard’s best qualities and it seems like he’s getting close to applying those attributes from a different position on the pitch. By understanding his position adequately, Lampard can compensate for the pace he’s never had.

More than anything, we must remember that Lampard’s unmatchable consistency has not been within a consistent team. What’s even more remarkable than Lampard’s consistency is his consistency during six or seven different managerial spells at Chelsea. While I stressed that Lampard’s role has always been within a two-supporting-one midfield, that’s not to say he has played the same position under every manager. Different managers bring different visions. At times he has moved more central (instead of left-center) or more advanced and yet his performances have always been top-notch despite an initial learning curve. Bottom line, while his age may have ended the days of Lampard’s twenty-goal seasons, his astonishing consistency and adaptability mean he still has a lot to give for Chelsea Football Club.

So this is what the English Premier League is all about: fantastic goals, shocking tackles, even more shocking misses, incredible speed, electric atmosphere and pure headline drama. Even as a supporter of the losing team, this was the most excitement I’ve had watching a Manchester United-Chelsea match since Moscow 2008 (well, at least some of it). It was really a stunning reminder of how symphonic football can be at times. The match was like a choreographed dance of blue and red bodies prodding and probing with a speed and skill that is unmatched by any in the world. Anyways, let’s end this love letter and move on to the match.

United’s lineup came as no surprise. Sir Alex sticking with the young boys who have produced so splendidly in recent weeks. I had expected one of Vidic or Ferdinand to make a trademark recovery, but that wasn’t the case. Probably a good thing, it must be said, because Smalling and Jones had great impacts, particularly going forward. The front four of Young, Nani, Rooney and Hernandez was both daring and frightening.

With the Chelsea lineup, I was surprised to see Mikel and Anelka left out. I thought Anelka would start on the right instead of Sturridge and Mikel would assume his position in the holding role. I’m fairly certain he would have featured there if Lampard wasn’t too big to drop. Chelsea could have faired better if they started Mikel and moved Meireles on the left instead of Lampard, who would go on to make no meaningful impact on the game and was rightfully subbed at halftime.

The match started at a frantic pace and continued that way for the next 85 minutes. The crowd noise was propelling the players forward. The ritualistic sounds of both Manchester United and Chelsea supporters, for almost the entire match, coated the stadium with a real sense of energy. Chelsea had an early chance to take the lead when Ashley Cole fired a cross across the box, only for Ramires to kick the ball into De Gea’s outstretched leg.

It wasn’t long before United took the lead through a Chris Smalling header off a set-piece. He was half-a-yard offside, but you have to question Lampard for not even attempting to track the run. Still, the linesman shouldn’t be making offside mistakes on a set-piece when the game is not in play – those are the easiest.

When the second goal came, there was again another question of offside. I don’t want to take anything away from United, however, because their possession play was superb in the build up. The speed at which United can play the ball down the wings and then switch the field to the other wing makes them a threat at any moment. Some of the play from Young and Nani was dazzling, and the latter gave Ashley Cole as hard of a time as Cristiano Ronaldo used to. Nani was the total package against Chelsea and he emphasized it with an unsave-able goal. When the half ended, United walked into the tunnel with a 3-0 lead after a bit of fortune gifted Rooney a tap-in.

There’s wide agreement that a 3-0 scoreline did not adequately reflect the contest. Chelsea had a series of awful misses, particular one from Ramires after some good interplay between Torres and Mata. Still, the scoreline may have shown Andre Villas-Boas the perils of trying to take it to United in the Theatre of Dreams.

Fernando Torres broke his duck for the season just 33 seconds into the second half when Anelka put him through and the Spaniard finished in cheeky fashion. That would be the last strike that either team would put into the net. Rooney hit a penalty wide and later scuffed a tap-in against the post later in the match. Berbatov also missed an open net. Did I forget about Torres’s big moment? I’d like to, but no. All life was essentially taken out of the game when Torres rounded David De Gea and failed to score on an open net. The collective yelp that went around Old Trafford compounded his embarrassment. My favorite moment of the match was the jeer that rang around the stadium when Michael Carrick passed it back to the goalkeeper. Even one backward pass in this match seemed out of place.

When the match ended, I was surprisingly not that upset, being a Chelsea fan. I was most upset for Torres, whose MOTM (for Chelsea) performance was drowned out by one miskick at the end of the match. I came out of the game feeling that these two teams were much closer than I thought they had been previously. The scoreline showed a gulf in class, but the performance didn’t. Here’s to waiting for February 5th, 2012, when Manchester United travel to Stamford Bridge. As it will be broadcast live before the Super Bowl, we can only hope that they provide as good an advertisement for the game (if possible) as this match.

On a personal note, I’ve just created a Twitter account for the first time – follow me @am08h. Cheers!

Fernando Torres has undoubtedly hit the nadir of his career. This week, he was dropped all together from Spain’s 18-man squad and was subsequently demoted to the bench for Chelsea’s Premier League match against Sunderland. He also appeared to lose his cool for the first time in an interview when he criticized Chelsea’s play as “very slow,” contributing to his lackluster performances. For Chelsea fans, it’s really a very worrying enigma. On one hand, it’s hard to imagine that a player of Fernando Torres’s ability would permanently lose all his potency in just a few months. Yet, has his confidence been dealt an unrecoverable blow?

I don’t have the answer. For me, this is the least confident I’ve ever been about Torres succeeding at Chelsea. I’m definitely worried. Still, I haven’t given up hope. For one, Torres has age on his side. At 27, we can expect that he, like most footballers, still has between 4-6 years of top quality football. In the grand scheme of things, this period could later just be viewed as a minor blip in a successful career – meaning his legs can still make up for lost time.

More importantly though, I think Fernando Torres has garnered a disproportionate amount of blame for a Chelsea team that has been notably anemic in attack for the longest period in the Roman Abramovich era. While I believe it is undoubtedly true that Torres has lacked adequate service, I also believe that assessment to be too narrow. Rather, I would say that Chelsea’s central strikers (Anelka, Torres and Drogba) have lacked adequate service. With three golden boots between them, Anelka, Torres and Anelka have each only scored one goal since February. For me, this is irrefutable evidence that something is broken at Chelsea. Whereas it was expected that Torres’s arrival would fix the team’s problems, it has actually highlighted them. This obviously begs the question of Chelsea: Why would they invest in a striker who is dependent on service when the team cannot currently manufacture any service? That’s a slight digression, however.

I was particularly struck by Sergio Aguero’s debut for Manchester City. Within six minutes of being on the pitch, his team constructs for him an opportunity to score with an easy tap-in goal. After spending six months in Chelsea blue, Torres has failed to be given a single opportunity like the one Aguero had. Don’t get me wrong, it would be foolish to assume that Torres should depend on tap-ins to score, because he’s partly to blame for being so dependent, but wouldn’t you expect something to fall his away eventually? And that’s the same story with all of Chelsea’s strikers recently: easy, confidence-boosting chances have not fallen to them. Just being near the box for so many minutes should provide strikers with some easy opportunities. Alas, those have been non-existent.

It’s almost a good sign that Torres’s scoring record for Chelsea has been so dismal because it’s completely abnormal for a striker on a top club to be so ineffective. I don’t want this to sound like I’m happy that Torres has scored so few, but that record seems to signify more than just a player performing poorly. To me, it suggests that the team is also playing very poorly. Even when Chelsea were forced to depend on players like Claudio Pizarro and Shevchenko, they were much more prolific than Torres, Drogba and Anelka have been.

The bottom line is that I want to see how Torres will perform when Chelsea are actually playing well. Although they’ve won some matches in 2011, I haven’t seen them hit top form. Chelsea cannot score with ease. They cannot win games comfortably (with or without Torres). I mean, even when Shevchenko was struggling, the team was still playing very well. If you remember that season, Didier Drogba scored 33 goals. As for this season, it doesn’t look like any of Chelsea’s strikers will hit 5 goals. Drogba’s performances during Shevchenko’s tenure assures me that the problem goes deeper than just one player. It’s easy to overanalyze Torres because of the price tag, but lest we forget that none of Chelsea’s strikers are performing any better.

Still, I’m worried that Torres’s confidence has taken such a shot that he will never feel comfortable playing for this club. His body language when he came on against Sunderland was the worst I’ve ever seen it. He barely tried and his overall performance was nonchalant. I expected more from a player who had just been dropped by club and country alike.

So, my final verdict is that Fernando Torres still has a chance to revive his career at Chelsea. The most important thing is that Torres realizes in his mind that he can be a success at Chelsea. That can come with a couple of simple goals and a good run of games. Whether that will come is another story.

Photo by Ben Sutherland

Last summer was very different for Chelsea Football Club. The club had just won the double and Carlo Ancelotti appeared to be the man who would finally deliver stability to Abramovich’s era. I remember posing with “The Double” mural outside Stamford Bridge, my face full of joy. Ah, the good old days. Nostalgia aside, there’s one thing that has stayed the same: the desire for an “experienced right-winger.” Those were Ancelotti’s words (or rather they were the club’s words funneled through Ancelotti – Chelsea managers aren’t allowed to have opinions).

Well, the issue was seemingly settled temporarily when Chelsea signed the 30-year-old Yossi Benayoun. One ruptured Achilles later and Chelsea are again looking to fill that role. It’s no surprise that Chelsea have lodged a £22 million bid for Tottenham’s Luka Modric. Right, right, Modric isn’t an orthodox right-winger, but neither were Deco or Nicolas Anelka, both of whom have lined up as right-wingers. Despite some occasional forays into 4-4-2 territory, Chelsea have been quite determined to stick to the 4-3-3 or some slight variation of the formation: 4-2-3-1, 4-3-2-1. Because of Chelsea’s plentiful box-to-box midfield options (and because of their rigid defense structure), several managers have used the right-wing spot as a way to get some creativity through the middle while still keeping the 4-3-3 shape.

The right-wing location is essentially the only place for this type of player because Lampard always occupies the left side of midfield. Nobody gets in Lampard’s way, nobody. However, Lampard really doesn’t provide the creativity that someone like Deco or Modric could. Unless there was an injury, Deco always lined up in the right side of a 4-3-3 and operated more as a playmaker. If you guys remember, this worked well for a while, but it eventually fizzled out. Teams began to exploit the fact that Chelsea had nobody stretching the right side, primarily because Deco was tucking in and had no pace to hit the byline.

What resulted then and what continues today with Chelsea is a team completely dependent on the left side of pitch for creativity. Bosingwa, one of Chelsea’s right-backs, has never shown himself able to force his feeble body to the byline and put in a good cross. This is partly because he lacks aggression (and a brain) and because he’s had nobody else to take defenders away from the right side. In my opinion, Ivanovic, although an unnatural right-back, has had more success with this because he’s able to muscle through defenders who have never seen such a fierce Eastern European man.

That’s why Luka Modric would be perfect for Chelsea: he would decongest the left side of the pitch and reduce the load on Cole and Malouda. Modric can do what Deco did in the middle, without the inconsistencies (Deco was notorious for shutting down in the rain), and he can also beat the opposition’s fullback. Through his creativity and pace, Modric can open up space all over the field for Chelsea. I think he’d also give Ivanovic or Bosingwa a lot more space to operate. What’s more, he’ll open up the field for Ramires, who is turning out to be a brilliant player.

Some of you might be asking why Modric? is the only person who can do this for Chelsea. He might not be. For all I know, Sneijder and Pastore could play similar roles. However, there’s a lot more uncertainty with those two, both of whom have never played in England. Modric is the safest option and perhaps also the cheapest. Given he could stay in London and still play for Chelsea, it’s also arguably the best option for Modric, who revealed Friday that he wants to join Chelsea.Based on the way things are progressing, I’d say Luka Modric will be Chelsea’s #14 before the transfer window closes.

For the second time in four years, we are presented with an FA Cup devoid of a big four team (you can thank Yaya Toure for that, or perhaps Michael Carrick). Let me preempt any comments about a “new big four” by saying that I’m going to oblige King Kenny’s Liverpool team and stick to the original big four. By the way, I refer to Kenny Dalglish as ‘King Kenny’ purely out of endearment. As a Chelsea fan, I can honestly say for the first time that another emotion besides bitterness flows through me when I think about Liverpool. That’s all to do with Kenny, but I digress.

Interestingly, I picked Manchester United and Bolton for the final. Clearly I wasn’t going out on a limb. I’m curious to know what you guys think about the upcoming FA Cup Final between Manchester City and Stoke City (get the latest FA Cup odds through sports betting at BetUS). I remember back to the anticipation surrounding the Portsmouth versus Cardiff final a couple years back. However, I, like many, don’t actually remember the game very well. It was pretty obvious that while many of us were intrigued by the idea of a smaller club winning the trophy, we weren’t nearly as up for the game as we usually would have been had Chelsea been facing Manchester United. I think there’s a similar situation here.

The passionate side of me is attracted to the type of jubilation demonstrated by two teams who were clearly desperate to win the cup. The sight of the stern Tony Pulis frolicking along the sideline was truly touching. However, even so, I can’t see myself counting down the days to see Manchester City and Stoke face-off. I’m sure it will be a hard-fought match and naturally exciting given the occasion, but neither of these teams are particularly stimulating. Manchester City, while pushing into the top echelon of English football, are arguably the dullest team in league. If Mancini lines up with four defense midfielders I might just turn off the TV.

Essentially, the question rests on one’s desires. Would you rather see the usual contenders for the cup or have a relative outsider win? I’m sure I’ll plan to catch Stoke’s first FA Cup Final in 148 years, but I can see the event simply slipping my mind.

What do you think? Share your feedback in the comments section below.

On Sunday at 11:00 AM, the Premier League will be treated to its first significant title clash when Liverpool take on Chelsea at Stamford Bridge. Indulge me while I set the scene for the match. Chelsea and Liverpool have met 4 times or more for the past five years and until quite recently, the matches have been as dull as a Pompey shooting session. They will meet at Stamford Bridge where Liverpool ended Chelsea’s historic unbeaten run in the same fixture last season. The match will be just months after Chelsea emphatically eliminated Liverpool from the Champions League. There will be plenty of revenge for both teams and it has the potential to be make-or-break for both Ancelotti’s Chelsea and Benitez’s Liverpool.

Some of the readers will immediately bring up that I’m ignoring the United-Arsenal match as a title clash. No disrespect to Arsenal(who I now have a soft spot for after Adebayor proved to be a childish, hypocritical, drama-queen) but most of us never thought Arsenal had a chance of winning the Premier League. Not to say they are out of it – I’m sure an Arsenal fan will quickly note they have just as many losses as Liverpool – but it’s just my opinion. You may say I’m simply alienating Arsenal so I can create a post with the title, “The First Title Clash,” and I would tell you: you’re right.

Chelsea sit second in the table with Manchester United on top only by goal difference. Liverpool, in third place, top the mini-league of 15 pointers with their impressive goal difference. A Liverpool victory would see last season’s table take shape as they would leap-frog Chelsea. You know, my inner Chelsea fan is always optimistic that when we play Liverpool we’ll win and it will be exciting. In the Premier League, I’ve been disappointed on both fronts. Going through last few years it’s hard to remember a genuinely exciting match between the two. None were more boring than the 0-0 at Stamford Bridge in 2008, perhaps in the history of football. That’s okay though because they made up for it in the Champions League. My optimism for a Chelsea victory would be much greater had last week not occurred. Not only did Chelsea lose to Wigan, Liverpool proved to me that they are the best offense in the league, without a doubt. It should also be noted that Chelsea have failed to beat Liverpool in the Premier League since 2006.

It’s really a strange thing though. Chelsea-Liverpool matches have been the cagiest affairs of all big-four match-ups but still Chelsea and Liverpool fans really hold some sort of false hope that, “this time will be different.” It’s like Spurs thinking they’re going to make the top four every year. We all know how that one ends. Some small hope I can look to is the possibility that Liverpool lost their ability to kill entertainment when they sold Alonso. Surely Lucas cannot complement Mascherano as well as Alonso did. The Mascherano-Alonso tag team could commit 20 fouls a game and not see a card between them. Lucas is far too sloppy and obtuse to perform that feat with the grace of Alonso. If they try, one of the two will probably be sent off. That’s just wishful thinking, however. Knowing the Premier League, Lampard will himself be fouled and receive a red card(not a reference from last year, nope).

My humble prediction is a 1-1 with a great atmosphere and three games worth of crunching tackles. Torres will probably score, he always does against Chelsea. It was all downhill after he turned that buffoon Ben-Haim inside out a couple seasons ago.

That is, one with Didier Drogba and one without Didier Drogba. I, like many others have stated before, have always had this sort-of idea that Chelsea were a completely different team when Drogba wasn’t playing. During tonight’s match versus Porto, this idea culminated into a thesis that was entirely tangible and defensible.

This view really came about last year during Scolari’s reign as Chelsea manager. Scolari was forced to start the season with Nicolas Anelka in the lone striker due to the injury of Didier Drogba. As everyone knows, the story started like a fairytale and divulged into a true nightmare for Chelsea fans and Luis Felipe Scolari. The change in style was obvious from the first match – Chelsea were now a “horizontal” team, signaling the end of the Jose Mourinho-type directness that had proved so successful. Until this day, I attributed most of this to the new manager’s new ideas and don’t get me wrong, that definitely was part of it. Now, I attribute a large portion of this to the use of Nicolas Anelka as the sole focal point of the attack. Although he was the Premier League’s top scorer, I’m also inclined to put some of the blame on him for the system going sour. That’s not saying Anelka was doing something wrong, because he wasn’t.

The Chelsea team, still primarily a product of Jose Mourinho’s purchases, cannot be built around the silkiness of a striker like Anelka. With his purchases, Jose Mourinho designed Chelsea to attack in a very direct manner – a style Mr. Abramovich found unattractive (funny how that works, huh?). When Chelsea are forced to attack in a more indirect way, as I believe they are when Anelka is leading the line, they suffer an identity crisis.

As one could imagine, it becomes difficult to really see the effect of Didier Drogba because he spends so much time sulking, being injured, not trying, diving, etc. Today’s match was like a Didier Drogba light-switch. The player is in the best form he’s been in since 06/07 and he’s forced out due to suspension, to be replaced by his counter-part with a completely different skill set, Nicolas Anelka. And so the Drogba-less Chelsea experiment begins. Within five minutes, I saw Frank Lampard put a header on target from open play – I knew from that moment we were back to last-season’s Chelsea.

For those of you who don’t know, Frank Lampard never gets his head on the end of anything for Chelsea. I believe his first goal for Chelsea was a header and then he went on a 5-6 year drought to score 3 or 4 last season. Why such the sudden increase in headers last year? The absence of Didier Drogba. First, had Drogba been playing, Lampard would have been behind Drogba, who would have been heading that ball (and probably would have scored). The reason being that Nicolas Anelka, although 6 ‘1, cannot head the ball for his life. He has the neck muscles of a lizard. Second, Anelka opens up little space in the defense with his physical presence. As opposed to Drogba, who is second-to-none at being a nuisance around the box. Although not in this particular situation, the famous Lampard late run becomes the un-famous Lampard late header. When there’s not enough space for the ball to played on the floor, it goes to the air.

I found myself yelling at Anelka through my computer, telling him to stay in the center. Anelka has a tendency to unnecessarily roam around the field looking for the ball and leaving us without a centre-forward. God knows you don’t want to be depending on Kalou to score goals from the box.

As the game progressed, I was in full confidence that Chelsea would take the lead from an Essien shot that would deflect off the bar for Anelka to tap-in. To my admitted delight, I was slightly off and Anelka provided a handier finish than I first predicted. After the relief of coming out of the rain-trodden match with three points, I immediately became paranoid of the idea of a Didier Drogba injury. Sure, Chelsea could do pretty well without him, but could they win the Champions League or the Premier League without Didier Drogba? I’m not so sure.

It seems like this is all coming out of nowhere. Any fan of the game knows that the “tapping-up” allegations have always been prominent but rarely has it been so harshly punished. From United’s perspective, they were accused of tapping up Dimitar Berbatov and Wayne Rooney in the recent past and accused Real Madrid of tapping-up Ronaldo(the accusing needed not be done, Ronaldo was caught on camera). Now, we have the tapping up issue of Paul Pogba.

This morning, FIFA announced the two-year transfer ban of Chelsea Football Club for acquiring the signature of Gael Kakuta, who had signed a non-solicitation agreement with French club Lens. This evening, The Times are reporting that a similar case has been filed against United for the signing of Le Havre youngster Paul Pogba and that the situation is not yet resolved, according the club’s managing director.

In a matter of days, we’ve heard about three issues that could potentially harm English teams. First, Michel Platini singled out Manchester City’s spending and claimed they would not be allowed to participate in Europe if they could not balance the books – all the while not mentioning the actions of Real Madrid. Now there are two more issues with top English clubs that could see a serious downsizing of the English club dominance – assuming the sanctions are carried out.

“Giggs looking to pick out Rooney… who’s got there, is that a penalty kick?! What does Mike Dean say?! He says penalty!”

This whole routine is getting a little old, isn’t it? Screw diamonds, refereeing mistakes are forever. It’s like the referees all convene and decide whose turn it is to make mistake and forbid us from ever forgetting how truly inadequate they are. Just when we’re about to move on from one refereeing saga, the Eduardo dive, Wayne Rooney provides the perfect half-dive(he was already going down, but there was contact) to remind us of the skinny men(excluding Howard Webb) in black. Pretty good timing though, being international week and all. Thanks, Wayne.

It’s really unfair to demonize the referees without looking first at those who bestowed such an enviable task upon them – the FA, FIFA, and UEFA. Instead of giving referees a requisite arsenal for calling a fair and accurate match, they provide them with an extreme protectionism that only vilifies them more. What I mean by this is similar to what Arsene Wenger meant when he labeled Eduardo’s ban a “disgrace.” Although I believe Wenger worsened his case with some of his comments, particularly trying to defend Eduardo with claims of contact being made or mentions of his injury, he makes one very good point. UEFA retrospectively overruled a decision the referee had dealt with on the pitch, something that has always been forbidden by the FA and UEFA. We are constantly reminded: if the referee did not take action, the governing body cannot take action. The governing bodies do this to protect the referees and credit them with the final word. This was cited as the reason Jose Bosingwa was not banned for clear red-card kick on Benayoun and why Michael Ballack was not punished after the Barcelona match, just to name two examples. UEFA seem so eager to protect the decisions made by the referee that they blindly accept reversible mistakes. With the Eduardo ban, UEFA prove themselves to be hypocrites.

In last year’s Champions League semi-final between Arsenal and Manchester United, Darren Fletcher brilliantly stuck in a toe to legally win the ball from Cesc Fabregas, and he was handed a red-card. The only way to get the unjust red-card overturned, UEFA said, is if the referee mistook Fletcher for another person – in which case a different person would be banned for a legal challenge. As they always do, UEFA came to the rescue of the referee and punished the player – who actually plays the sport – with a Champions League Final suspension. In fact, Eduardo was not banned for simulation, he was banned for “deceiving the referee.” If they charge him for simulation, they accept that the referee made a mistake, but when they charge him for “deceiving the referee,” they make the referee the victim. In his own words Michel Platini removes blame of the referee,

“However, on Wednesday he showed disrespect to the game by his actions in winning a penalty against Celtic.”

The way he phrases this, you’d think Eduardo was the referee and awarded himself the penalty.

This is where I may surprise you. I wanted Eduardo to get banned for cheating, plain and simple. Bans for diving needed to start sometime and now is perfectly suitable.  A friend of mine had a perfect analogy, “Cavemen used to kill each other for sport, does that mean we should never have made a law against murder?” However, in order for UEFA to really make a difference, they’re going to have to change a lot and to be honest, they probably won’t.

First, the next time Ronaldo, Messi or Kaka clearly dives in the Champions League, they should be banned for two matches. If they want to show they’re serious, they can make an example of a superstar and show football what nobody believes, that UEFA is unbiased. Second, the players need to be protected, not the referees. Why punish a player or a team to protect the least profitable and marketable aspect of the game, the referees? All decisions should be available for overruling if they are clearly incorrect. Lastly, give referees the technologies that any supporter of football has from his living room. The problem is that the governing bodies are run by older people whose playing days didn’t know anything of instant replay. The game has changed and technology has changed but sadly, they have not. This leads me to believe that instant replay and goal-line technology are inevitable, seeing as they are supported by the majority, just not the right majority. Adding an extra referee will further the problem, not solve it. If you’re playing with a flat football, do you go and get another flat football? As Slaven Bilic famously said, “Wake up.”