England opens their World Cup on Monday, June 18 against Tunisia. Because of the relative inexperience of the squad, there are lots of question marks over who manager Gareth Southgate will choose as his starting eleven. Here’s my opinion about how he can get the best out of this young squad.

Who starts in goal?

Jack Butland should be England’s #1. After Joe Hart’s dramatic loss of form, this spot has become wide open in the last year or two. Goalkeeper is a position where you need a steady hand more than any other on the pitch. Stoke City’s Butland has been the steadiest over the last few seasons in the Premier League. Jordan Pickford is good with his feet, but is near bottom of PL keepers in shot-stopping and commanding the penalty box.

Nick Pope of Burnley had the best season of the three. Questions remain on how much of that is down to Sean Dyche’s well-drilled defense in front of him.

Who plays in the back three?

Southgate’s back three defensive system suits this squad well. He’s selected five defenders capable of playing in these three spots.

Kyle Walker is the fastest of these five, and one of the few guaranteed starters in the squad. Southgate has called up two other right-backs, so it seems he prefers Walker on the right of the back three. His recovery pace and one-on-one defending should slot well in that spot. For the other two spots, I would leave out Gary Cahill and John Stones, and start Harry Maguire and Phil Jones.

Maguire has been the best English central defender over the past season. Phil Jones has also been a stalwart in one of the Premier League’s best defenses over the past season, Manchester United. Meanwhile, Cahill, Chelsea’s captain, has been in and out of the team following a poor season. As for Stones, he always has a mistake in him, it seems.

The Wing Backs

This team is set up to be solid at the back, rely on pace on the wings, and create chances to score up front. It’s not set up to dominate possession. For these two spots, attacking ability is almost of more value than defensive ability.

With Walker in defense, this leaves a choice of either Kieran Trippier or Trent Alexander-Arnold at right wing-back. Quite simply, Trippier doesn’t have pace. He has a good cross and a decent set-piece, but doesn’t fit in as well as the 19 year old Alexander-Arnold’s skillset does into this team.

For left wing-back, it’s between Danny Rose and two utility-men: Ashley Young and Fabian Delph. As with the right side, pace is the difference maker here. Danny Rose has the ability to stretch the opposition with his pace, while the other two don’t. Young also suffers from being right-footed, which hinders the balance of the formation.

Dier or Henderson (or Delph?)

This is the all-important midfield pivot position. This position should belong to Eric Dier. What he brings that Jordan Henderson lacks is the versatility to hold the midfield area and start attacks, and also to slide into defense when cover is needed. Using Delph or Henderson as a late substitute to preserve a lead, or possibly even to start against a better team (i.e. Belgium) is a good option with this formation, but they should play alongside Dier, not instead of him.

Alli or Lingard?

There’s been a narrative in the English media that Dele Alli has regressed at Tottenham. Jesse Lingard, on the other hand, has improved and challenged Dele for this spot.

That storyline is a bit of an exaggeration, as Dele was top-five in the league in assists, and as important to Spurs’ attacking play has he ever has been. He’s the player most capable of providing the X-factor for this England team, a moment of brilliance from midfield, creating a goal out of nothing. He should be an automatic starter. Lingard is also capable of a moment of magic, and should be one of the first substitutes off the bench in case England need a goal.

The Front Three

Harry Kane is England’s captain and best goal scorer, enough said. The question is who starts in the other two spots alongside him. For me, these are the toughest two choices Southgate has to make for the first match. I would start Jamie Vardy and Raheem Sterling.

Vardy has proven he’s an elite goal scorer, plain and simple. For the last three seasons, he’s consistently scored goals for Leicester, whether the club has been been good or bad, and against poor teams and great teams. Some see him as a substitute, but I think he compliments Harry Kane’s game well, running the channels while Kane spearheads the attack. He should start.

Sterling seems to be England’s most controversial figure at the moment. Putting aside off-field tabloid nonsense, his England goal-scoring record is extremely poor. However, he’s coming off his best season for the league champions, and is the most capable of any of England’s forwards of both using his pace and setting up goals.

Marcus Rashford is very close to challenging Sterling and Vardy for a forward spot, and maybe, just maybe after being frustrated at his playing time under Jose Mourinho this past season, this could be his breakout tournament on the world stage. If Sterling’s poor England form continues, replacing him with Rashford would be the first change I’d make.

Danny Welbeck was definitely not chosen for this squad based on his past season with Arsenal, but for his England scoring record – 16 goals in 39 caps (thats 8 times better than Sterling!). For me he should only be used in case of injury, or if the other strikers aren’t firing.

As for Ruben Loftus-Cheek – sorry, maybe next time.

Like many other Americans who follow the Premier League closely, I’ve been reading the news about NBC’s plans for their coverage next season with great interest. For the most part, it sounds like a great improvement over what FOX Soccer has been bringing us. But there’s one aspect from their recent press releases I want to call attention to, and that’s their online coverage options:

“NBC SPORTS LIVE EXTRA: Every Barclays Premier League match will be streamed live via NBC Sports Live Extra, the NBC Sports Group’s live streaming product for desktop, mobile and tablets and, in most cases, on the digital platforms of participating cable, satellite, telco and other video subscription services. The vast majority of Barclays Premier League matches will be streamed via “TV Everywhere,” available on an authenticated basis to subscribers of these services.

NBC Sports Live Extra provides a primary and second screen experience across mobile, tablet and desktop, delivering high quality video, match/player stats and video highlights while aggregating Premier League content from social media.”

In layman’s terms, all games will be available online and on mobile devices in high quality for free IF you are already subscribed to the channel through a TV provider (and if your TV provider has an agreement in place to provide NBC Sports Live Extra to you as a consumer). From their press releases, NBC Sports have yet to commit to any online option for those who are not cable or satellite subscribers.

Here is where the problem exists for me. I don’t have a cable or satellite package. The cost is not worth the product for me. I have had Comcast and DirecTV in the past, but cut the cord a few months ago. When you include taxes and fees, and sports packages, and the cost of renting HD boxes and DVR, my monthly bill was starting to approach $100/month. It’s simply not worth the cost that I was spending — living by myself, especially for someone who doesn’t do much with his TV subscription except for watching live sports. I’ve since switched to FOX Soccer 2Go for my soccer watching until the end of this season. And while not perfect, it still does the job with multiple platforms and most matches live (though not enough of the marquee Premier League ones).

For next season, NBC is going to be missing out on a substantial amount of revenue if they don’t offer an a la carte Internet streaming option for people like me. The NBC Sports Live Extra internet plan sounds great, and I’d be willing to spend $15-$20 a month on it, but I’m not going to spend the $60 or so (minimum) a month it would cost me to just have access to it. FOX Soccer 2Go reportedly has 60,000 subscribers, and if you multiply that by the $170 yearly fee, that’s over $10 million in revenue per year that FOX Soccer generates just off its online streaming option.

So why isn’t NBC saying they’re going to offer the Internet-only plan? Does it have anything to do with the fact that Comcast owns NBC and wouldn’t like to make it easier for those to do what I did, cutting the cord by not subscribing to a cable plan? Probably. But let’s look at this a little deeper. A cable TV channel has two major revenue streams. The first is selling advertising (mainly commercials). The second is subscriber fees paid to the channel by the television providers which carry it. That second number is negotiated between the provider and channel based on viewership and other factors like leverage.

It’s especially interesting to see specifically the amount that a TV provider pays each channel per subscriber. You can certainly see how ESPN has been able to dominate the sports market, that’s for sure. If this site’s information is correct, then the NBC Sports Network gets 31 cents per month from TV providers for every customer who has the channel in their package. Coincidentally, that’s nearly double what FOX Soccer gets ($.16). That breaks out to $298M (million) per year in total subscriber revenue for NBC Sports Network, and $79M/year for FOX Soccer. When you add in my estimate  of $10M/year from FOX Soccer 2Go, you can see that FOX has been making a good portion of its revenue from the streaming option.

I know NBC/Comcast will argue that they will be cannibalizing their cable business by offering an a la carte option, but I think that thinking is seriously misguided. Cord-cutting is a growing phenomenon. Approximately 3.74 million US TV subscribers cut their TV subscriptions from 2008-12, or 3.7% of the total subscription audience. We’ve decided that we can get enough of the shows we want through streaming, and still have good options for streaming sports we want (I pay for MLB.TV), combined with what we get over the air for free. Unless an a la carte cable option is on the horizon, we’re simply not coming back. For soccer junkies like me who are also cord-cutters, we’re just not going to pay for 100+ channels we don’t watch just to get access to the soccer we do watch. And one more thing, NBC should be considering that not only is cord-cutting on the rise, it skews much higher the younger you are. Coincidentally, so does the ratio of soccer fans in the USA.

So NBC, here is my plea: You’re already rolling out what sounds like a high quality, comprehensive Internet coverage plan for the Premier League next season. High quality streaming sure beats dodgy Internet streams with pop up ads and poor quality that buffer and cut in and out. Let us pay for it.

So Roy Hodgson will be naming his preliminary squad for this summer’s Euro 2012 tournament tomorrow at 8am ET/1pm BST. Here’s a comprehensive list of all the likely players considered, as well as who I think should be in the final 23 man squad for Euro 2012 in Poland and Ukraine:

Goalkeepers:

Three keepers have to be named, and there’s no debate as to who will be between the posts against France on June 11 (barring injury). After Joe Hart, the rest are really a rather mediocre bunch, but I would take John Ruddy and Ben Foster, with Foster as second choice and Ruddy third choice. However, with Foster refusing to come out of international retirement, a surprise but suitable replacement — to give him experience — would be Jack Butland.

These are three keepers with relatively little international experience, but I don’t see the value in naming either Robert Green or Scott Carson, whose minimal experience is tempered by the fact that they both made high-profile blunders in big matches for England in the past, and currently aren’t goalkeeping at the top levels in Europe anyway.

GK(3): Hart (Manchester City), Ruddy (Norwich City), Butland (Birmingham).

Defenders:

An interesting dilemma here. Generally the standard is to name eight defenders, so each of the four positions has a backup. To me, the fullbacks are fairly easy to name, and will be the strength of England’s defense. The central defenders, on the other hand, are up in the air. So let’s get the fullbacks out of the way: Ashley Cole, Leighton Baines, Glen Johnson and Phil Jones. Cole is still one of the premier left backs in the world. Baines is an excellent back-up, as well as a great set-piece taker, and could be very useful as a substitute should there be any danger of a penalty shootout should England make the knockout stages. On the right side, Johnson and Jones should be safe bets for England given the news that Kyle Walker and Micah Richards have been ruled out.

As for the central defenders, a few words on the John Terry situation. He was relieved of his captaincy (for the second time) on the 3rd of February, following the allegations he racially abused Anton Ferdinand of QPR. He will stand trial for using racist language in July, after the tournament has ended. Unfortunately, Rio’s body seems to be failing him the last couple years, and hasn’t been nearly the dominant force he has been in the past. Terry, on the other hand, especially since Roberto di Matteo took over as Chelsea manager, has been excellent. So while he won’t win any popularity contests, John Terry should be named to the squad. Starting alongside him should be Joleon Lescott, an unheralded star for Manchester City this season, despite his major gaffe over the weekend against QPR. First backup should be Phil Jagielka of Everton, always solid and dependable. Lastly I would name Gary Cahill. However he’s struggled with fitness since joining Chelsea in January.

DF(8): Cole (Chelsea), Baines (Everton), Johnson (Liverpool), Jones (Manchester United), Terry (Chelsea), Lescott (Manchester City), Jagielka (Everton), Cahill (Chelsea)

Central Midfielders:

Many have been calling for a youth movement in midfield for a couple of years, disappointed with the results of England squads led for most of the last ten years by Steven Gerrard and Frank Lampard. The two brightest prospects to assume their roles are Jack Wilshere and Tom Cleverley. However one is out injured and the other is just back, and not match fit. But what if the answer is using players who were always there, yet have never gotten a proper chance as a member of the starting eleven? Michael Carrick, now 30 years old, and with only 22 caps to his name, is a perfect example. He’s had a great season, and deserves a shot (finally) as an England starter. Gareth Barry has continued to be a cog in Manchester City’s midfield despite the amount of superstar players they continue to bring in, and should start alongside Carrick. Frank Lampard still has a role to play, though. Frozen out much of the time by Andre Villas-Boas, Lampard has shown he’s never forgotten where the goal is in the second half of the season. He deserves a place in the starting eleven as well, sitting in front of Carrick and Barry. As for reserve central midfielders, Scott Parker and James Milner fit the bill. Milner can cover across all midfield positions, while Parker has been excellent for the last two seasons, and should go to Poland/Ukraine if fit. However, since I believe he won’t be fully fit, Gerrard should be included. Paul Scholes, despite recent rumblings that he would be open to a return, should stay home. At 37 years old and retired from international football for eight years, it just doesn’t make sense.

CM(5): Carrick (Manchester United), Barry (Manchester City), Lampard (Chelsea), Gerrard (Liverpool), Milner (Manchester City)

Wing Attackers/Strikers:

For the wing/striking spots, versatility is required. You may have noticed I only named five players to cover the three central midfield spots, and have seven left to name for the front three spots. This is for two good reasons: One, Wayne Rooney is out suspended for the first two matches; Two, the central midfield spots are a relative strength compared to all of the question marks up front, where there are no easy decisions. Rooney obviously is on the plane. For wide attacking options, Adam Johnson, Ashley Young, Aaron Lennon, and Daniel Sturridge should all be named. Johnson and Lennon are the best examples of pure wingers England have, with Lennon having the best England pedigree, having performed well whenever called upon. Ashley Young has played solidly enough in his first season with Manchester United, while Sturridge is needed as one of the few England players who consistently scores coming off a main striker.

For target men, I would name Andy Carroll. Crouch is not a player anyone gets excited about, yet he always scores goals for England. He’s actually been better for Stoke this season than either of his previous two years with Tottenham. However, reports coming out of England say that he’s not in the squad. Carroll, on the other hand, makes it solely based on how he’s played in just he last couple of weeks. He finally looks like he’s getting back to his Newcastle form, and while certainly not good enough to be a starter, is better than the other options available.

Just like at the World Cup two years ago, the glaring omission here is Theo Walcott. I just don’t see how one can include him over the four wide players I mentioned. He is also just coming back from a month out from injury (he played most of the second half as a sub over the weekend). But Walcott’s inconsistencies unfortunately overshadow any brief brilliant displays he has. Hopefully this time Nike doesn’t use him for any commercial spots leading up to the tournament!

Another omission is Arsenal’s other young attacker, Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain. While one for the future, the fact is, he’s still only scored in one Premier League match. Too soon for him. As for other strikers in the running, Bobby Zamora would have made it over Carroll based on his Fulham form, but has only scored two goals for QPR since his move in January. Jermain Defoe would be another option, but just isn’t versatile enough to fit in, and there isn’t space for such a limited player. Danny Welbeck is the one player I might consider replacing Carroll with, but seems to me to fit well in the Manchester United system, and can’t necessarily be counted upon to lead the line with players he doesn’t know. Without Rooney for two matches, bringing Welbeck is too much of a risk. Darren Bent, though out for three months, has said he’ll be ready in June when the tournament starts. Bent might be in consideration only when in good goal scoring form, but much like Defoe, he provides little else. You’re not holding a spot open for an un-match fit Darren Bent.

AM/ST (7): Rooney (Manchester United), Johnson (Manchester City), Young (Manchester United), Lennon (Tottenham Hotspur), Sturridge (Chelsea), Welbeck (Manchester United), Carroll (Liverpool)

So there you have it. Looking at the 23-man squad, there’s not much there to get overly exited about, as it looks relatively similar to the team England brought to South Africa two years ago. But if Hodgson picks the right formation and players in it, I think there’s a slight chance England can pull off a few surprises.

What do you think?

Who could have predicted an ending like this for the 2011-12 Premier League season?

Join the live chat now with soccer fans from around the world.

EPL Final Sunday!

Dimitar Berbatov was joint top scorer in the Premier League last season, along with Carlos Tevez, scoring 20 goals in 32 matches. This season he’s only managed just seven league goals for Manchester United, but has only appeared in 10 league matches (only five of which he’s started). His goal scoring record this season is better than both Javier Hernandez (10 goals in 24 Premier League matches) and Danny Welbeck (7 in 23) — both of the strikers reaping much of the pitch time at Berbatov’s expense.

So at first glance it would seem Berbatov is being unfairly benched for two players who aren’t performing nearly at the clip he’s proven that he can. But then you look at the league table and United have opened up a 5 point lead at the top and seemingly can’t stop winning, with ten wins and a draw in their last 11 Premier League matches. Of these last 11 matches, Berbatov has only played in one (and scored). The answer to how United has made up for the absence of Berbatov’s goals this season has been Wayne Rooney’s form. Rooney has scored 21 goals in 26 matches this season. This is about twice the rate at which he scored last season (only 11 goals in 28), but closer to his career best form of 2009-10 (26 goals in 32).

So the argument can be made that Manchester United are possibly better off without Berbatov playing. Rooney is playing as good as he ever has, and the team as a whole isn’t suffering at all. Maybe if Berbatov was starting more matches it would have a negative impact on Rooney, or the style and speed of United’s attacking play. After all, Rooney is their best player, and the team should be set out to get the most out of his strengths. Perhaps playing Hernandez and/or Welbeck alongside him does just that, whereas Berbatov’s style would slow them down a bit too much.

It’s just that ever since Sir Alex Ferguson left Berbatov completely out of the squad for last season’s Champions League final against Barcelona, I feel as if he’s been oddly left out in the cold time and time again for no discernible reason. It’s one thing if the team plays better without him, but it’s another thing entirely to have last season’s top scorer in the country not even worthy of a spot on the bench, as he has been for 6 of the previous 11 league matches. Surely a player who scored 20 goals last season and has been in good form, when played, this season is worth a spot on at least the bench just in case your team is in desperate need of a goal late in a match?

I just don’t get it.

For even greater clarification of how much a difference Spurs’ results are with King in the squad, here’s a table:

It’s an astounding difference. Spurs have only won 2 of their last 14 matches in which King doesn’t play at least 80 minutes, and ALL of the last 11 in which he has. Argue all you want about the other players in the Spurs squad, and I’d be remiss in not mentioning the impact new signings Emmanuel Adebayor and Scott Parker have had (they have yet to lose a league match for Spurs either), but you can at least replace Adebayor and Parker with Jermain Defoe and Sandro and still achieve comparable results. If Spurs lose Ledley King for long periods as they have in years past, while one might think William Gallas and Michael Dawson are adequate replacements, the statistics simply don’t show them at the same level (maybe Gallas a few years ago, but not now). You can see his value from quotes from the likes of Thierry Henry, who during his Arsenal days called King, “the best defender in Europe”, as well as Fabio Capello picking him for his England World Cup squad (and starting the first match to boot) even with his injury risks.

I’d argue that no other single player means as much to his team in the Premier League than King does to Tottenham. I’m sure many will argue Robin van Persie means more to Arsenal’s hopes this season, and they may be right. But van Persie’s current form is out of this world compared to what he’s done in years previous, while King, in the position he plays, is as consistent as they come, and doesn’t suffer from loss of form, just fitness.

What do you think? Who do you think is the most valuable player in the Premier League?

It’s pretty rare that you’ll have Arsenal, Chelsea, Manchester City, Spurs and Liverpool all playing at the same time, but that’s what we have today at 10am ET (3pm BST) with Arsenal against Swansea, Sunderland against Chelsea, Stoke versus Liverpool, Manchester City against Wigan and Wolves vs Spurs. With next week’s Champions League and Europa League matches, the Premier League wanted to be sure that most of the teams competing would play earlier in the weekend to be fully rested for mid-week.

Don’t forget that Everton will be playing Aston Villa at 10am ET, while Bolton hosts Manchester United at 12:30pm ET.

By now, most of you know the drill. Before, during or after the matches today, use the live blog and/or comments section to post your questions, rants, raves or observations. As Kartik Krishnaiyer says, enjoy your football!

EPL September 10 Live!

2:40pm ET – Birmingham City vs Manchester City – ESPN2
2:55pm ET – Liverpool vs Stoke – FSC
2:55pm ET – Bolton vs Wolves – FS+ & FOXsoccer.tv
2:55pm ET – Blackburn vs Tottenham – ESPN3.com
2:55pm ET – Fulham vs Newcastle – ESPN3.com
2:55pm ET – Blackpool vs West Ham – ESPN3.com

EPL February 2 Live!

Arsenal v Everton (FSC); 2:30 PM ET
Sunderland v Chelsea (FS+); 2:40 PM ET
Manchester Utd v Aston Villa (ESPN2); 2:55 PM ET
West Brom v Wigan Athletic (foxsoccer.tv); 2:55 PM ET

EPL February 1 Live!

Join me at 2:30 PM ET for a live blog of the seven matches being played this afternoon, highlighted by the Arsenal v Manchester City match on ESPN2. Other matches include:

Aston Villa v Sunderland
Newcastle v West Ham
Wolves v Chelsea
Blackburn v Liverpool
Bolton v Wigan
Everton v Spurs

EPL January 5 Live!

Will Chelsea be knocked out of the top 4 for a day (at least)?

Will Blackpool actually play a match?

Join me for a live blog for the seven matches today, which include:

Manchester City v Aston Villa
Tottenham Hotspur v Newcastle Utd
Stoke City v Fulham
Sunderland v Blackpool
West Brom v Blackburn Rovers (all 10 AM Eastern Time USA)
West Ham Utd v Everton (12:30 PM)
Birmingham City v Manchester Utd (3:00 PM ET on ESPN2)

EPL December 28 Live!

Full disclosure: I’m a Spurs fan.  Have been for round about six years, which just so happens to be just before the last time Mark Clattenburg took charge of a Manchester United v Spurs fixture at Old Trafford.  For any who needed their memory jogged (or who weren’t fans at the time):

Look, Tottenham didn’t deserve to win on Saturday.  They were undone by the same problems that have plagued the entire season to date.  Falling behind early, a few naive moments in defense, poor set piece defending.  While they generally pass the ball well through the midfield, striker play has been awful, for the most part.

That said, Spurs shouldn’t be forced to beat the referee as well.  Old Trafford is tough enough to begin with.  Some might remember Spurs going into halftime with a 2-0 lead at this fixture two seasons ago, before Howard Webb called an incorrect penalty on Gomes, after which point the floodgates opened and United won 5-2.  Getting back to Clattenburg, I also remember him taking charge of a Spurs-United match at White Hart Lane two or three years ago, and it sticks in my mind because Paul Scholes got away with three bad and cynical fouls without being shown any card at all.

Needless to say, when I saw who the referee was for this match, I went in expecting an uphill battle.  Nani’s goal has been discussed ad nauseum on here, on pundit shows, and everywhere else so I’ll be brief when I get to it.  I’m more concerned about the other incidents in what was a very clean match with few other talking points at all.  But close examination does provide some enlightening details, in my opinion.  Here’s a short rundown – by minute – of all the other incidents in the match (I’ve tried to put away my lilywhite colored specs to do this, please cut me a little slack!):

1’st minute – Nani goes up for a 50/50 ball with Benoit Assou-Ekotto, clean play but Nani decides to roll around on the pitch for a few seconds and make an appeal to Clattenburg.  A pretty tame moment, but bares mentioning for all that happened later…

2′ – …including because of what happens in the next minute.  Nani, now popping up on the opposite side, attacks Alan Hutton.  There might’ve been minor (incidental) contact with Hutton, but not even close to being a foul.  Nani then loses control of the ball as it goes out for a goal kick, takes 3 more steps and dives with no one around him.  He then puts out his arms to appeal for God-knows-what.   At this point Clattenburg should’ve at least given Nani a telling-off to stop all the complaining and play-acting (a yellow card for this sort of crap should be the way forward IMO), yet does nothing.

17′ – William Gallas receives the first yellow of the match for a foul on Javier Hernandez.  The foul occurs near midfield, was not malicious but a fraction late, and was Gallas’ first foul of the match.  Extremely harsh on Gallas, and of course now he has to be careful for the rest of the match.

21′ – The linesman makes a mistake in Spurs’ favor, as the ball goes over the touch line before Bale crosses to win a corner.  Although the cynical side of me thinks that the only refereeing  mistakes likely to go in Spurs’ favor in a match like this are the objective ones (was the ball out of play, who was last to touch it, etc), rather than the subjective ones.

30′ – Younes Kaboul makes a silly rash challenge on Hernandez which earns United a dangerous free kick and himself a yellow card.  Which then led to Vidic’s goal.  No complaints here, Kaboul’s defending in this instance was poor.

40′ – Park Ji-Sung fouls Aaron Lennon in Spurs’ half of the pitch; a slide tackle from behind while Lennon was away on a counter.  Considering Lennon’s pace, the space in front of him, and the lack of United defenders back, it’s obvious Park knew what he was doing.  Clattenburg doesn’t think this warrants a yellow however.

45′ – Michael Carrick fouls Assou-Ekotto from behind while he’s attacking in United’s half.  Not a dangerous foul though, and didn’t deserve a card in my opinion.  However, after Clattenburg whistles for the foul, Rio Ferdinand kicks the ball 50 yards up the field in frustration.  I was under the impression this constitutes an automatic yellow, just like taking your shirt off after a goal.  Guess not.

84′ – The Nani “goal”.  For video, analysis, and discussion of the incident here’s the Gaffer’s post on the subject.  I found an article in the Wall Street Journal of all places which pretty much sums up my viewpoint on the incident.

What I do feel the need to mention is why on earth Rio Ferdinand was allowed to take part in the discussion between Clattenburg and the linesman (Simon Beck) after Beck raised his flag when the goal was scored.  And yes,  I realize that it isn’t that dissimilar to the protests Tom Huddlestone made to the referee after his goal was originally disallowed two weeks ago at Fulham.  But surely players shouldn’t be allowed to take part in decisions which are supposed to be made by the officials alone.  It hurts the ability of the referees to do their job, and the integrity of the game, so that people like me can watch on TV and make an argument that something sinister is going on.  Since there’s no culpability of the officials after the fact, one never truly knows how a decision is reached.

Finally, after the goal was given, and all the Spurs players protested for the better part of a minute, Luka Modric was given a yellow card after Clattenburg had had enough.  I thought that as captain, Modric was entitled to an explanation of his decision to award the goal (especially as Ferdinand – the opposite captain – was allowed to confer before it was given) ?

All in all, an appalling display by the referee.  3 yellow cards to Spurs, 1 of which was deserved (Kaboul) ; none to United, who deserved 3 (Park, Ferdinand, and Nani for persistent play acting).

This is all an account of what my eyes have seen in one match, and isn’t meant to project what happens in all matches of this sort.  But for marquee matches between two top teams, there’s only a pool of four or five generally recognized “elite referees” which do most of the big matches (of which Clattenburg and Webb are two), and at least with recent United-Spurs matches, they consistently get big decisions wrong, and in favor of the so-called “bigger club”.

So what do you think?  Am I just a whining Spurs fan?  Is there a shred of truth there?  Are there other good examples in recent history of major decisions going in favor of the Uniteds and the Chelsea’s when they shouldn’t have?  Are there major changes needed in the way matches are officiated, and the officials assigned to them?  Please share in the comments.

Start your match telecasts at the correct time.

I’ll have to say, it impressed me that from the start of ESPN’s PL coverage, they would cut into whatever program was running at 2:55 PM to have ample time to show the lineups and a bit of the buildup for a 3 PM kickoff. In England (and Europe), a 3 PM kickoff means that at precisely 3 PM, the match kicks off! So why then do your 10 AM ET telecasts start exactly at 10 AM, leaving no time for any buildup at all? Invariably, you will squeeze in the lineups and either go to commercial or to the kickoff, meaning we’re left watching the match on a two to four minute delay. Yes, 2-4 minutes isn’t a big deal, but you’re a soccer channel! European soccer is the main reason we tune in. Please, Fox: start your coverage a bit early. I shouldn’t be able to find an illegal stream of the match online that is minutes ahead of what’s on my TV.

“You are watching FSC, in HD”

Luckily, I’ve been able to largely avoid FSC during the summer, and therefore haven’t had to hear much of this abomination of an advertisement. But when I hear it for the 20th time by next week and involuntarily throw my remote through my LCD out of anger, should I send the bill to you or to Comcast?

Warren Barton.

Look, I’m sure he’s a nice guy. But two years on, he’s still a statue on television. Every time he looks into the camera, I feel like he’s staring daggers right through me. Maybe spring for some acting classes for him; give him a beer before he goes on, something. Although I do have fun with a drinking game I came up with for every time he says “as well” in his analysis (he once said it 19 times during just the two starting lineups).

Pop-Up Ads

I don’t entirely blame you on this one. I’m sure making a sport with few commercials survive on a channel with a limited budget isn’t possible without them. But I think I speak for everyone when I say that they’re extremely distracting, especially when they pop up during play. At least wait for the stoppages (injury, goal kick, free kick, whatever) to display them. And please remove that “HD” tag from the corner of the screen. It’s like you’re mocking us.

Sincerely (I swear),
Phil

What other suggestions would you have to improve FSC and FS+ for the future?

Here is a preview photo of the new Tottenham Hotspur kits which will be worn in the Premier League this upcoming season.  The sponsor here, Autonomy, is an enterprise software company based in the UK.  However, in a departure for English clubs, Autonomy has a sponsorship deal for Premier League jerseys only, and Spurs have yet to announce a sponsor for Cup/European competiton.

Personally, I think the white home jersey is the best I’ve seen from Spurs for awhile, but I’ve never been a fan of the sky blue (this one definitely has a Uruguay or Coventry vibe to it), and I have no idea what’s going on with the 3rd shirt, although I’m sure it won’t look too bad from a distance on the TV.

This is the last season Spurs will have Puma as their kit supplier, and they are rumored to have a deal with Adidas starting next season.

What do you think?

That’s the question I was asking as soon as the team news came out and we saw Harry Redknapp had moved Benoit Assou-Ekotto from left back to right back; Gareth Bale from left midfield to left back, and Luka Modric from center midfield to left midfield.  All to accomodate the return to action of Wilson Palacios from a two game suspension, which left Younes Kaboul (who had been at right back for the last two matches) starting on the bench.

Aside from a great team spirit, Spurs had a wonderful balance in the side for the home matches against Arsenal and Chelsea;  Bale marauding up and down the left hand side, helping out defensively while also serving as the main outlet in the attack.  Modric and Tom Huddlestone providing calm on the ball in the center of the park; even though both are rather suspect defensively, the Spurs team defended wonderfully as a unit: from Gomes being in the form of his Spurs career at the back, to Michael Dawson dominating everything in the air and on the ground (get the man an England cap already!).  Even Kaboul, though not first choice as a right back, performed adequately enough there, in a position he has a good amount of experience with from his Portsmouth days.

I see the point of adding Palacios away at Old Trafford, but Assou-Ekotto should have never been asked to play right back.  It’s somewhat ironic to me as a Spurs fan, that a year ago we seemingly had 52 right backs on the roster, and today we went in starting with a converted left-back there, and ended with slotting in a defensive midfielder there (Palacios).  Is it any wonder the two penalties Spurs gave away were both by the out-of-position right backs?

Obviously it’s easy to second guess after the fact, but I would’ve kept Bale and Assou-Ekotto down the left with Kaboul at RB.  Bale at left back can work against lower sides which provide Spurs time and space to pick out passes, but you want Bale in midfield against the tougher teams, as then it greatly eases his defensive duties and allows him to get forward.  It’s no wonder Spurs looked much more dangerous in the second half when Bale was moved back to midfield.  If I had to start Palacios, I would’ve either put five in midfield, sacrificing either Jermain Defoe or Roman Pavlyuchenko, or left out David Bentley (hopefully with Lennon finally back we’ve seen the last of him for the season), and moved Modric to the right.

But ideally, I would’ve left Palacios on the bench to start, and used the same team shape that defeated Arsenal and Chelsea.  After all, why change a winning side?

When I first started watching English football as a Yank six years ago, I was drawn to the best clubs and star players, like anyone would be.  But then I quickly realized that being a fan of one of the Big 4 clubs is no fun.   Since the ’02-’03 season, only once has an outsider beaten one of England’s Big 4 to a Top-4 finish (Everton in ’05, and even then they couldn’t keep Liverpool out of the Champs League).  If you’re counting, that’s once in 24 chances.

In short, Liverpool finishing outside the Champions League places can only be good for English football, and is something every non-Liverpool fan should want.  Just from a neutral perspective, if Spurs or Manchester City were to break the Big 4 cartel for this season at least, it should mean a changing of the guard at the top of the league for the near future.  Spurs are on solid financial footing, with a new stadium in the pipeline, and finally a solid manager to go with all the flair players they’ve assembled over the last few years.  City, being the richest club in the world, will surely at least be in the mix, even if they have to go through another couple managers to get there.  And while Liverpool currently have deep financial problems, even if they miss out on the Champions League and lose Steven Gerrard and Fernando Torres, they’re still one of the world’s massive clubs and should easily be able to attract the investments needed to rebuild quickly.

While Aston Villa and Everton currently don’t have the financial clout or setup to challenge at the top of the league, they’re certainly solid enough to challenge for the 4th spot for the next few years if they can catch a few timely breaks.  Both are well placed with solid squads and very good managers.  As far as the rest of the league goes, massive infusions of cash will be necessary for any other club to vault from the ranks of the also-rans to a sustained run at the European places.

So in short, I’ll be rooting against Liverpool in the coming weeks, but not just for self-serving reasons (full disclosure, I’m a massive Spurs fan), as I’d still prefer Man City over the reds if I had to choose.  I have nothing against Liverpool as a club, I just have a big problem with the structure as it currently stands in England.

So who are you rooting for to finish fourth?

[polldaddy poll=2994636]

It’s been three weeks since the launch of the new Fox Soccer Plus channel, and almost three months since the launch of Fox Soccer Channel in HD. But what progress has there been thus far and what do we still not know?

As of this writing, Fox Soccer Plus is currently being carried (in standard definition) on DirecTV, Dish Network, and Verizon FIOS. It is available in HD on some regional Time Warner Cable platforms, but will be added in select Time Warner markets by April 5. No definitive dates are available regarding when FS+ will be added to Comcast or any other cable provider, or AT&T U-Verse, or of adding the HD version of the channel on any platform.

Considering that the changeover from Setanta to FS+ happened in the middle of the season and in a 24-hour period, overall I’d argue that it’s been handled fairly well. For instance, most people who originally had Setanta were switched over to FS+ seamlessly, within one day, on the same channel as before. And most of the coverage has been kept.

But I have some specific gripes with the product being shown currently between the two Fox channels. They are:

1. Where can I go in the US to watch the French Ligue 1, legally? After the monotony of Lyon dominating the league over recent years, this season has a 4 or 5 team title race going down the stretch. But since Fox didn’t pick up the Setanta coverage, there’s no legal way for us in the USA to watch the matches.
2. Why can’t or why hasn’t Fox shown replays of matches originally shown on FS+ on FSC later? Many of us remember the days when a portion of FA Cup matches and EPL matches were shown only on pay-per-view, and then were shown delayed later in the week on FSC in the middle of the afternoon, when FSC had nothing live to show. Well, now that Fox owns the rights to ALL FA Cup Matches, ALL Serie A, and (bar ESPN’s portion), MOST of the EPL, what’s to stop them from (for example) showing Sunday’s United-Liverpool match, which originally aired on FS+, on FSC this Wednesday or Thursday, instead of the 3rd or 4th replay of this past weekend’s EPL or Serie A matches? It would certainly throw a bone to the substantial amount of us cable subscribers without access to Fox Soccer Plus, and I don’t see how it would hurt the product or stop people from wanting to subscribe to FS+ by delaying the matches for a few days before showing them on FSC.
3. HD Coverage. Please Fox, don’t treat your viewers like babies. Don’t tell us we’re watching in HD when you know the vast majority of us aren’t. I understand the motives to get us to contact our TV providers to add the channels. I don’t understand why you can’t treat your viewers with respect. A simple, “This match is available in High-Definition…if FSCHD isn’t available in your area please contact your cable/satellite provider” would be much better than the condescending (and false), “You are watching FSC in glorious High-Definition.” At this point, HD coverage of FSC and FS+ is the holy grail for serious EPL fans, and the way it’s being handled by the on-air talent has been horrendous to this point.

Hopefully by the end of this season, or at the latest the start of the next one, Fox will have fixed these issues, the main ones being adding provider coverage and HD coverage. Thoughts?