What Jose Will Never Admit

1. Porto beat Manchester United in 2004 after United had a perfectly legitimate goal ruled offside.
2. Jorge Andrade being sent off for allegedly kicking the ball at a Porto player in the semis.
3. His accusations toward Anders Frisk caused the referee to retire after angry Chelsea fans made death threats.
4. Ricardo Carvalho pulled down Victor Valdes as John Terry headed the ball into the Barcelona goal in the second leg at Stamford Bridge in 2005.
5. Chelsea prepared a sandpit for Barcelona in the first leg at Stamford Bridge in 2006.
6. Asier Del Horno should have been booked for a studs up challenge on Lionel Messi before he was shown a direct red for kicking the ball onto him after the referee had already blown the whistle.
6. Chelsea got a penalty in the second leg even though there was no foul on John Terry.
7. Michael Ballack should've been booked for a foul on Thierry Henry in the first leg of the semi-final in 2009.
8. The aforementioned foul was in the penalty area and would have resulted in a penalty and Barcelona most likely going into the second leg with a lead.
9. Eric Abidal was wrongly sent off in that game after Anelka tripped on himself.
10.Diego Milito's goal in the first leg of the semi-final in 2010 was offside.
11.Thiago Motta elbowed Sergio Busquets. Even if Busquets hadn't made a meal of it, that was a red.
12.Barcelona had a goal ruled out because Toure was deemed to have handled the ball, even though he had no time to avoid it.
13.Pepe should have been sent off in the Copa Del Rey final.
14.Sergio Ramos got booked for elbowing Lionel Messi.

Edit: I had got the first one wrong. Porto's goal at Old Trafford was fine, it was United who had a goal disallowed even though Scholes was atleast a metre onside. Props to Rohan the United supporter for pointing it out.

The World Doesn't Move to the Beat of Just One Drum

It's amazing how there appears to be an unwritten code that demands footballers to get on with it despite being kicked around. Apparently it's a bigger crime to stay on the ground when you're fouled than it is to commit the foul in the first place. So who cares if your most precious asset, your legs, are constantly stamped on and/or poked at by elite athletes even though it's the ball that they need to be kicking? I mean what's the big deal if an Eduardo or a Ramsey breaks his leg? Who cares if a player misses multiple months due to an injury? They knew what they were getting into, isn't it?

Sure, everybody knows football at the highest level can be a very risky game where you're one bad tackle away from having your career ended. But why hold it against players when they do everything they can to ensure it doesn't happen to them? I dislike the exaggerated reaction to fouls as any other person, but it can never come close to a malicious foul even if that foul didn't result in a serious injury. One of them can influence the course of a tie, the other can influence the course of a tie and a player's career. People would do well to maintain a sense of perspective in such cases.

It is in this context that I would like to view last night's game between Real Madrid and Barcelona. Anyone who knows a thing or two about football should have seen it coming. There was no way in hell Real were going to allow an open game, even though it might just have been in their favour to be more aggressive on the ball rather than on the opposition players. Barcelona were missing all three of their left backs and had to slot in a semi-fit Carles Puyol to play in that position. It also meant they were without their first-choice centre back, and Diego Milito was also injured. As a result, they had to play a defensive midfielder in that position. They were also missing Andres Iniesta, who just happens to be one of the best creative midfielders in world football.

Why then would you put out a side at home to just sit back and absorb whatever Barcelona throw at you, especially when you have spent hundreds of millions on players who are supposed to score goals for a living? Lassana Diarra was penalised twice in the first half hour for tackling from behind and not getting a piece of the ball. He was pushing the limit all game and on another night he might have been booked. But when you as the opposition player see the referee not do anything about such tackles, why wouldn't you protest? If kicking players is a legitimate tactic to intimidate them, surely making the most of such challenges and pressurising the referee is just as fine? Unlike Rugby or American Football where contact is essential, it is only incidental in football. Don't tell that to most of the fans though, who think kicking players is an absolutely legitimate tactic.

Ofcourse the flip side to this argument is that players like Alves and Busquets made the most of the fouls committed on them. But does it change the fact that those fouls were committed? Pepe's studs up tackle on Alves is the kind that ruins careers. I remember UEFA banning Michael Essien for two games for a similar tackle on Jamie Carragher in 2006, and I bet people would be quick to point out that those two games happened to be against Barcelona.

I could say a lot about Mourinho and his one-eyed view of incidents, but I'll leave that for another post. For now, I'm going to enjoy this piece of brilliance from Messi and I hope that whoever I marry lets me name my first-born Lionel.

Only a Question of Intent

Professional athletes the world over do what most of us wouldn't even dream of. They look extraordinarily good when the going is good but perhaps the greatest indicator of their commitment to excellence is how they react to being exposed of their shortcomings. On a macro level, it shows how far a team or an establishment is willing to do to achieve the desired goal. Indeed, it also shows how high they have set the bar for themselves.

The Germany v England match in the Round of 16 of the FIFA World Cup got me thinking about it. In many ways, the Indian cricket is similar to the England football. Both are under constant scrutiny, the players are among the most handsomely paid professionals of their sport, they have a rabid following, and both fall short on the big stage every single time. You could make a recent addition to the list - The Indian Premier League is supposedly the best cricket league in the world just as the Barclays Premier League is supposedly the best football league. I don't know how you define the best in this case but it seems people are increasingly going by the level of interest and the money involved. However, that's a discussion for another time.

The English have traditionally favoured a direct approach to football. There isn't as much focus on the technical aspects or encouragement for players to show their creativity. They have only one major international title to show for it and the team gets exposed at the world stage every two years. They have tried different coaches - English and Continental - for their international team and yet the best they have managed in the last 20 years is a semi-final appearance at the 1990 World Cup and another one at Euro 96. The players who shine so brightly in the uber-competitive Premiership always seem to stutter at the international stage.

A parallel could be drawn with Indian cricket. Those who have watched the side over the years will tell you it suffers from the same problems now as it did 20 years ago. There aren't enough quality fast bowlers, the fielding is abysmal, and there is a general lack of fitness awareness. It's fallacious to say current Indian cricketers are fitter and play better out-cricket than their their predecessors because the comparison has to be drawn with their present-day counterparts. Since the final of the 2003 World Cup, India has failed to progress to the knockout stage in 6 of the 7 ICC tournaments. The lone success came at the first ever Twenty20 World Cup in 2007. They are now under their third foreign coach and each of them has highlighted the need for a proper system that needs to be built from the grassroots level. To use a cliche, they have advocated the need for a bottoms-up approach rather than a top-down one.

Yet, nothing has been done about it. The batsmen who are coming through look hopeless on a wicket which has something for the bowlers. The fast bowlers lose their pace, control and fitness after a season or two. They all talk about the distractions that come with this life and yet none of them have been able to cope with it. The same excuses are brought out time and again - Our grounds aren't in good condition, we don't produce good pitches, selection is biased, and so on. The list is endless and you will hear former cricketers pay lip service to it everytime the team is exposed at the international level.

And yet, if you look around you can see establishments change their culture because they admit their follies and recognise the need to set things right if they are to be competitive. Germany crashed out of Euro 2000 and Euro 2004 at the group stage and while they made the finals of the 2002 World Cup, it seemed more like a case of them being there by default and they got found out by an inspired Brazil.

The Germans decided to set things right after exit from Euro 2004. What had always been a strong, efficient, meticulous German side was now being turned into one with flair and creativity. They embraced the possibility of being slightly vulnerable at the back by adding the threat of their players going forward. It can be seen from the fact that Germany are European Champions at every age-group and the average age of national squad is just 24. The early signs were seen in 2006 when Jurgen Klinsmann led them to a memorable performance at home where his team played attacking football throughout the tournament. Perhaps it was too early for them to go all the way and the Italians played a tactically brilliant game to eliminate them in the semifinal. 2008 saw the Germans go a step further only to be beaten by a Spain side that had been trying to win with the very approach Germany had embraced. Now the Germans have taken their customary place in the quarterfinal of the World Cup and should provide us a memorable contest when they take on the Maradona-inspired Argentina on Saturday.

There is a very obvious lesson that can be learnt from this German team. You could probably say the same about the England cricket team. These two have said goodbye to their past and embraced a different system simply because they have set their sights on being the best and are willing to do whatever it takes to achieve their goal. It's difficult to let go of something you have believed in for generations but it can be slightly easier if you are clear about your goal. The results may not come immediately either but if you have the right people in place they will stay focused on the path they have chosen.