Fanatic, Tipster at Sports Betting Day - Best Bookmakers and Betting Sites

Suarez's Sale Raises Issues for Liverpool

Fanatic — Thu, 08 Aug 2013 11:01:34 +0000

The signs suggest that Suarez will be leaving Liverpool in the summer. This transfer saga follows the trend that seems to happen on an annual basis now.
The player gives an interview in his native country which suggests he wants to leave, the player backtracks and claims that the quotes were mistranslated or taken out of context, bids then come in for rival clubs at a ridiculously low price which steadily go up and up until the player is sold. The main objective for Liverpool right now is to get as much money as possible for the Uruguayan – or is it?
Another important consideration is who to sign as a replacement for Suarez. When you have such a huge void appearing in the team it’s vital to identify the right target and be sure that he will fit into the team almost seamlessly. When you look at Liverpool’s forward line and see Daniel Sturridge, Iago Aspas and Fabio Borini it becomes clear that a replacement for Suarez will need to be bought to ensure that he won’t be missed.
In order to emphasise my point on the importance of replacing a key player, and why it is especially important for Liverpool, I’ll have a look at previous big money transfers and how the club dealt with the money that they were given. The Merseysiders don’t have a great track record in this department, so what they do with the £50,000,000+ they hope to receive for Suarez is crucially important.
Alonso and Aquilani
Following a second placed finish the season before, big things were expected of Liverpool in the 2009/10 season. The sale of Xabi Alonso to Real Madrid meant Liverpool had to find a replacement for the deep lying playmaker and they needed someone who could make an instant impact, given the key role that the departed Alonso had. In signing Alberto Aquilani, they made 3 mistakes. Firstly, they signed a player who was injured; and thus unable to immediately contribute to the team. Secondly, Aquilani had never played in England and needed time to adapt to the culture and playing style; again making him unable to make an immediate contribution. Thirdly, Aquilani was a different type of player to Alonso – he played further forward and wasn’t as comfortable coming deep to collect the ball. What Liverpool needed was a player who could perform a similar role to Alonso and could slot seamlessly into the team. Aquilani wasn’t that player. The result? A 7^th placed finish from the team that some pundits were backing to win the title.
Torres and Carroll
The transfer dealings of the 31^st January 2011 will go down in Premier League history. Almost out of the blue, Chelsea came in and snapped up Liverpool forward Fernando Torres for £50,000,000 – a British transfer record. Despite already having signed Luis Suarez in the transfer window, Liverpool felt the need to instantly replace Torres and spent £35,000,000 on Newcastle’s Andy Carroll. Not only was Carroll injured at the time (which begs the question why they didn’t wait until the summer to make the purchase) but he had only half a season of Premiership experience. Despite Liverpool’s insistence that they had been interested in Carroll for a while, the transfer came across as a kneejerk reaction and Carroll’s performances did nothing to dispel that image.
The cruel irony for Liverpool is that if you want to look at an example of how to deal with this properly, you just look at how Newcastle replaced Carroll.
Carroll and Ba
The club were put in a similar situation to Liverpool, their star striker was sold for huge money on deadline day, yet they reacted differently. They chose to bank the money and take the time to identify the correct player; signing Demba Ba in the summer. On a free, no less. You don’t have to spend most of your money to get the right player. His 16 goals in the 2011/12 season compared to Carroll’s 9 gives an indication of what benefits can be reaped from taking the time to make a signing.
Given the set style that Rodgers has Liverpool playing, it’s vital for any new signing to be able to play in the system that is in place. This may actually prove beneficial for the club, with a certain way of playing it could be easier to identify the right type of player. It’s clear that an Andy Carroll-type player has no place at the club and wouldn’t even be under consideration as a transfer target. The only question is who they could sign. Considering that they need a top quality player to replace Suarez and that they aren’t currently in the Champions League, the number of options available must be slim at best.
Arguably Spurs are currently having to deal with a similar issue. With Gareth Bale’s transfer to Real Madrid looking more and more inevitable they are faced with filling a huge gap in their team. Towards the latter end of last season especially, Spurs resembled a one man team; such was the influence Bale had. With the signings of Paulinho and Roberto Soldado, the team has definitely been strengthened over the summer but the questions remains if they need another player to ensure that the Welshman isn’t missed. In the wide areas the team seem very weak, especially since Bale moved more centrally, and a good quality wide player could just be what they need.
Despite the obvious importance in getting the maximum amount of money possible for a player when he is set to be transferred, it cannot be forgotten how important it is for a good replacement to be bought. Liverpool need only look at their recent transfer dealings to realise that for all the money that Suarez is worth, he may as well leave on a free if they reinvest all his transfer fee on a complete flop.
Follow Myself and Soccerisma on Twitter: FanaticNeutral and Soccerisma

The post Suarez's Sale Raises Issues for Liverpool appeared first on Sports Betting Day - Best Bookmakers and Betting Sites.

The Truth About Pepe Reina's Loan Move

Fanatic — Tue, 30 Jul 2013 10:44:35 +0000

It might seem a little strange, but allow me to explain. A very bizarre and seemingly unconnected series of transfer events began with Victor Valdes announcing his intention to leave Barcelona and continues with Pepe Reina moving on loan to Napoli.
I’ll give my account of this series of events and predict what will happen in the future, while giving a little afterthought.

Valdes to leave Barcelona
Midway through last season, Barcelona goalkeeper Victor Valdes announces his intention to leave the club. Let’s face it, he’s not had an awful lot of goalkeeping to do in the past five years or so; he’s probably celebrated more goals in that time than he has made saves. Without him giving a definite reason, it’s understandable why he might want to move; even if everyone might not do the same thing. He hasn’t established himself fully for the national team and many question his ability given the stature of the club that he plays for, playing for another team gives him a chance challenge himself and show his ability. This then leads on to.
Liverpool sign Mignolet
Rumours are circling as to who Barcelona will sign as their replacement. Of course a lot goes on behind the scenes which we don’t know about, and Liverpool’s signing of Sunderland’s Simon Mignolet is a strong indication that Reina has been selected as Barcelona’s replacement. Of course the issue is that Valdes isn’t leaving until his contract runs out, 12 months from now. If Reina is to be Valdes’ replacement, he is left in limbo for a season. If he joins Barcelona, he competes with Valdes for his final season. If he stays at Liverpool, he competes with Mignolet; Brendan Rodgers’ signing.
Liverpool’s decision to act and sign Mignolet now suggests that moving Reina on was in their minds regardless of Barcelona interest. High wages and average performances have left many at Liverpool questioning how necessary he is. It is highly possible that Reina was always set to leave Liverpool this summer, but the next development confirms his ultimate destination.
Reina joins Napoli on loan
If Liverpool have replaced Pepe Reina and no longer need him, why would they allow him to leave on loan? Sure, part of his wages are covered by Napoli and they may receive some sort of fee for him but it is nowhere near as financially viable as selling him outright. Rodgers may preach financial reasons for the necessity of the loan move, but don’t ignore the fact that Reina returns from his loan at the same time that Valdes leaves Barcelona and the Spanish club are needing a new goalkeeper. Spending a year in Italy with the man who initially brought him to Liverpool, Rafa Benitez, nicely works out – at least partially – for both Liverpool and Barcelona. I wouldn’t bet against an agreement already being made for the 2014 summer transfer window.
All this seems relatively routine. The only question which I would raise is…
Why would Barcelona want Pepe Reina?
As one of the biggest clubs in the world, Barcelona wouldn’t exactly be short of choices when it came for a search for a new player. With regards to replacing Victor Valdes probably the only goalkeepers unavailable are Iker Casillas, Manuel Neuer, Petr Cech, Joe Hart and David De Gea due to their clubs not wanting to sell and being able to say no to Barcelona. Taking these players out of the equation, is Reina the next best player? Many would say that he isn’t, at least Hugo Lloris and Thibaut Courtois have played better recently (and they are also younger). There is also an argument for many other goalkeepers being better options.
Possibly the only thing in Reina’s favour is that he spent time at Barcelona’s youth academy, La Maisa, before leaving in 2002. His style of play also favours Barcelona’s; distribution and ball playing are his strong points, yet it could be argued that other goalkeepers can also do this well. His former association with Barcelona cannot be ignored. Along with a new style of play, Pep Guardiola brought a focus on home grown players to Barcelona when he was installed as manager. From the ‘B’ team, Pedro and Sergio Busquets were brought in and became important players. Transfers were also focused on bringing back ex-academy players. At great expense, Cesc Fabregas, Gerard Pique and Jordi Alba have been purchased. Bringing Reina back seems a continuation of this.
Does this transfer policy compromise the quality of the team?
If Barcelona are pursuing a player that does not seem to be the best available option purely because he is a graduate of their youth academy; are they compromising the quality of their team? Or, conversely, are they putting the structure and style of the team ahead of the ability of individual players? Looking at their appointment of Gerardo Martino, it seems that big names and big reputations aren’t what the club prioritise. Barcelona are an almost unique club because of the style they employ; the players have to be suited to short passing and constant, clever movement.
Because their playing style is different, maybe their transfer policy has to be unique as well.
Follow Myself and Soccerisma on Twitter: FanaticNeutral and Soccerisma

The post The Truth About Pepe Reina's Loan Move appeared first on Sports Betting Day - Best Bookmakers and Betting Sites.

The Global Popularity of Football

Fanatic — Tue, 23 Jul 2013 04:01:38 +0000

Often described as being the ‘Global Game’ or as being a ‘Global Language’, football’s status as an international sport is without question. It’s easy to see why, both in its simplicity and complexity. However, its failure to catch on in every country remains a subject of personal curiosity.
Football is no doubt the easiest participation sport in the world; all you need is a football and a decent imagination to create two goalposts (trees, shoes, jumpers and sticks were my choices as a child). The game can be utilised to include any number of players and the rules seem simple enough to understand; kick it into the opposing goal. No membership fee and no expensive equipment required.
As you grow up from the kid playing on the park, the game can grow with you. Things like the offside law begin to matter, and tactical debates can start. Man marking or zonal? 4-4-2 or 4-5-1? False 9 or target man? As a child you were never interested in phases of play or the pros and cons of inverted wingers, yet the game remains equally enjoyable whether you take an interest in the details or not. One could even argue that football video games highlight this.
You could play the FIFA series where you play the matches and score the goals (you can even celebrate the goals now!) or you could play the Football Manager series, which subtracts from the playing experience but adds to the level of detail off the field. Such is the difference between the two that Football Manager doesn’t allow you to actually play the game; you sit (or stand in your matchday suit, depending on how much you get immersed into it) and watch a computer simulation of the tactics you created. Both games are hugely successful despite both focusing on different aspects of football. This is an example of the dual nature of football, the simplicity and complexity, and how it caters for all types; the casual players, the dedicated analysts and even the ones willing to sit and write about it!
Given that fact, it is unsurprising that the sport has taken off all over the world. Or at least most of it. In most areas of the world you’ll find football as the top sport, yet in other areas it doesn’t seem popular at all.
If you travel to South America or Africa, you’ll find football having an almost religious status. I myself was fortunate enough to go to a deprived area of Namibia in 2010 where I met school children up to the age of fourteen. They asked where I was from and from my response of ‘England’ they instantly associated it to Wayne Rooney and Steven Gerrard. When the children got any kind of break time from school they would run out onto a football pitch and fashion a ball from socks and t-shirts. When we introduced a brand new football that we had brought with us, the whole school was evacuated to a nearby field where a 70-a-side match broke out. It was clear that after their education, football was their life.
South America’s love of football is legendary, commonly associated to Brazil and the support they have. The image of the children playing on the narrow street is by no means just a stereotype; the variant sport, futsal, was borne out of this style of play. Football is also popular in Asia, a market that you can see being exploited by many teams touring that region of the globe in pre-season. There may be no domestic league worth shouting about in Asia, but the European teams are followed to the level of fanaticism similar to their more local supporters. Europe is another continent where football remains the most popular and participated sport. This just leaves North America and Oceania; here it is a different story.
Not only is football not a hugely popular sport in these regions, it seems to almost have a negative reputation; seen as a less manly sport than others. I’m not denying that you get football supporters in these regions, but I would safely state that the majority of sports fans are not football fans. In America you find that baseball, basketball, hockey and their own twisted brand of football are more popular than what they call ‘soccer’. It is true that football in America is growing, this is seen by more and more pre-season tours to America as well as this shocking statistic; average attendance crowds for the MLS (Major League Soccer) are higher than the average attendance in Brazil’s domestic league. This is partly explained by the nature of Brazilian support (you only go through the turnstiles if your team is winning) and there are clearly other ways to measure the popularity of a sport. Nevertheless, football is nowhere near the top sport in America. I can only wonder; why?
If you take a trip to Oceania, you will see cricket and rugby as the top sports. Particularly in New Zealand, where their national team, the All Blacks, have an almost demi-god status which even rivals the esteem that other nations hold their own football team in. I must also give a mention to India, where cricket is king.
In trying to find an explanation for this occurrence, I draw a blank. The only link I can possibly make between Australia, New Zealand, India and America is that they were possibly the most important colonies of the British Empire. This seems curious; surely the regions of the world most influenced by Britain would play the number one British sport. It seems to be rather the opposite, former colonies have taken on their own sports while the rest of the world adopts football as their national sport.
It’s easy to see how football can become so globally popular, with its ability to cater for all types. What remains a relative mystery is how the sport can cover most of the globe but miss out a few notable countries. Football in America is on the rise but I doubt it will rise to become anywhere near the greatest sport in the country. However, if you go to most regions of the world with a football in hand, you can instantly form bonds with strangers who have a different culture and language to your own. That, in my mind, is nothing short of magical.
Follow Myself and Soccerisma on Twitter: FanaticNeutral and Soccerisma

The post The Global Popularity of Football appeared first on Sports Betting Day - Best Bookmakers and Betting Sites.

The Importance of Planning the Next Manager

Fanatic — Thu, 11 Apr 2013 18:21:03 +0000

For most people with an interest in football and the Premiership, the relegation battle is great entertainment. With one unexpected result, a team can seemingly lift themselves to safety whereas a poor run of form can take you from mid-table security to fighting for your life.
As many as nine clubs can feasibly get relegated this season and the occupant of 18th place seems to change every week. The only people not enjoying this situation are the people affiliated with the involved clubs; especially the managers and the owners. With the threat of relegation looming, panic sets in and the people with the power feel the need to make a change. A change of managers is now commonplace in football, but doing it well and doing it badly can often be the difference between success and failure.
Take Brian McDermott at Reading, with relegation looming more and more as the team struggled to get out of the bottom three, the owner Anton Zingarevich decided to sack him. There were no particular problems in the dressing room, squad unity seemed high and the players were fully behind their boss. However the threat of relegation was too much and Zingarevich looked to have taken a leaf out of another Russian owner’s book; sack the manager. Similarly to Roman Abramovich, there was no successor lined up to take the job. McDermott wasn’t sacked because they believed there was a better candidate, it was the only action that the owner could take to change the fortunes of the team.
As I was keen to stress in an earlier article, the introduction of the transfer window has had an adverse effect on the tenure of managers. With there being times of the season where you cannot sign a new player, a change of manager is the only real option available to alter a poor run of form. I strongly believe that if there was no transfer window in place, Reading would be looking to sign more players rather take the action that they did.
However while this may be the case, there is no excuse for not having another manager lined up to take the job. With only a handful of games to go until the end of the season you are left with no margin for error; having the coaches run training sessions with no idea of a managers tactics or preferred playing style does not benefit for the team at all. With fifteen days between the sacking of a manager and the hiring of a replacement, Reading did themselves no favours at all. They also suffered from not having a high profile, successful manager available. If they had prepared properly, they could have approached many managers and asked if they were interested in the job, while McDermott was still their manager.
By doing this, they would have discovered that there are few options available, or they would have realised that there are no better managers available and thus the best option is to stick with the current man. By not doing this, they were left without a manager and without a possible replacement. Thus, they made what could be described as a ‘sideways’ appointment in Nigel Adkins; a manager with no greater credentials than McDermott and viewed as at an equal level. Without preparing for the departure of their manager, Reading were forced to wait for a successor; who turned out to be no better than the man he was replacing!
Ironically if you want an example of how a change of manager is executed properly, you have to look at Adkins’ sacking at Southampton. He was sacked and replaced by Mauricio Pochettino on the same day; the club had clearly done their work on identifying a replacement and having him ready to take over as soon as he was needed. The result? Well despite the great amount of criticism that came Southampton’s way for replacing the man who brought them successive promotions with someone who couldn’t even speak English, their fortunes have improved.
When Adkins was sacked, Southampton sat 15^th in the table; they’re now 11^th. This is what happens when you properly identify a replacement, take time to pick the right person and execute the change of managers quickly; your fortunes improve. If you sack a manager without any idea of a replacement, you waste time and pick a candidate that isn’t an improvement. I see it as no coincidence that Southampton look like surviving while Reading appear doomed to relegation.
If only Reading had looked at another club in recent memory that had sacked a successful and popular manager in the latter stages of the season without any plan for a replacement. In February last year, Wolverhampton Wanderers sacked Mick McCarthy. Without another manager to come in and take over, they promoted the assistant coach eleven days later. The result? Instability and a general failure; they were relegated and currently sit 20^th in the Championship, facing the great possibility of back-to-back relegations.
Why is it that we’re seeing these managerial changes more and more? We have had the transfer window for over a decade now, but the sacking of managers is at an all-time high. The other factor seems to be money. With the Premiership getting greater and greater TV deals, staying in the league and avoiding relegation is becoming a matter of tens of millions of pounds; while relegation brings parachute payments they don’t measure up to the cash received for staying in the league. The possibility of losing this money could send the owners into a panic and force them into making the decisions that have been made recently. Love it or hate it, it’s likely that this policy is here to stay.
This article wasn’t intended to criticise clubs for changing managers this late in the season, my intention is to point out that some clubs don’t plan a replacement when they sack their managers; Reading and Wolves being the best recent examples. When this happens, the result on the team is a negative one; worse performances and thus relegation occurs. However when the change is planned properly, when the next manager is well scouted and sufficient thought has been given to who he will be, the club can benefit and can be lifted away from danger. Southampton certainly look better off with Pochettino than they did with Adkins. As unethical and harsh as it may sound, decide upon your new manager before sacking the current one.
Follow Myself and Soccerisma on Twitter: FanaticNeutral and Soccerisma

The post The Importance of Planning the Next Manager appeared first on Sports Betting Day - Best Bookmakers and Betting Sites.

The Case For Pre-Qualification

Fanatic — Mon, 25 Mar 2013 10:02:10 +0000

As with every England international game, an old debated issue comes back to life for a few days. Most of the time, an England game results in the media discussing how England’s opponents have formed such a fantastic infrastructure and how England don’t have such a system for developing players.
Some of the time, the issue to talk about is how few British players feature in the top English teams. This time the articles are asking if you could get a more pointless game than England v San Marino. The idea of a pre-qualification tournament for the minnows of international football is once again being discussed, its intention to be to creat more competitive games and less poorly disguised training sessions. Personally I am an advocate of its inclusion, however unlike the majority of opinion which seems to be ‘I think its best so it should happen’, I appreciate that other people have an opinion. What do the players think? What do the minnows think? Is it logistically possible?
For the football fans that sit and watch these kinds of international games, part-timers against some of the best in the world, the game doesn’t seem to be much of an entertaining experience. The result isn’t in doubt, the nature of the game can already be predicted before kick-off and, for me the worst of all football crimes, a goal is greeting with nothing more than an ‘about time!’ mentality. Clearly, fans don’t enjoy these games. With this in mind, I would like to ask; does anyone enjoy these games?
The Players – The Top Level
There are two schools of thought on this one. The most common idea is that the game is an inconvenience, a waste of time. Not to mention the risk of injury. Sure, the game isn’t played at anywhere near their usual intensity, but it’s another game in an already long season. The other school of thought is that it’s a chance to get some goals and generally put in a good performance. If you haven’t been playing too well lately, you can enjoy a good game and maybe play your way back into form. The only comment that I have heard on this subject is from Robbie Savage, a pundit I like for his honesty. When he played for Wales against San Marino he admitted that the mentality before the game was ‘let’s get this over and done with’ and after the game the conversation in the dressing room was ‘how bad are they?’. Clearly then, the established names don’t enjoy going to a foreign country to win a game without having to put any effort in.
The Players – The Minnows
I think the brutally honest question to ask is, would you share a football pitch with some of the world’s best players for 90 minutes in the knowledge that you would be heavily beaten? For me, I’d take that chance any day of the week and it’s hard to see the San Marino players having a different opinion for when they played England. Of course there’s the chance that the feeling would wear thin on them, I’d also doubt that they enjoy the actual experience while it’s happening. But do they gain anything from it, do they become better players as a result? I would doubt that there is much to take from those games, apart from a realisation of how good the better players really are. Do they enjoy the games? I might be inclined to say yes.
The Nations
San Marino has a population of just over 30,000. The Faroe Islands have 45,000. Andorra has 85,000. These are populations that are smaller than most towns, and would barely fill the larger football stadiums. For a population that small, the economy would be equally proportioned. Having famous international teams come and visit, as well as the thousands of fans that follow and the media circus that always tags along provides a noticeable boost for tourism and thus the economy. As for the nation of the international ‘giant’, the game barely registers as important. If anything the game is an inconvenience as it is a struggle to sell tickets for the home match.
Just looking at these factors reveals the honest truth about the situation regarding ‘David v Goliath’ matches; for the larger team the game is an inconvenience, for the minnows the game is highly sought after. However, the reasons behind this are personal and economical rather than professional; I would question if they become better players as a result of the games. For this reason I would argue that the games are indeed meaningless. However these nations should be allowed a chance to compete for World Cup or European Cup qualification, so can something be done? I’d like to explore the much debated alternative; pre-qualification.
Pre-Qualification
The Champions League and FA Cup have a pre-qualification phase, that is to say that teams enter the competition at different stages, so why can’t international football have the same? The problem with this is how you would categorise teams, the aforementioned competitions can refer to leagues to determine a system where certain teams join and others don’t (for example, the top 3 in the Premiership go straight to the Champions League group phase, 4^th place has to join at the final qualification stage). How do you judge which international teams have to pre-qualify? The FIFA rankings?! We always discuss how much of a farce that is, so to suddenly use it as a barometer would be nonsensical.
You must also ask, when would teams pre-qualify? England were knocked out of Euro 2012 by Italy and began their World Cup qualification campaign barely two and a half months later. Is there time to stage a qualification tournament in this time, for it would be ridiculous to start qualification rounds for a World Cup while the European Championship is yet to be played. Moreover, if you were to ask a group of minnows to compete between each other for places in the usual qualifying stage; what does a team do if they are knocked out? Wait for another two years before the brief pre-qualification campaign begins again?
It seems that in order for the system to remain fair the smaller teams would have to stretch out their pre-qualification system over months and years, and thus have it run alongside the usual qualification system. If this kind of system is to be implemented, and I believe it should, a new line of thinking should be developed. My proposition is this, a separate qualification system for much smaller international teams which runs alongside the current qualification system, let’s say the teams that finish 5^th and 6^th in the current system.
The winners of this new group are allowed to enter the main qualification system at the play-off phase, and are ‘promoted’ for when the next qualification phase comes about. To balance this, the side from the regular qualification phase with the lowest points tally are ‘relegated’ to the pre-qualification. You may argue the number of teams that are competing, or relegated and promoted, but what this system allows is fewer games which are trivial and, frankly, boring and gives the lesser teams more games that they have a chance of winning. Everyone is a winner, right?
However some cynics may argue why there is a need to change the system, an argument that I can fully understand. After all, the current qualification system allows the best teams to progress, so the main competition that occurs in the summer is competitive and entertaining. Tampering with this process may have a negative result on the main competition, less of the bigger teams qualify and a few minnows actually qualify. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it?
Follow Myself and Soccerisma on Twitter: FanaticNeutral and Soccerisma

The post The Case For Pre-Qualification appeared first on Sports Betting Day - Best Bookmakers and Betting Sites.

Jack Wilshere – Future Captain, Leader, Legend?

Fanatic — Sun, 17 Feb 2013 09:28:29 +0000

Pep Guardiola once famously said that Jack Wilshere was ‘lucky’ because there are many players ‘like him’ in the Barcelona ‘B’ team. This has rather been taken out of context; Guardiola also said he was ‘excellent’ and a ‘top player’ so he was not putting Wilshere down as much as people may have thought.
However Guardiola is still mistaken, while his summation of Wilshere is correct, there are very few players like him. And if there are players like him, they certainly aren’t in the Barcelona ‘B’ team; they are lifting Champions League trophies or immortalised in statue form.
Just how good is this guy, and what does he represent for the English national team? I will now try and explain.
Guardiola’s comments came before Barcelona defeated Arsenal 3-1 at the Camp Nou in March 2011. In the eyes of the Daily Mail, Wilshere ‘stood up to the challenge’ and was only out-performed by Messi, Xavi and Iniesta. Not bad for a 19-year old who was supposedly similar to plenty of others in the opposing team’s academy. What was remarkable about this performance was that it was in a team that was a man down and was ultimately outplayed. Most youngsters give incredible performances when their team is also playing well, Rooney aged 18 against Fenerbahce and Oxlade-Chamberlain aged 18 against AC Milan spring to mind. For me, the sign of real talent is if it shines when others around them falter.
His injury must also not be forgotten, being out for over a year and coming back as if you never left is incredible. You only need to look at the unfortunate demise of Michael Johnson to see how multiple long-term injuries can affect a young player. Just making it back takes incredible mental strength; Wilshere has shown, in his comeback, that he has it in abundance.
Attention has recently fallen upon Wilshere after his man-of-the-match performance against Brazil at Wembley. Never failing to be the first on the bandwagon, the media have started to draw comparisons with Gascoigne. Hopefully the comparisons stop with his ability on the pitch. I would, however, like to draw different comparisons; moving away from magicians like Gascoigne and introducing leaders and battlers.
The voices from the television and the radio and the words in the newspapers point to Wilshere’s upper body strength and his ability to get away from players. What stood out for me was watching 10-man Arsenal against Man City at home, where a player was shouting at his team mates and directing them where to go in an effort to release the pressure they were under. Who was that player? Was it the captain, Vermaelen, or the experienced German international Mertesacker? No, it was the youngest player on the team, Jack Wilshere. Also, who was it who got in the face of Michael Owen when he threw a pathetic punch at Mikel Arteta? You guessed it. Those are example of captain material, in my mind.
Some may not believe that giving Wilshere the captaincy would be best, that he may struggle with the responsibility, but I have never seen him back down from anything or be even slightly fazed by any situation. Tony Adams was given the Arsenal captaincy at 21, Wilshere’s age, and he now stands alongside Thierry Henry and Herbert Chapman in statue form outside the Emirates. For some players, giving them the captaincy early works wonders on them.
Comparisons have been made to Cesc Fabregas and how he was given the armband aged 23; he supposedly struggled with the added responsibility. However Fabregas doesn’t strike me as a natural born leader, I see Wilshere as the embodiment of the phrase. A more apt comparison would be Steven Gerrard, who also became captain at the age of 23. Gerrard thrived with the added responsibility and remains a great success to this day. Would Wilshere make a good captain? In my mind, definitely. I also see his leadership qualities eventually taking him to captaining his country, Joe Hart is the only long-term competitor I can think of. This possibility is just one of many things to be excited about when it comes to the future of the national team.
I’m apprehensive about getting too excited about England, considering that the ‘golden generation’ has just passed with no trophies or achievements to their name. However I am more optimistic than I was a few years ago, quite a few players have burst onto the scene that look like great prospects. Alongside Wilshere, Tom Cleverly looks to be an exciting prospect who mixes great talent with the ability to battle and get stuck in when needed. Chamberlain, Theo Walcott and Danny Welbeck have shown that they can perform at a top level and unproven talents such as Raheem Sterling and Wilfried Zaha look to have what it takes to reach the very top. Let’s also not ignore Liverpool’s Jordan Henderson and Jonjo Shelvey. Further back in defence, Phil Jones and Chris Smalling provide a potential defensive partnership, although I would hold back judgement until they play more for the national team; playing for Man United would on the whole be very comfortable.
Most of the players mentioned have yet to take on an important role for their clubs, so I’m keen to stress that the potential is there, the finished product is not yet available to see. Because of this I would downplay any speculation of a new ‘golden generation’ whilst secretly being rather excited about the future of England. I believe these players would start to play a more important role in the national team after the 2014 World Cup. With a well-defined plan, the FA could capitalise on this situation and strive to make these players the best they can be.
I have little doubt that if Arsenal remain where they are in the league for years to come, the calls will eventually come for Wilshere to move to a bigger club; similar to the current situation with Gareth Bale. However, at Arsenal or not I can see Wilshere going on to become one of the greats of English football, possibly world football. He also has the leadership qualities to one day lead out a new generation of the English national team. What a player, and what a future.
Follow Myself and Soccerisma on Twitter: FanaticNeutral and Soccerisma

The post Jack Wilshere – Future Captain, Leader, Legend? appeared first on Sports Betting Day - Best Bookmakers and Betting Sites.

The Short Tenures of Managers

Fanatic — Wed, 06 Feb 2013 17:28:38 +0000

Just why do managers have such short tenures in charge these days? Nowadays managers can consider themselves lucky to have stayed in a job for over a year and absurdities are happening such as Nottingham Forest parting company with Alex McLeish and searching for their fourth manager since July.
Fans are getting as equally impatient as their owners are; there were calls for Brendan Rodgers to be sacked after his first league game in charge of Liverpool, a 3-0 away defeat to West Brom.
I have my own personal theory for this, I will explore that theory and look at other possible reasons. Finally a conclusion must be made; will it stay like this forever?
The first thing to do would be to emphasise that not all clubs fire managers at the drop of a hat, but most do. The current fifth longest serving manager in the Premiership today is Roberto Martinez, who was appointed in June 2009; under 4 years ago. Nine current Premiership managers have been in their current job for less than a year. In Serie A it is even worse, since the end of last season 18 managers have left their job. In La Liga 10 clubs currently have different managers to the ones that they ended last season with and the Championship is just as bad, 17 current managers have had their job for less than a year. In fact in the whole of the football league, 52% of managers have been in their job for less than 365 days (including the 3 clubs with vacancies).
Sir Alex Ferguson, Arsene Wenger, David Moyes and John Still of Dagenham and Redbridge remain exceptions to the rule but a worrying trend is arriving; clubs don’t really stick with their managers. Why is this?
The transfer window?
My personal theory on this subject is that the introduction of a transfer window has contributed to the short tenures of managers. Think of it this way, if a club has started the season disastrously and sits bottom of the league then they feel that they must do something to get the team playing well. However the transfer window is months away and they do not wish to wait until January at which point they may still be bottom and could even be cut adrift from the other clubs. They want to act now. The only option available is to change the coaching staff and changing the manager is likely to have the biggest effect. Maybe 15 years ago the club would have looked at bringing in a new player but now it seems that sacking the manager is the only option they have.
I’m sure that you’re also familiar with the saying ‘the transfer window is coming up’ which crops up whenever a managers future is being discussed around December. The idea that a new manager needs to have a full transfer window to bring in the players that he wants is common, and must also play on the minds of the directors and owners of clubs. A manager may find himself sacked in order to give his replacement time to make transfers whereas he could have been given a few extra months to turn the clubs fortunes around.
Curious to find evidence supporting or rejecting this theory, I looked at all 7 clubs which have been in the Premiership since it began, Arsenal, Villa, Chelsea, Everton, Liverpool, Man United and Spurs in case you were wondering. All of these clubs would have been in the Premiership for a decade with the transfer window, and a decade without the transfer window. By looking at their number of managerial changes either side of 2002/3, we can see if this theory holds true; if the theory is correct then clubs will have had more managerial changes during the era of the transfer window than before.
The results are relatively vague. Arsenal have had more managerial changes (2) before the introduction of the transfer window than after it (0) while Everton have also (6 changes before and 0 after). Villa, Chelsea and Liverpool are the opposite (3 and 5, 5 and 8, 2 and 6 respectively) while Spurs and United are equal on either side (5 each for Spurs, while United have had a big fat zero). It must be noted that 3 of these clubs contain the 3 longest serving managers in the football league, so this skews the result slightly but we can see a general trend, even if it is not conformed to by all clubs. So what can be said about the transfer window and its effect on the duration of a manager’s tenure? I’ll let you to draw your own conclusions.
The hands-on owner
Another reason that may be pointed to is the type of owners that now sit in the posh boxes at grounds (or don’t appear in the ground at all in some cases). A stereotype that has emerged is one of a wealthy individual that takes over a club with the intention of making it his plaything. With the English leagues in mind, Chelsea and QPR are prime examples of this. Because of this mentality, the owner will happily remove a manager from his position if he is not satisfied with him. Those who watched ‘The Four Year Plan’ documentary on QPR may remember Flavio Briatore sending a message down to the touchline for a certain player to be substituted on, amid multiple exclamations of the manager being an ‘idiot’.
This style of ownership is clearly going to have an adverse effect on managers and would only reduce their time at each club. While having these kinds of owners could be considered detrimental to the game, they do bring a large amount of money which brings the team success. You can see this with Chelsea; despite the number of managers they’ve over the years of Roman Abramovich’s ownership they experienced their most successful ever period. Even now the Chelsea fans are wary of criticising Roman, instead choosing the current manager, Rafa Benitez, as the subject of the boos.
The money
Alternatively you may point to the increasing amount of money in the game and the knock-on effect of receiving, or not receiving, the riches on offer. This in particular means either achieving promotion or European football or avoiding relegation. Very few teams can safely say that they are secure in a certain position and aren’t at risk of dropping out of their current position. As a result, the pressures on managers to achieve their aims are higher than ever due to the severe financial consequences if they fail. A perfect example would be the top 4 in the Premiership, previously an exclusive club but now challenged by two other clubs to make six teams competing fiercely for four positions.
I cannot think of any way to prove this point in terms of statistics, yet I still think it does have an effect. More than any other league, the Championship is the one which has become more and more congested in terms of ability. A few teams could justifiably claim that they are both hanging over the drop zone and sitting a few points away from the play offs, the margin for error is minimal and managers do seem to suffer from it.
The increased pressure
If there is increased pressure on the managers, could it be forcing them to walk away? Two examples which sprung up at me were Pep Guardiola and Jose Mourinho. At Barcelona and Chelsea respectively, both had overseen the best period in the clubs history yet they walked away from it; Pep claiming tiredness and Jose because of his relationship with Abramovich. In looking at a few statistics, I was intrigued by what I found. What I found stood out the most in Spain, where 4 of the 10 managers who had left since the end of last season had left because their contracts had expired. Italy and England also saw managers resign; they jumped instead of being pushed. While I thought it was worth raising as a point, it seems to count for only a tiny minority. While having a contract expired doesn’t necessarily mean that the manager chose to leave, the case of Pep shows that the increased pressure that I have mentioned earlier can impact upon a manager on a personal level.
What hope is there?
Finally the question must be asked, is this how football will be from now on? Will short-term managerial reigns be the norm or is there another option? With money becoming more and more influential and the need for promotion or European qualification becoming more and more paramount it would be hard to say that there is, however I have another league to mention.
While Serie A has overseen 18 managerial changes since the end of last season, the Bundesliga has seen 5, and one of those was because the manager was appointed to another job, one was also a resignation. Could we, once again, look to the Germans to see how it should be done? Already we acknowledge their superior youth development, financial control and stadiums yet we could possibly add handling of managers to that list as well.
Personally I believe all factors that I have mentioned contribute to the situation that we find ourselves in now. While I do believe that the transfer window has had an impact, I might argue that the hands-on owners have had the biggest impact, closely followed by the increased money and pressure. One thing seems to be for sure, the futures Deutsch.
Follow Myself and Soccerisma on Twitter: FanaticNeutral and Soccerisma

The post The Short Tenures of Managers appeared first on Sports Betting Day - Best Bookmakers and Betting Sites.

How good are (were) the Old Firm teams?

Fanatic — Mon, 04 Feb 2013 16:34:19 +0000

I’ve always been curious about the debate concerning if Celtic or Rangers should be allowed to join the English leagues. Obviously this debate has died down lately with the collapse of Rangers but I remain interested to know exactly what level the Scottish league is at compared to the one south of the border.
The collapse of Rangers has resulted in a large number of their players leaving and signing for other clubs; if we examine which clubs they have joined could we ascertain how good the team was as a whole? We can also look at recent transfers from the Old Firm and see how well they did in England, Kris Boyd, Danny Wilson, Nikica Jelavic and Ki Sung-Yueng all come to mind. Hopefully looking at all this will serve to answer the question: how good are (were) the Old Firm teams?
You’d like to think that Scottish and English football are very similar, as opposed to, say, Spanish football which is clearly more technical and less physical. Thus, the cultural adaption when transferring from a Scottish team to an English team should be marginal, if not negligible. If a player moves from Scotland to England they do not have to learn a new language, they do not have to adapt to a massively different style of play. Because of this there should be less transfers that fail due to the player not adapting to the cultural change; this happens a lot when players move to the English leagues and so makes it harder to compare the two leagues in terms of ability. After all, how can you compare the difference between two leagues if the culture change is what determines if a player succeeds or not? Because of the similarities between English and Scottish football, you can say that if a player fails to succeed when crossing the border it is a result of not having the required ability to perform in that team/division, therefore making his original team/division weaker than his new one.
So, I’ll give a quick run through of a few recent transfers and then look at the players that left Rangers in the summer.
Kris Boyd – Rangers to Middlesbrough – July 2010
Boyd left Rangers as the highest scorer in Scottish Premier League history with 164 goals and joined a Championship club, which may say everything that you need to know. However that’s not it, he was sold to Eskişehirspor the following summer after a short loan spell at Nottingham Forest. What else can you say apart from that he was a complete flop? Prolific goalscorer in Scotland, couldn’t make it in England’s second division.
Nikica Jelavic – Rangers to Everton – January 2012
This is the case of another prolific striker leaving Rangers for England, however Jelavic has seemed to be a success in the Premiership. 18 goals in 43 games for Everton isn’t a bad tally. He seems to have made it at one of the better teams in English football, a sign that the Old Firm have good players after all?
Danny Wilson – Rangers to Liverpool – July 2010
Wilson left Rangers with a host of personal honours; Scottish FWA Young Player of the Year award, Scottish PFA Young Player of the Year award and he was also declared the Rangers Young Player of the Year. He had begun to cement his place in the first team at Rangers yet has struggled to break through at Liverpool, with other defenders like Andre Wisdom, Jack Robinson, Martin Kelly and Jon Flanagan being promoted to the senior squad instead of himself. He is currently on loan at Hearts.
Ki Sung-Yueng – Celtic to Swansea – August 2012
The first signing from Celtic to be mentioned. This talented midfielder has started his career well in England (sort of, we’ll say Swansea is in England for now), making 28 appearances so far. He has made himself an important part of the Swansea team, a team which you could accurately describe as a mid-table team.
Now these players were some of the most talented players in their respective squads so it is not an indication of how good the entire team is, although we can assert the upper limit of an Old Firm team’s ability. If Ki Sung-Yueng and Jelavic can be successes at good Premiership teams, then we can say for sure that this is the best that Celtic or Rangers could achieve if they played in the English leagues. Challenging for Europe would be out of the question.
Now, a quick look at a few players who left Rangers over the summer and their statistics for this season. These players all featured in the squad for their final game of last season, a 4-0 victory over St. Johnstone in May.
Allan McGregor – Besiktas – 17 appearances
Steven Whittaker – Norwich – 9 appearances 1 goal
Kirk Broadfoot – Blackpool – 12 appearances 1 goal
Maurice Edu – Bursaspor (on loan from Stoke) – 1 appearance for both
Sone Aluko – Hull – 23 appearances 8 goals
Rhys McCabe – Sheffield Wednesday – 18 appearances 1 goal
Alejandro Bedoya – Helsingborg – 9 appearances 1 goal (now a free agent)
David Healy – Bury – 8 appearances 1 goal
Now I don’t intend to hide from the fact that many different factors determine how well a player performs at a new club, however I believe that looking at the clubs that ex-Rangers players have joined does give a rough outline of how good the team could have been. While you may point to Celtic’s Champions League campaign which is still on-going despite the group stages being over, a usual stopping point for Scottish teams, it seems that this is a result of incredible overachievement rather than natural ability. I don’t intend to take anything away from their fantastic European run, especially the victory over Barcelona, I just wish to state my belief that it is an anomaly in a series of pieces of evidence which point to the Old Firm being level with a good Championship club.
This is of course only my opinion, but the list above contains quite a few Championship clubs. Yes a few players have left the Old Firm and become good Premiership players, Steven Whittaker, Jelavic and Ki Sung-Yueng in particular. However these represent the tip of the iceberg, the best to come out of Scotland, and are a step above the other players in the Celtic and Rangers teams. I used to be of the belief that Celtic and Rangers could compete for the Premiership if they were allowed into the English leagues.
After thinking about the topic and researching it I have come to the conclusion that if Celtic (and the Rangers of last season) were to start playing in England they could achieve a mid-table finish in the Premiership at an absolute maximum. For me, the higher reaches of the Championship or the bottom of the Premiership is where I see them realistically. I’m not forgetting Celtics Champions League run when I reach this conclusion. After all, Middlesbrough and Fulham are average teams to also have had success in Europe; sometimes some teams just overachieve.
Follow Myself and Soccerisma on Twitter: FanaticNeutral and Soccerisma

The post How good are (were) the Old Firm teams? appeared first on Sports Betting Day - Best Bookmakers and Betting Sites.

Possession per Shot on Target

Fanatic — Sun, 20 Jan 2013 08:49:52 +0000

I’ve always had an obsession with statistics. Do you pay attention to the statistics bar which runs across your screen during post-match interviews on Match of the Day? I do. Do you have a look at the ‘Match Facts’ after a game of FIFA? I do.
I love to look at the statistics to judge the success of teams in matches. But I’m not stupid, I know that stats don’t tell you everything. That forms part of my intrigue; you can get stats for virtually everything that happens in a game but they can still miss something. If you look through my previous articles you may notice me refer to stats a lot, but I also raise the point that there isn’t a statistic for ‘best player’ when writing if Lionel Messi could ever be called the greatest of all time. How about a statistic for the greatest team? I wonder if it can exist, but I have thought up a statistic that interested me enough to do some research into it; the possession-per-shot-on-target.
First, I’ll try and explain why I don’t think some other stats are indicators of which team is the best – so you can maybe understand where I’m coming from.
Win percentage: The team which wins the most is the best, yes? Well, who are they playing? We don’t know by looking at this stat. If a team has a win percentage of 73% we don’t know if they’re Barcelona or a Sunday League team, and you can’t call a Sunday League team the best in the world. The strength of the league also comes into question here.
Possession: If you’re looking at this stat and judging teams by it, you’re assuming that every team values possession of the ball. And they don’t. Not every team are Barcelona, some are like Stoke and look to play a direct ball as soon as they can. I’m not criticising, every team has their style and that’s what makes the game what it is. This makes me uneasy with judging by single statistics like this.
Territory: A relatively new statistic and one that I admittedly don’t use as much as the others. It’s an interesting stat that it always worth looking at but doesn’t tell the story of the game. If a team has most of their possession inside their own half, is it because the opposition are pushing them back or is it because they are holding onto a lead? We don’t know, and it’s important because one event would see them as the weaker team whereas the other would be the result of them being the dominant team.
Now, my statistic, the possession-per-shot-on-target. I’ll shorten it to P/SoT from now on. What I like about this stat is that it measures a team’s effective possession; it asks how usefully they use the ball. It’s calculated simply, you divide a team’s possession by the number of shots on target that they had in that game. Let’s say a team has 50% possession and has 5 shots on target, the P/SoT is 10. Using this as a yardstick let’s now say that the team instead has 2 shots on target (a poorer effort), this means the P/SoT is now 25. One more change, the team instead has 40% possession with 5 shots on target (same number of shots but with less possession); the P/SoT is 8. So the lower the P/SoT, the more efficient the team has been. The number is how much possession they have for each shot on target that they have.
So what does measuring the effective possession mean? Well a team can dominate possession and play most of the game in the opposition half and have 6 shots on target, ending the game with 60% possession. Now the opposition have had to play on the counter attack and have managed 4 shots on target, with 40% possession. Both teams have a P/SoT of 10; they have used the ball equally as well as each other. If we were using possession or territory to judge how good a team is, we would conclude that the first team is the best. Not so. Make sense? I hope so.
Now I had to apply this stat to many different teams, five in total. First I used both Manchester Clubs. At the time of researching, United were top of the table so should have had the lower P/SoT. In the first 20 games of the Premiership, United averaged 8.75 shots on target and 54.8% possession: a P/SoT of 6.26. Their best score came in the 1-1 draw with Swansea, they had 54% possession but a phenomenal 16 shots on target: P/SoT is 3.38. This was their best game in terms of effective possession but they could only draw the game. Interesting.
City now. They had an average of 9.2 shots on target per game and 54.8% possession (the same as United). Their P/SoT was 5.98. The difference is marginal between the two clubs, but the side 2^nd in the league had the more effective possession. A sign that they’re better or a flaw in the validity of the statistic? Draw your own conclusions. City’s best score came in the 3-0 home win against Sunderland; 16 shots on target with 61% possession this a P/SoT of 3.81.
Next I looked at both Liverpool and Stoke; two teams in a similar league position but also with contrasting styles. However Liverpool had a far superior P/SoT with 5.82 compared to Stokes 10.23. Is this unfair on Stoke? Or does it show that Liverpool aren’t nearly efficient enough with their conversion of chances? It’s hard to say, and this harms the statistic – we don’t know the context. Maybe if we could compare the P/SoT of all the other Premiership teams then we would know, but alas the author does not have the patience to do so! Considering that Liverpool’s score is lower than even the Manchester clubs, we must conclude that their conversion rate is shockingly low (but also that they are actually a very good team).
I wonder, are you now thinking about Barcelona? If this statistic tells us the best team in the world, then what is the score for the best team in the world?! Well, I’ll just give you the number. 9.36. Yes, Barcelona have possession stats that go off the scale (66.06% on average, but a record high of 77%) but Liverpool, City and United all have more shots on target than them. They managed only 3 shots on target against Zaragoza, they also scored 3 goals, and had 63% possession.
I feel that this introduces the single problem with my effective possession statistic, it assumes that teams are always trying to score. If a team is two or three goals up in a game, it is highly likely that they would retain possession to try and kill the game off, slow the tempo and reduce the atmosphere. They are keeping the ball but not taking any shots, so their P/SoT will rise and rise. This may be the case with Barcelona. Again, context is needed; the team must be trying to score in order for this stat to apply.
So there we have it, the possession-per-shot-on-target. I think the scores are interesting and I find it an intriguing concept. However I don’t think that it’s the ideal stat to measure how good a team is, my mind will keep on searching for another one. If you ever wonder just how well a team has performed, divide their possession by their shots on target: 6 is an average for a top team.
Just as a leaving thought, I came across an extraordinary game in my research. Stoke 2 – 0 Swansea. Yes, I said extraordinary. Swansea possession: 74%. Shots on target: 0. Stoke managed 5 shots on target with only 26% possession.
Stats are accurate up to 31^st December 2012
Stats for Liverpool, Manchester United, Manchester City and Stoke came from bbc.co.uk/football
Stats for Barcelona came from fcbarcelona.com
Follow Myself and Soccerisma on Twitter: FanaticNeutral and Soccerisma

The post Possession per Shot on Target appeared first on Sports Betting Day - Best Bookmakers and Betting Sites.

What Now For Danny Welbeck

Fanatic — Tue, 01 Jan 2013 08:40:10 +0000

In an earlier article about the future surrounding Robin van Persie, I stated my belief that he would join Manchester United but also questioned if this would hinder the development of Danny Welbeck, who would undoubtedly get less game time as a result. I think I have also been justified in this respect; Welbeck has started much fewer matches and has scored fewer goals as a result.
Welbeck played in 39 games for Manchester United last season, fresh from a loan spell at Sunderland the season before where he played 28 games. It seemed to many that he had developed as a player and was now an integrated component of the United team; at the age of 21 the future looked bright. However United finished 2^nd in the league with Welbeck partnering Wayne Rooney, goal difference being the statistic that came back to hurt them.
In reality it wasn’t surprising that Sir Alex Ferguson set his sights on a new forward, with van Persie available for transfer and Welbeck scoring only 9 league goals last season it’s perfectly understandable why van Persie came in at the expense of the England forward.
As was expected, Ferguson is thoroughly justified in his decision to make a move for the aging Dutch forward. He has already scored 14 league goals this season, 5 more than Welbeck managed in the whole of last season. Welbeck has suffered as a result. United have played 20 games in the Premiership this season, Welbeck has started 7 of them. He seems to be going through a transition from being a regular in the first team to becoming a squad member. As he enters his early twenties, a crucial time for his development, he finds his game time restricted and must have a look at where his career is going. His England career is still going strong, he started games in the European Championships and has played in 5 games this season, scoring 3 times. If he wants to keep his place in the England team, something may have to change. Fast.
Something that Fabio Capello preached during his time as England manager was that if a player wants to be selected for their national team, they must first be a regular for their club team. It may be a different manager now, but Roy Hodgson must adopt the same principles; being a regular for your team gives you match fitness and an increased sharpness compared to bench-warmers. It is also part of the process of proving that you are good enough to play for your country.
Hodgson has definitely taken a liking to Welbeck and seems to rate him highly, but how long will this last? Especially when you consider how well Jermaine Defoe has been performing this season and how he has made his case for England selection, you must say that if England had a competitive match in a few weeks it would be Defoe that would start the game. Andy Carroll is also a first choice for West Ham, when he is fit, so a run of good performances from him would surely bring him back into contention. Welbeck is standing still right now, he needs to move forwards. What options does he have available to him right now in his career?

At the age of 29, van Persie is not getting younger. He may be at the peak of his career now but he can surely only continue in his current form for another 2 or 3 years at most. Welbeck could decide to spend this time to learn from him and gain an understanding with Rooney on the training ground, which will eventually transfer onto the Old Trafford pitch. It is an absurd idea in honesty, Ferguson will most likely also be gone by then and it’s not clear that the new manager would give him a place in the team. I make this point to stress that Welbeck has to do something with his career, there is no doubt that Rooney and van Persie is currently the preferred strike partnership and Javier Hernandez is the ‘super-sub’, leaving Welbeck as cover in case of an injury.

Ferguson has experimented with a ‘revolutionary’ diamond midfield already this season and may look to continue with it. This narrow formation, that excludes wingers, sees Rooney playing as the tip of the diamond behind a front 2 of, possibly, van Persie and Welbeck. United have already tried this formation in the league, winning 3-0 against Newcastle away from home and Welbeck did partner van Persie. It could be that Ferguson is choosing not to play this way currently because Shinji Kagawa is injured. Rooney was also deployed in central midfield at times last season; with a willingness to track back and a good eye for a long pass, it may be that Rooney is well suited to a midfield role. However it is uncertain if this is a new direction for Manchester United or merely a plan B. I wouldn’t encourage Welbeck to hang his hopes on this happening.

If United do not begin to play the diamond formation, it remains possible that Welbeck could play out wide. With Antonio Valencia and Ashley Young being the only wide players that are in favour at Old Trafford, Nani seems to be on his way out and Kagawa plays better centrally, there is a possible opportunity to get more games on the wing. However due to the way that United play, their midfielders are required to be able to cross the ball; I’m not sure that Welbeck has the ability to consistently deliver a good standard of cross from the wide area. I would also question if his skillset suits the wing. Strikers have moved out wide before but few have prospered, it seems to be difficult for them to ignore their predatory instinct that draws them to the penalty area.

Considering that the other options don’t look favourable, it may be that a transfer would be best for Welbeck’s career. His chances at Old Trafford look limited and first team football is what he would need to develop. Where would he go? I am not a big fan of his and doubt that he could play regular football at a top team in the Premiership; Everton may have a place for him in their team but I believe stronger sides have better options.
Ferguson said at the start of the season that he is happy with having 4 strikers, similarly to the strike force of 1999 that contained Dwight Yorke, Teddy Sheringham, Andy Cole and Ole Gunnar Solskjaer. While Fergie may be happy, Welbeck shouldn’t be. For a player with a blossoming international career he should not be content with sitting on the United bench, waiting for a chance. In order to continue his growth, a move away looks to be the best option; although a loan could also suffice. It is important that he does something to keep himself in the England team, doing nothing and waiting for his current situation to change is only going to have a negative effect.
Follow Myself and Soccerisma on Twitter: FanaticNeutral and Soccerisma

The post What Now For Danny Welbeck appeared first on Sports Betting Day - Best Bookmakers and Betting Sites.