Change at the top is good for everyone

Everton smashed Arsenal this weekend, and it was refreshing to see. Not because I want to see Arsenal suffer, but because the league can get stale if the same teams dominate every year.

It's the same reason it's great to see Manchester United struggle. It's about time their fans saw an average team, a manager who is struggling to pick his best side, and (most likely) a year without a trophy.

If you support anyone but United or Arsenal, you can probably remember a time when your team was rubbish, and sneaking a 1-0 away win against a team in the bottom 3 was a great result. Arsenal, Manchester United (and the more recent versions - Manchester City and Chelsea) have expected to beat teams like West Brom, Stoke, West Ham and Aston Villa for years. There were surprise results for those teams against the big boys, but they were becoming few and far between.

And there's where it can get boring and repetitive.

If you can predict the top 2 ever year, it's not a great spectacle. If you have 5 or 6 teams competing for the Champions League places, then you engage so many more fans.

City and Chelsea have a lot of money to make sure they are up at the top, but Liverpool and Everton have really crashed the party this year, and many think that Tottenham should have done the same.

It's great for the health of the game in England. United and Arsenal will come again, but eating some humble pie for a season or three will help them refresh their approach. They may not be able to attract the big stars without Champions League football, but that poses new questions and the search for solutions.

Football is an ever-evolving game and we need a shake-up every now and then. Relegation and promotion between the leagues helps, but the teams at the very top need to be reminded that their won't dominate forever - and fans of smaller, less-successful teams will enjoy every minute of seeing the Uniteds and Arsenals of this world struggle.

Liverpool are going to win the league...

Stop fighting me on this, Liverpool fans. Stop analyzing. Let some stat jockey apply the science at a later date. Let the computer-generated player-rating algobots fight over who should have won the league. Liverpool might never win that argument, but who cares? Liverpool are going to win the league, even if they shouldn't.

Yes, the silken flanked Man City Galacticos should have left us in the dust long ago. Thank you for the lager-spittle heavy lecture on that point, Captain Analysis. Yes, Eden Hazard and Oscar should be dancing a Pasodoble on Steven Gerrard's career grave right around now. Brilliant, Professor Zanussi. I never said Liverpool were the favorites. I just said we were going to win.

I'm not going to draw specious parallels to the lopsided odds ahead of the battle of Stalingrad here, other than to say that Luis Suarez, on current form, could probably have beaten both sides in that conflict -- at the same time. I'm not making one of those reverse-psychology arguments, saying we're the underdogs so therefore we have less pressure, making us some kind of Gladwellian favourites. There are no underdogs at this point in the season. Giantkillers win the FA Cup. Giants win the league.

This is the Internet, where everybody turns into a persnickety debate judge. So I need some "evidence" to back up my "argument" or it will be "invalid." (I'd like to see some of these Internet hard men go down the local in Toxteth and start blithering about Steven Gerrard's pass-completion rate...I'm sure they would learn a new appreciation for a "strong argument.")

OK, let me lay this out on an airplane streamer. I believe Liverpool are going to win the league because...this is what winning the league feels like.

Don't forget, I am a veteran of the 1989 - 90 campaign. And I'm not talking about checking in with a couple of minute-by-minute game reports between texts here. I'm talking about sitting down in front of the telly and watching games all the way through, several times over the course of that campaign. I'm talking about 90 minutes of sheer hell. I'm talking about pulling out the middle pages of Shoot magazine with  my bare hands, and singlehandedly pinning a poster of the 1988 - 89 league champion team on the wall. I would have to check with my mum, but I may have even nicked myself with a Shoot staple during that operation.  As I said, I am a veteran so I know what winning the league feels like. It doesn't feel like you think it feels when you're watching Manchester United do it. From a distance, it looks like all you have to do is sit there, and watch your team score a lot against a wide range of opposition. And wince occasionally when Rooney misses a sitter. That's not the way it feels. This is the way it feels.

It's watching your whole team wobbling like someone who has just been put on a bicycle for the first time against Sunderland at home, looking like they're going to throw the whole season away until, somehow, they cling on for a 2-1 victory. It's teams like Crystal Palace popping up out of the basement to dance all over one of the favourites the day they looked like they'd run away with it. It's basket cases like Arsenal pulling themselves together to break the other favourite's stride. It's your brain turning into a little calculator that runs through every permutation of every game, and every game in hand, and then throws them all out when some crazy result comes in that wasn't even in your wildest scenario. It's people who probably would have been bit-player nobodies in another setting, people like Jordan Henderson or Craig Johnston or Ray Houghton, suddenly dribbling like cherubs and hammering in goals like Thor.

You probably think when Liverpool ran out on the last day of the 1985 to 86 season to take on then-lowly Chelsea that all the fans half-expected Kenny Dalglish to top off his first year as player manager by scoring the only goal. Rather, the assumption was that Chelsea would beat us 10-0, and that Everton would take the title from under our noses. You are convinced your team will throw it all away...you always think some other team could or would or should knock them off the top. This is what it feels like: it feels like shit until the final whistle in the final game. And then you start worrying about next season.


Teams have personalities. If the premiership run-in were a match on the local green, Man City would be the new kid with the shiny white boots, blowing everybody away with the way he juggles the ball on his heels during the warmup, and then fluffing a simple pass as soon as the game kicks off. Chelsea would be the lad who has reportedly had trials with "the pros," scores a couple of peaches early on, then throws a tantrum when he's dispossessed by a five-year old girl, and never regains his composure. Liverpool is the lad whose runners have almost eroded away because he hasn't left the green all summer, the lad who scores goals as naturally as fish swim.

Liverpool are going to win the league.

-Rob Curran

Tight at the top, but Arsenal are done if they lose

If Arsenal lost at Chelsea, you have to think they are out of the title race. They would be 7 points behind with 8 games left - yes they have a game in hand, but they'd probably have to win all 8 to even have a chance of finishing above Chelsea, Liverpool and Manchester City. They could finish 2nd, but overcoming all 3 rivals at this point will be tough anyway.

Arsene Wenger is desperate to end the trophy drought, but the FA Cup is looking like the more realistic option. And perhaps that is what Arsenal have lacked - options. Giroud has been out of form, and Walcott out injured - without them (or Ramsey's goals from midfield), Arsenal have struggled. I am just not sure they have enough options to mix it up should they go behind. But here's a game that they have to go for it if they go behind. There is really nothing to lose if they go down 2-0, 3-0 or 5-0 - some pride maybe, but Spurs, Everton and Manchester United aren't catching them for 4th.

As for Chelsea, a draw isn't terrible, but they are still in Europe and will be confident of progressing against PSG in the quarterfinals of the Champions League - although why anyone is confident of beating a team with Zlatan in is beyond me. Chelsea are getting old and slow at the back, but they have more than enough going forward to exploit some of Arsenal's weaknesses (and yes, I do mean Mikel Arteta in the defensive midfield role).

Manchester City have a tough week coming up, with United and then Arsenal to come - failing to beat Fulham should mean they don't win the league. Fulham have been awful all season, and City should be beating them 4-0 or more.

Liverpool have to win away at Cardiff and home to Sunderland in midweek if they are to realistically compete. Two of the league's bottom three have to be dispatched if Brendan Rodgers' team expect to win the title.

It's an interesting weekend at the top - no one can afford to lose, but if Arsenal do, we may be down to a 3 horse race. If any of the others lose (and Arsenal don't) they have to be right in the mix. The top is getting as interesting as the bottom - and I'm willing to hear all schoolboy jokes on that!

Just how good (or bad) is MLS?

Let me start this discussion with this.... this article is not meant to criticize MLS, just discuss how it compares with other leagues. It's not a case of liking one and hating another - it's all football, just there are just different qualities in different leagues.

People say the Premier League is the most exciting league, that Serie A is the most technical, but that La Liga has the best individual players - and you can't forget the the Bundesliga had both last year's Champions League finalists, and boasts a team that has gone 50 games unbeaten in the league. But there is no consensus on which league is the best - essentially as it's a game of opinions, and that's usually why we all enjoy discussing it.

I don't think there's much of an argument to say that the New York Red Bulls (last season's winner of the Supporter's Shield for the best record in the MLS) or Sporting Kansas City (the MLS Cup winners) could compete in the European Champions League, but I wonder how and where they would fit-in when compared to regular league teams.

If you look at the players, there are stars like Thierry Henry, Michael Bradley, Landon Donovan etc, that could probably still get into any team ranked 4-10 in any European League (like a Tottenham, Real Sociedad or Sanit-Etienne), but probably no one in MLS that could get into the starting XI for a Barcelona, Chelsea or Juventus. But that's why they are the strongest teams in Europe - they have the resources and prestige of being the best of the best. There are good teams and players in Brazil, Russia, Mexico etc, but the best players want to be at those top teams competing for the top trophies.

But how does MLS fare against the mid-range teams in the top leagues? Seattle v Toronto had a crowd of almost 40,00, with US, English and Brazilian internationals on show - but it also had Djimi Traore! It's hard to even argue that you'd prefer to watch Sunderland v Crystal Palace or Elche v Real Betis than seeing that MLS game.

Unfortunately though, there are not enough games of that quality (yet) and much of the league has very average players who aren't improving the game in the US. Why the Red Bulls would sign Bradley Wright-Phillips (and Luke Rogers before him) from the lower reaches of the Championship in England rather than try and develop an American player is beyond me. It's nothing personal against those players, but they aren't adding anything to the league here - Jermain Defoe is, Tim Cahill has, Robbie Keane has. Getting good foreign players helps, developing home-grown talent helps the league and the National team.

And that's where I think MLS struggles to compete, and why it is perceived to be of a lower quality than the European leagues. There's no doubt the top talent is in Europe, but while MLS continues to take players that didn't really do much in Europe, then it will be viewed as lower quality league or a place to go to retire.

The league is growing and developing, but I think every team in MLS would finish in the bottom 3 of the EPL, La Liga or Serie A over a full 38 game season. At the moment, it's a league that has a few too many aging foreigners, not enough trust in youth and is technically a bit behind on coaching and tactics.

But the key thing to remember is that MLS is improving every year and is already great to watch. It may not be quite up to the top club standard in the world, but it's getting there.

How long will we stay interested if the gap continues to grow?

City smashed West Ham 9-0 over two legs in the League Cup, and it's not just West Ham who have been put to the sword this year.

I could slaughter Allardyce and his team as they were woeful (and have been most of the season), but the real issue is the strength of Manchester City, and to some extent, Chelsea, Manchester United and even Blackburn before them.

Winning isn't easy. It's much easier when you can buy everyone as your owner is so rich that he just doesn't care about money. I presume it's like playing a football manager game on the easy mode. If Aguero, Negredo, Kompany etc, can't beat a team including Matt Taylor, Roger Johnson and Carlton Cole, then they don't deserve their 200k+ a week.

West Ham have loads of free transfers, average players and maybe 3 'stars'. Even those aren't top level stars, if they were, then one of the bigger teams would have signed them already - even just to be a sub, as it means no one else can have them.

Financial Fair Play is a nice concept, but if teams can pay fines to avoid it, then they will. There's no way FIFA or UEFA are stopping Barcelona, Real Madrid, Chelsea or Man City playing in the top tournaments because they don't balance the books. They just won't. And if they do, the big teams will set up their own competitions.

And it begs they question 'How long will we keep watching?' if there is no real competition.

The fact everyone is losing their mind over Manchester United being average is amazing. Fans of West Ham, Stoke, Newcastle etc, would love to be as average as Manchester United are this year. Not every team can be owned by a multi-billionaire, but those that are will continue to win everything. Youth teams are almost pointless as the bigger clubs will just poach the players when they want them.

It may just be a bitter rant, and new owners do emerge which allows the power to shift a bit, but it's not much fun to watch anymore. Beating a team in your division 9-0 over two legs isn't just dominance, it's an unfair fight. There may be the occasional upset, but are we just watching year after year for the chance of an upset?

A level playing field isn't possible anymore, and it takes some of the fun out of being a fan - and this post isn't about being a sore loser. I'm sure City fans love winning, but I bet some of them miss the days when they actually thought they may be made to work for it.

Win the Cup or stay in the League?

Would you rather your team stayed in the Premier League every year or won a trophy?

It's a tough decision due to the money generated from the Premier League's TV contract, but finishing 6th to 15th every year isn't a very exciting way to follow your club. There are only certain teams who can win the League, and apart from Arsenal (and to some degree Manchester United), they are owned by people who pump money into the club with no expectation of return.

Teams like Stoke, West Ham, Swansea and Everton can't compete. Yes, Everton are having a great year, but their best players are on loan. They can't sustain a challenge over a few years, unless they make the Champions League for at least three consecutive years. And there haven't been any that have been able to do that. Spurs made it one year, Everton were fourth once and even Liverpool have struggled to keep up now they don't have consistent money from UEFA.

So why not go for the Cups? Wigan won the FA Cup last year, West Ham and Sunderland are in the League Cup semi this week - it's the best chance to win something. I've been a fan almost 35 years and have never seen my team win anything (promotion and Intertoto don't count). I'd love to see a win at Wembley and be able to say "I was there."

Who are you going to tell that you were there when your team finished 8th in 2015? No one cares. Yeah you can remember a great win against the eventual champions or when they avoided relegation on the last day, but memories are built around great players and the success they had.

Or average players are remembered for moments. Ben Watson isn't a household name now, but Wigan fans will remember his FA Cup winner forever, despite them being relegated the same season.

So I can't understand why owners and managers don't go for it. Aston Villa fans are not happy that Paul Lambert didn't - and so it's another trophy-less season for them. The best they can hope for is 10th (maybe) - and that's not success.

Not everyone can be owned by a billionaire who treats football clubs like video games - and those that aren't should really target the Cups - you know it makes sense.