Tactical Versatility or Tactical Inconsistency? Roberto Mancini and Manchester City

 Tom Moseley explains to The Football Front his thoughts on Mancini and his tactics this season.

Lately, there has been lots of talk and debate about Manchester City and their plethora of different tactics, with Roberto Mancini being the centre of the discussion, there’s been differing views and Mancini has defended himself in the press, while indirectly insulting his players. People are saying he changes formation too often, he rotates too much and that he’s a perfectionist, but nothing can be perfect, so even in times of elation and great performances he will say something can be improved – he has been labelled as a ‘tinkerer’ by some, rather than a good tactician, which would have been the standard compliment for him last year, but I always thought the change of tactics and systems was a good thing, giving them versatility, but many disagree.

Manchester City have started the Premier League season well, they haven’t recaptured their scintillating form from last year, but they are still the only side who remain unbeaten, with six wins and three draws in the opening nine games. Only dropping points against Arsenal at home, and Liverpool and Stoke away from the Etihad, leaving them sitting pretty in third place, only one point behind leaders Chelsea – whose huge summer investments seem to be paying dividends already. They started the Premier League in relatively average fashion, for their standards, with two wins and three draws in the opening five games, but a tough away win against Fulham and the return of Sergio Aguero has really kick-started their season, with them now being on a four-game win streak. However, the start to the Champions League hasn’t been the same story for them, as their nightmare from last year’s campaign has followed them into this season. The luck of the draw has been against them both times, as they’ve ended up in ‘the Group of Death’ two years on the bounce, but it’s not really much of an excuse after the huge financial investment they’ve had in the last few seasons. In the first year, the scapegoat for not succeeding was the lack of Champions League experience within the squad, with it being the clubs first season in the Champions League, however, I completely disagree with this statement. If you look around the Manchester City squad they had an abundance of Champions League experience, especially with players like Carlos Tevez (though his saga was going on at this point), Yaya Toure and Mario Balotelli, who all boast Champions League Winners Medals. This year, however, after a disastrous start of losing against Real Madrid at the Bernabeu, throwing away a late lead, getting beaten by an Ajax side that only cost £3,500,000 and getting outthought and outplayed against an energetic Borussia Dortmund side at the Etihad, but managing to steal a point due to a late Balotelli penalty, the media have jumped onto Roberto Mancini's back, after he has changed tactics in the middle of most games, saying he’s changing them too often and the players can’t get to grips with all the changes being made. In an interview before the Swansea game, they asked him about Micah Richards comments, where has said they weren’t prepared well enough to change to a three at the back formation, and Mancini said:

 “If you are a top player, it's not important which system you use. If you don't understand, you are not a top player and can't play for a top team.” 

 He went on to say that the comments weren’t about Micah Richards, but it does make you think, as it reminds me of Arrigo Sacchi. Sacchi said he wanted players who could not only play football, but they understood football and the football he wanted them to play, players with a good understanding of the game as well as ability, he says this is why his Milan side were so successful, because they shared the same idea on how the football should be played. If Mancini doesn’t have this, and the players don’t understand the systems, or share the same ideas, will this hinder Manchester Citys progress? At least in the short-term where he can’t bring in his own players who are tactically astute enough for his liking? Possibly. But, that’s beyond the point, are Manchester City struggling in Europe because of tactical inconsistency, or is their tactical versatility a strength, which is just being used as a scapegoat when things go badly in Europe?

Mancini certainly believes it’s the latter, after he said they conceded the third goal against Ajax due to a silly mistake, not a change in tactics. They’ve also been changing their tactics in the Premier League, depending on the opposition and situation, and it’s worked successfully,. so why would it be so drastically different in Europe? The only time it could be different in Europe is in the case of Manchester United, I think. Manchester United always attack, and until recently have played with two wingers, and the full backs have also got forward meaning the defence can be left a bit exposed, they also usually maintain (again, until recently) a 4-4-2 formation, which can work extremely well, but last year in Europe it didn’t. Their attacking style of play, and width, left them open at the back and teams who were tactically organized better than them would get the win, look at Atheltic Bilbaos infamous 3-2 win at Old Trafford, masterminded by the great Marcelo Bielsa. However, with City, they are quite a defensive, and tactically organized team who have been built with an extremely strong defence and spine, suiting a Continental style. In the Premier League, they started with the three at the back formation against Liverpool, and reverted to it in the last-gasp win against West Brom at the Hawthorns, both away games in which they got four points out a possible six, both tough places to visit plus they had ten men for the majority of the game against West Brom. So, the ‘tactical tinkering’ worked wonders against West Brom, setting up waiting for the chance to counter, inviting West Brom onto them before pouncing and Edin Dzeko finishing off an incisive counter attack, so why isn’t this mentioned when people talk about the change of tactics? Or, how they lined up with the three at the back formation against Chelsea in the Community Shield and won? It’s also the same system they used in the FA Cup game against Manchester United, after Belgian centre-back and club captain Vincent Kompany got an early red card for a two-footed challenge, where City managed to pull two goals back and give Manchester United a real scare, who thought they’d finished the game when they went 3-0 up in the First half.

So, why hasn’t this form carried on into Europe? I’m not sure, but what if the other teams were just better than Manchester City? City are an extremely strong side, no one can beg to differ, and with the heavy investments that’s what you expect, but they’ve come up against three good sides, all champions in their own countries as well, so it’s not a complete shock they haven’t won yet. The media seem to make out that City have been awful and should be strolling every game, but let’s not forget who they’re playing. Spanish Champions, record European Cup holder, winning it on nine occasions: Real Madrid, and to make it even harder, at the Bernabeu, which is a fortress. I can’t remember many teams winning there apart from Barcelona, it’s quite rare if a team draws there, Real Madrid are one of the best sides ever, so is it really shocking that they lost? No. I think, more than anything, it was the manner of the loss that annoyed Mancini most, and made the media get on their backs. Then, Borussia Dortmund, it may have been at the Etihad, but Jurgen Klopp has assembled a young side, that is not only great technically, they’re all extremely energetic and will work and close down, making it hard for the opposition to play. A draw is a bad result for Manchester City at home, but disastrous? Not really, Dortmund are a quality side and they are still wanting to prove themselves against the best in the world, which will give them that extra fight and make them go the extra mile, not to mention Klopps tactical mind, as they also went on to beat Real Madrid 2-1 at the Signal Iduna Park thanks to a Klopp tactical masterclass. Now, the Ajax game they probably should have won, but I think if you had to put this down to something, it would be the mentality of the players. Ajax are a young side, with the majority coming through the youth ranks at the club, and with the Eredivise being a relatively small league and not getting as much coverage as it should, they would want to go out and prove themselves against the world’s best clubs on a bigger stage, and there aren’t many better ways to do it than beating the Champions of England, the place many people call the birthplace or home of football. So, they would want to really show the world what they can do, plus with all the ‘Say No To Modern Football’ protests in the crowd, you don’t know if that attitude is transcended onto the pitch and the players share a similar mind-set, and they want to prove it’s not all about money and billionaire investors, it’s a about the football. I think you also shouldn’t underestimate Ajax’s quality, with their famous youth academy, all the players who make it through have an amazing technical ability, as well as being versatile due to not having set positions, being they can do most things and are incredibly well-rounded, and just because they play in a smaller league and they don’t splash a load of money on players, people tend to forgot the raw quality of the players.

So, overall, do Manchester City have tactical versatility, or is their constant change on tactics the reason why they can’t take the league form into Europe? I personally think it’s the former, they’re tactical versatility is a huge asset in my eyes. When a Manchester City line-up is announced, you’re still not 100% sure how it will be set out, which gives them a bit of unpredictability and keeps the opponent guessing, meaning the opposing manager could prepare for one thing, see the line-up and think he’s right, but then also because of the versatility of the players, they’re completely wrong meaning there will have to be some last minute improvisation that could upset the rhythm of their team. Then, the changes of tactics is working in the league, but nothing is said about that, which gives you the impression that the tactical inconsistency reason for Citys below-par performances on the Continent, is just another scapegoat by the media, following on from last year’s lack of experience scapegoat. Manchester City have a huge asset and advantage with their ability to change systems mid-game in certain situations, and has worked well for them, but one question that still remains is – Why can’t they carry on their League form into Europe?

This article was written by Tom Moseley, you can follow him on Twitter: @PlayedOfThePark .Check out his website too: http://playedoffthepark.net/

Do Barcelona need Alex Song?

Tom Moseley questions if Barcelona need Alex Song.

Alex Song had a great season for Arsenal last year, you can't really deny that. He can still improve, as I still feel he can be sloppy on the ball and be a bit lazy when getting back, but no one's perfect, right? You should credit where credit is due, and Alex Song deserves credit, he was a key player for Arsenal last year, which is a good thing, until rumours start circulating. One of the main transfer rumours, behind the on-going sagas of Van Persie and Luka Modric, is the rumour that Barcelona want Alex Song, want him they might, but do they need him?

Lets think about who Barcelona currently have occupying their midfield, some of the best midfielder in the world, no question about it. Xavi, Iniesta, Fabregas, Busquets and Javier Mascherano, who has recently signed a new deal at the club, now, that's some line-up, would Alex Song really fit in?

I personally think he would, I'm not saying he's a guaranteed starter, but I think the club may see Macherano as more of a centre-back/sweeper now, as last season he made 38 appearnces at centre-back compared to 2 in midfield. Then I think they also prefer to push Fabregas and Iniesta forward into more attacking roles, which again you can see as Fabregas spent only 11 of his 33 games last season in centre-midfield and Iniesta spent 16 of his 35 games there, which only leaves Xavi as the primary centre-midfielder, with Busqets operating deeper. So, he would get games, not as much as he would at Arsenal, but he would get games.

Now, lets move on to the player in question, Alex Song. He should certainly fit into the Barcelona style of play, as it's not too different to how Arsenal play, with the emphasis on possession and 'keeping the ball on the deck'. Which, as we saw from Song last season, he can do, with an average 60 passes per game last season, in all competitions, and a pass success of 83.8%, which could be better,  but then his frequent attempts at 'Hollywood Passes' could be partly to blame for it being relativey low. However, you can complain about his Hollywood Passes being a waste of possession when something simpler was on (like I do) or you can think they were also extremely valuable to his team, as he seemed to have good chemistry with Van Persie, with the two always on the same wavelength, leading to some great goals by Van Persie, because of Songs exquisite passes. He got 11 assists in 34 games last season for Arsenal, a great record, providing the bit of creativity they needed after Fabregas' departure last year. He also finished the season with the most accurate through balls per game, with 0.7, a great achievement, as he despite being more advance than previous years, he is still playing a much more conservative position to someone like David Silva, who finished in 2nd place. Along side this, he also finished with 1.4 key passes per game, another great feat for a more defensive midfielder.

However, I don't think it should be all praise for the Cameroon international. Defensively, stat-wise, he is pretty great, with 2.9 tackles per game and 1.9 interceptions per game, however, I do think he could improve a lot. I think he gives away the ball too easily, with what looks like half hearted passes, or he doesn't track back (quick?) enough, leading to gaps in the Arsenal midfield. If he didn't have the disciplined Arteta next to him, they would have been punished a lot more times than they were and I can't see them being too happy with this at Barcelona, as there is quite a lot of emphasis on the high-pressing, so he couldn't get caught out doing this. However, you could turn that on its head and say he would be more disciplined with a more creative player next to him, like he was with Fabregas. So, I do feel there are aspects of his game that need improving, but they're not things to do with ability, more mentality, which can be better.

What would it mean to Arsenal if he left? I've seen lots of tweets from Arsenal fans on my timeline about this rumour over the past week or so, and the reactions don't seem to be very mixed! The majority of fans don't want him to leave, they think it would be taking a backwards step, even after signing Cazorla. Then, a few others say cash in, he's replaceable. I personally am on the fence. I think he is important, and it wouldn't be great to sell one of your key-players, especially to a team who you want to be competing with. However, I do think he's replaceable, because he does have his faults, so they could cash in, sign someone else and do just as well. It's a tough one, I think it's less about him leaving and more about who would be joining that would help me decide. For example, sell him and sign Yann M'Vila, definitely, he's a couple of years younger and can do the job just as well, but if the replacement wasn't quite as good, I'd be less willing to cash in. It all comes down to how highly you rate Alex Song, because as I've said, he's good, but not brilliant.

So, do they need him?

I think a good point to take into consideration when answering this question is they've just sold Seydou Keita, who could defend and attack and had a bit more physical prowess than their other players, sounds a bit like Alex Song doesn't it? So in signing Song, they would have another player who could do this, who would be extremely useful to them and only 24 years of age.

However, you also have to think Barcelona like to promote their own players and have named their 25 man squad, things can change, but they might prefer it if they didn't, and then give one of their younger players a chance in the role, like Sergi Samper or Sergio Roberto, two La Masia graduates and carry on 'The Barca Way'.

To answer the question, do they need him? Not necessarily. But he would make them stronger, as well as offering something different.   

 This article was written by Tom Moseley, you can follow him on Twitter: @PlayedOfThePark .Check out his website too: http://playedoffthepark.net/

The End of Spurs or a New Beginning?

Tom Moseley explains to The Football Front the cross roads Spurs are at and why it could lead to a better future

Saturday 19th May. Every Spurs fan was a Bayern Munich fan. However after the game, I think most of them would have Dortmund down as their German side. Bayern kept pressuring Chelsea and looked like they had to win, with a total of 44 shots, but it was not to be. The football Gods were on Chelsea’s side, as they somehow managed to survive the relentless Bayern attacks and gain victory on penalties. 

Which therefore meant, no Champions League football for Spurs and another year in the Europa League.

At the start of the season, this wouldn’t have been a disaster for Spurs, as a 5th place finish is more than respectable, however it’s the manner in which it happened. 

Spurs were pushing for the title around December/January time, but they crumbled. And it coincicded with the heavy speculation surrounding Redknapp, regarding his court case and the vacant England job. I’m not saying that’s an excuse, but they only won one in nine games after the Newcastle game, when the speculation was at its peak, leading to a slide down the table and losing a 10-point advantage on their rivals, Arsenal.

This has led to many people saying this could be the end for this era of Spurs players. They will not be able to make the Champions League in the coming years. 

Indeed, missing out on Champions League football could have a big impact on them, with key players like Bale and Modric leaving and I’m sure a couple more players getting picked off, by clubs trying to bolster their clubs for the Champions League. Modric was centre of speculation last year, with Chelsea offering £30M, but Spurs rejected it, but maybe this year, things could be different. He might really want to go, as this could have been a ‘conditional’ year, where he would have stayed if they got Champions League football.

I agree, to a point. They could lose key players, that’s inevitable. The players want to play Champions League football, which you can’t really blame them for. However, I don’t think they’ll completely collapse and turn into mid-table-mediocrity. 

When you think about the players that could leave for Champions League football, Modric, Bale and Van Der Vaart, then not keeping Adebayor permanently due to his high wages. That is four key players, however, they could easily bring in £60M-£70M.

Which brings me onto my view. It’s not the end, it’s a new beginning for Spurs if they lose thse players. I know ‘Arry won’t get all £60M-£70M (if they do sell them) as I’m sure the board would want to keep some, mainly because of the money they lose for not qualifying for the Champions League. But with a  decent transfer budget and sales of players, ‘Arry could easily have £50M to spend and we all know what he’s like in the transfer market. He’s not called a wheeler-dealer for no minor reason. With that amount of money and some decent fringe players, who could have more of a chance now, they could challenge just as well as they did this year.

If you look at the squad now, they still have some good players that don’t play week-in, week-out.  They have players like Defoe, Krancjar, Dos Santos and Sandro. I know they’re not as good as the players they’re losing, but they can still do a good job and are also a good foundation to build a squad.

They are also (reportedly) interested in players like Asamoah from Udinese and Jan Vertonghen from Ajax, which, if they get sign would be great buys. Asamoah isn’t exactly a like-for-like swap for Modric, however, he is a good midfielder and will do well for Spurs, next to Parker.

This is what they need to do, if they want to remain successful. They need to either sign good players from slightly lower Premier League clubs, or go for an-almost Moneyball approach, by buying players from the non-major nations and leagues. They need to focus on the more long term future, instead of the immediate in future, in my opinion. I think they need to take the next season or two as transition seasons and get a new generation of players in, then really go for it in the third season. 

They need to sign players that are hungry and want to prove themselves at the highest level, instead of players who think they belong in the top level and were unwanted at a top club and see Spurs as a step down. I know this does work, look at Van Der Vaart, but it can also be a big gamble, especially as their wages are a lot higher.

It may be biased, as I’m a Wolves fan, but I think two good economical buys for them could be Steven Fletcher and Matt Jarvis, to replace Adebayor and Bale. I’m not saying they’re as good as them, but they’ll do a good job. Jarvis is similar to Bale in the way he’s a simple winger, he doesn’t overcomplicate his game, he gets the ball, runs at defences and crosses it. Then I see Fletcher as a good replacement for Adebayor, as he is a good all-rounded striker. He’s skilful, good touch, can finish and can head. Wolves have said an offer between £8M-£10M will tempt them though, so I’d say £15M would be enough for the pair of them, which, in my opinion, would be great for two consistent players.

They could also take an approach like Newcastle, as Newcastle have found a lot of good value for money players in France and then Cisse in Germany, so looking at these leagues could also be good, as players never seem to be as expensive, in my opinion. I mean Arsenal signed Podolski for £12.9M and Dortmund signed Marco Reus for £10M, so (slightly contraditing to my last point) but not looking at British players could  be the route for them if they want value.

Overall, I think this is a new beginning and generation for Spurs, if the key players do leave. I also think it’s an exciting time to be a Spurs fan, not a sad one. There’s many roads that Spurs could take if players leave, which can leave to some exciting new players. I personally think it’s interesting to see what will happen to Spurs, because of the options that could be open to them. It should be an interesting summer for Spurs, no matter what happens.

.  
This article was written by Tom Moseley, you can follow him on Twitter: @PlayedOfThePark .Check out his website too: http://playedoffthepark.net/

More of Tom's work can be found here

The Wonder of Wigan’s New Tactic

Tom Moseley explains to The Football Front the beauty of Wigan's new system which has been reaping rewards instantly in the Premier League.  

Wigan’s new tactic has moved them away from the relegation zone, and 3 points clear from the bottom three, with a drastic turn in form, that’s put them 3rd in the Premier League form table, with four wins in their last seven. Their tactic can be ultra-defensive and be 5-4-1 with one striker left upfront, or it can be ultra-attacking and be 3-4-3, but the best part about it, is the fact it switches between the two in a matter of seconds.

In defence (especially against Arsenal) it very much looked like this…

Which, as you can see from the picture and presumably saw from the Arsenal game, it’s very hard to break down. Not only is there five at the back, the central midfielders also get back and defend deep, almost playing as holding midfielders. This results in almost a seven man defence and all practically on the edge of the box, meaning no space in behind for teams to exploit.

So Wigan can sit there and watch teams pass in front of them for however long before getting the ball and counter attacking. In a matter of seconds, and this is the main strength of this tactic. Wigan have the ability to turn a ‘backs against the wall’ situation to a ‘throw the kitchen sink at them’ situation and the most important people to do this are the full backs and winger, in my opinion. When they counter attacked against Arsenal, and got their two goals, the tactic went from the one above to something more like this…

I know it isn’t perfect or exact, but you can see what generally happens. The two wing-backs push forward down the line, providing the width, then the two ‘wingers’ from before, (if we’re talking about the Arsenal game,) Gomez and Moses, push inside and support the lone striker Di Santo. This works brilliantly as these two are inverted, so it’s similar to how Barcelona used to play, when their wingers were Henry and Messi or Ronaldinho and Messi and they used to be inverted, so they’d push inside and support Eto’o and then the full-backs, Alves and Abidal, would push up the line and provide the width.

But the only difference being Barcelona had one less defender and one more midfielder, but it's the overall same sort of mentality. Wigan's inverted wingers system works well because Moses and Gomez are two very creative players, which you can see from the game against Arsenal, with Gomez playing a lovely ball across the pitch for Wigan's first and Moses scoop turning then crossing for the second goal. It also leads to good passing as lots of channels would open up, if the opposing full-backs had to mark the attacking wing-backs because it means the inverted wingers could ‘float’ and get into the gaps between the full backs and centre backs, so that stretches defenders and also means there can be a nice bit of interplay between the wing-backs, wingers and forward in these kind of areas. However, the centre-midfielders are extremely important as well, as they provide the balance in the team, thus being able to control the tempo and help the team keep possession in attack. McCarthy and McCarthur had a passing accuracy of 94% and 88%, against Arsenal. Even though, they didn’t make lots and lots of passes, that is still tidy and crucial, especially when holding a lead, like they were. So, as you saw against Arsenal, the counter attacking ability of this tactic is amazing, with basically five attackers, which most defences, would struggle to deal against, as Arsenal, Liverpool, Manchester United and Chelsea all will tell you.

However, there is another transition, that’s different to these previous two mentioned above. This transition is in-between Wigan's ‘backs against the wall’ and ‘throwing the kitchen sink.’ The third system could be used when leading 1-0 and wanting to attack, but being balanced on not being caught on the break yourself and is basically a 4-2-3-1 and look like this…

This would happen when Beausejour pushed forward down the left, he would become the main left winger, then Figueroa would move over from centre-back and go left-back, creating a standard back four. Moses would then shift from the left to the right and Gomez would play just behind Di Santo, which is a good, relatively-attacking, formation, but also brilliant in my opinion, because Boyce wouldn’t push forward, he’d hold and play right-back, which means they can attack but still have a ‘normal’ back line so it would be hard to be broken against. As they aren’t throwing several bodies forward, then if they want to get back and go ‘backs against the wall’ again, it’s easy to do. All Wigan need is Beausejour to get back and Figueroa to move inside, then the two midfielders to track back as well.

I have to admit, I love this tactic.

I’ve always wanted a team to play with 3/5 at the back in the Premier League, as it’s what Cruijff did with Total Football. I've always been intrigued to see if it would work in the Premier League. And so far it has. Martinez has got it spot on.

I love the versatility of it, the way you can be defending for you lives, and then attacking at will in a matter of seconds. The middle transition, just makes the system that one bit better as you can be balanced as well and don’t have to go between the two ‘extremes’. The tactic has also been effective, with wins against Manchester United and Arsenal, I think, if they start better next year and continue to use this tactic and generally don’t do a ‘Wigan’ I think, they could have a comfortable finish. Well done Martinez, I think you’ve got it spot-on.

This article was written by Tom Moseley, you can follow him on Twitter: @PlayedOfThePark .Check out his website too: http://playedoffthepark.blogspot.co.uk/

More of Tom's work can be found here

The Europa League is it really the Mickey Mouse Cup?

On his debut for The Football Front, Tom Moseley explains why the Europa League deserves more respect than it currently gets.

For a while now, people have been regarding the Europa League as ‘The Mickey Mouse Cup’ or ‘A Mickey Mouse Cup’ saying they don’t really care about it and it doesn’t mean anything. However, does it really deserve this title? Especially this year, there seems to have been a general increase in the amount of people watching and enjoying the Europa League, for a few different reasons.

Firstly, I find the Europa League much more entertaining than the Champions League, because I think that the Europa League is played at a higher pace than the Champions League and fewer teams settle for draws, leading to end-to-end and potentially high scoring games. You can see this if you compare the Champions League and Europa League Quarter Final first legs and seeing the difference in the amount of goals. In the Europa League there were 15 goals in the four games, which is an average of 3.75 goals a game, which is quite high to be honest, whereas the Champions League is different. In the Champions League there were 6 goals, which is an average of 1.5 goals a game, so on average, you get 2 more goals a game in the Europa League, which backs up the fact the Europa League is better for entertainment than the Champions League.

I think the next main reason why the Europa League is starting to appeal to a lot more people and is being dismissed as a ‘Mickey Mouse Cup’ by more people is because it’s ‘refreshing’ because in the Champions League, you see those same sides on TV every week. I mean I always say that if you have SkySports you have a Real Madrid and Barcelona season ticket, so when the Europa League is on, it’s a welcome chance to watch some different teams. You can see different managers, players and styles, instead of the same thing every week. This could appeal to people even more if they want to learn more

about the game, because they are finding out about new players and managers they never knew before, meaning they’re learning more and more out about different aspects of football, which they might not necessarily find out when they watch the same kinds of teams. An example of this is mainly Athletic Bilbao. I have learnt a lot about them from the few Europa League games of theirs I have watched. I knew most of their players and I knew Biesla was their manager and that he managed Chile in the World Cup and is nicknamed ‘El Loco’ but I didn’t know exactly how they played, which is probably the main reason why I enjoyed their game at Old Trafford, because they play an exciting brand of football. They press high and play at a high tempo with lots of men attacking and lots of good movement/runs in and around the box, which is good football for entertainment and if you’re watching as a neutral.

For me, this is the biggest argument for why the Europa League is getting better and not necessarily better than the Champions League, because technically, the Champions League teams are better, but more entertaining and could possibly become a ‘Peoples Cup’ which may not always be the best in quality, but the games are always entertaining, open and played at a fast tempo.

I also think the ‘Mickey Mouse Cup’ isn’t a right title for the cup as well, because if you go by popular opinion that the two Manchester Clubs are the best in England and the Premier League is one of the best leagues in the World, then they wouldn’t have been knocked out so early in the tournament, for the point they entered in. If it really was as bad as it is made out, then I’m pretty sure the two Manchester clubs would have walked it and there would have been a Manchester Derby final, which a couple of people I know said there would be.

However, again this could be due to lack of knowledge of the game as well, as they don’t know a lot about the teams they’ll be up against, so they assume that the Manchester Clubs will walk it, because nine times out of ten, if you know next to nothing about a team in the Europa League, but know a lot about a decent Champions League team, you’re going to back the Champions League team, aren’t you? I mean, a couple of people I was talking to didn’t really know who Bilbao were.

Another way to look at it is to think, if your team won the Europa League, would you play it down and say ‘well, it’s only a Mickey Mouse Cup’. My guess is no, you wouldn’t. I’m pretty sure when Fulham got to the final, they wanted to win it and wouldn’t be calling it a ‘Mickey Mouse Cup’ if they did, or take the League Cup for example as well, that’s classed as a ‘Mickey Mouse Cup’ by a lot of people, but every Liverpool fan I’ve talked to hasn’t called it the ‘Mickey Mouse Cup’ they’ve defended their club by saying ‘Yeah, but we won the League Cup’. So everyone that calls the Europa League a ‘Mickey Mouse Cup’ answer this question, if you’re team, whether it be Liverpool, Wolves or Wycombe, won the Europa League, would you say it’s only a ‘Mickey Mouse Cup’ or would you celebrate? Most supporters would pick the second. So this is something people should consider when writing cups off as ‘Mickey Mouse Cups’.

Overall, what I’m trying to say, is the Europa League is a good competition, it’s entertaining and although there isn’t as much quality on show as the Champions League, the entertainment factor makes up for it, which is what football is all about, entertainment, football is a form of entertainment. So, I don’t think it is a ‘Mickey Mouse Cup’ and I hope more people start to see this and it grows as a tournament, which it looks like it could.

This article was written by Tom Moseley, you can follow him on Twitter: @PlayedOfThePark .Check out his website too: http://playedoffthepark.blogspot.co.uk/

The Winners and Losers of the January Transfer Window 2012

The dust has settled, and on his debut article for The Football Front, Tom Moseley depicts the January transfer window.

Even after a rather quiet transfer window, with only £58.3M spent compared to last year’s £225m, some teams have still come out better than others. Only one team in the Premier League didn’t sign anyone in this window, that was Stoke.

Winners

QPR

Everyone knew QPR were going to be active in January . QPR started off by looking at players like Alex from Chelsea and I’m sure I also heard rumours (only rumours) about Tevez joining them, especially after playing under Hughes and sharing the same advisor. However, they did eventually target and sign far more ‘modest’ players. They tightened their defence up with the signing of Nedum Onuoha from Manchester City for £2.5m and they also loaned AC Milan left-back Taye Taiwo until the end of the season. These are both good signings as Onuoha is a good versatile defender with a bit of pace. While Taye Taiwo will also add a bit of experience to the back after having 52 European appearances with Marseille and AC Milan. QPR not only improved their defence during this window they also bolstered their front line with the signings of Bobby Zamora, Djibril Cisse and Federico Macheda. Zamora joined for a fee of £4m and he now reunites with Mark Hughes, who arguably got the best out of Zamora in his season at Fulham. However, apart from his Brighton days, he’s never been a prolific striker. This is also Cisses problem, yes he has pace and power, but in the premier league he only has a 3% chance conversion. However maybe together they’ll work well. As Zamora’s strength along with Cisse’s pace could cause a few concerns to opposition defenders. QPR also added to their numbers with the loan signings of Federico Macheda and Samba Diakite. With a new manager and all these new players QPR should really be on the up, but you never know with football.

Everton

Everton have always been known to be ‘tight.’ But this transfer window, they may not have entirely splashed the cash, but they make some effective signings. They signed the talented Landon Donovan (on loan)who will chip in with a few goals and assists. They also signed Darron Gibson from Manchester United for a mere £1m.Now, I’m not Gibson’s biggest fan but for that kind of fee and maybe at a team like Everton, it’s not a bad buy and with more first-team football, he could turn into a good and effective player. Their last signing was Rangers striker Nikica Jelavic for a fee of £5.5m. Indeed, the ex –rangers man had a good goal scoring record for Rangers with 36 goals in 55 games; however (with no disrespect to the SPL) it will be a lot harder for him in the premiership. He said he moved to the premier league as it’s ‘the best league in the world’ – so let’s see how he fares in it. Overall Everton have made solid buys in my opinion, with these new buys Everton could sneak up to the table a bit and secure a finish of 8^th or 9^th.

Biggest Losers

Arsenal

In the summer Arsenal lost three key players and gained around £60m. They arguably panic bought in the last few days of the window bringing in Mikel Arteta, Per Merterstacker and Park Chu-Young. These are good players and Arsenal did need a centre-back, but it did leave about £40m in the bank as well. Indeed, they also signed Oxlade-Chamberlain and Gervinho, but these were before the outgoings of Fabregas and Nasri. I thought because Arsenal were linked with a lot of people, but didn’t sign certain players/positions they wanted, I would see some activity from them this window. However I was wrong. They signed legend Thierry Henry on a 2-month loan from New York and young midfielder Thomas Eisfeld from Dortmund. These aren’t the kind of players they need. They need players with world class ability and potential.

Wigan

Wigan sit at the foot of the table and were linked with quite a few people during the window, however they only bought winger Jean Beausejour from Birmingham for £4m. Don’t get me wrong he’s a decent player, but they don’t really need a winger as they’re a decent side going forward, but they have the worst defensive record in the league, so that’s where they needed improvement. They also kept hold of star-striker Hugo Rodallega, which could end up being a bad thing as his contract is up in the summer, so with that in mind and the fact they’re 5 points adrift, the future doesn’t look bright for Wigan Athletic.

Conclusion

Most teams didn’t have that good of a time in this window. But these Wigan and Arsenal stood out to me in particular as I think they need strengthening more than anybody else.

Without a doubt, it was a disappointing transfer window and we were all hoping for a headline move to make it a bit better, but sadly that never happened.

Oh well, let’s just hope for an exciting end to the season!

This article was written by Tom Moseley, you can find his work on his blog: http://itisonlyagame.blogspot.com/ You can also follow him on Twitter: @ItsOnlyAGame