freaks.

interesting.

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/columns/story?id=647804&sec=global&root=global&cc=4716

the true face of football.

the picture says it all.

http://madeinbrazil.typepad.com/madeinbrazil/2009/05/sky-is-not-the-limit-for-gisele.html

the flanks.

today, im gonna bitch about side midfields, wingers, side backs and wing backs. heres what i think, correct me if im wrong.

as far as i can tell, wg and smf have "functional" differences versus sb and wb differs only in "style".

the role of wg and smf are pretty distinct. wg are usually pacy and strong on the dribble in terms of stats. they stay up and out wide stretching the defense. traditional wg plays on the side of their dominant foot, crosses in down low by the goal line. modern wg plays on the opposite flank, crosses are less common and more cuts are made inwards for open shots or perhaps into the box. wg are the keys to counter attacks. they are there to exploits 1 on 1 situations against sb. they dwell around the corner of the box lot of times waiting for these openings. wg do well when the game is fast but normally dont perform when the game is slow and when its not 1 on 1. its pretty obvious what a wg is.

smf are completely different. their individual styles vary. these days i dont think they matter as much as they used to because the traditional 442 does not perform anymore. the style of crossing in from both flanks are not particularly effective against the zonal system these days. also the rise of the sb/wb undermines the role and importance of the smf. usually an exceptionally talented player would play in the middle or move up to the wings rather than kept in the smf position to be more effective. position wise very few talent exist. the flanks are always covered by dmf and sb/wb. or wg. in my opinion, ronaldhino can somewhat be classified as a smf although he exhibits wg and amf (here i regard amf as the dead center ones or else it defeats the purpose of the discussion i.e. lamf, ldmf) qualities. raphael van der vaart is probably the closest smf we have in this generation of footballers, i.e. on the side but not a wg, but still i would consider him as a smf and amf hybrid because of his tendencies to move center at times. david beckham is what i would consider a true smf. fixed to the sideline. early crosses. no reliance on pace etc. he contributes to the team on the side with the central playmakers unlike the wg which are pretty much lone gunmen. very very few players could stay out that wide and away from the front and contribute to the plays. at one point i saw some potential in david bentley but i guess i was wrong. camoranesi, i would classify as a right leaning amf rather than a smf. so ya... a rare kind...

finally, sb and wb. we all know what a sb is. the wb, however, is relatively new. they are seen as ultra offensive sb's or even wg playing deep in their own halves. but to me i dont think there is a fundamental difference between the role of these 2 positions. i believe it is a matter of style. position wise sb and wb are essentially the same in real life i.e. not we11, pes, fifa. they are part of the d line. so called wb's like dani alves, carlos, bosingwa, cafu are said to play much more upfield; this in my opinion, is simply a temporary (but in some of these cases permanent off position. haha.) offset. it is not ideal but is definitely necessary in order to create a mismatch down the flanks: 2 v 1; sb/wb+mf/wg v sb/wb. on top of that, like i mentioned previously, the sb/wb complements the wg these days since they are placed on the opposite end of their stronger foot. if you look at the wb position functionally, it is virtually the same as the sb. they are not exempt from their duty to defend. if you look at it from the sb angle, notable sb like zambrotta, maldini, grosso, finnan, evra they all move up for crosses and support. just like any wb does. so to me there really is not a fundamental difference. the major difference lies in the balance of  defense v. offense.

these days commentators tend to over emphasize on differentiating players like they are chesses and creating new labels for formations such as 41212, 4411. its just a little extreme. there has always been supporting strikers in 442 or dedicated amf in 451. a lot of times these differences are completely unnecessary and creates only confusion. football is an art. not an exact science.

madrista.

http://www.thespoiler.co.uk/index.php/2009/05/08/manchester-city-offer-real-madrids-raul-e40m-deal

im gonna burn the city down if this happens. but i guess. at least robinho recommended.

modern times.

im not gonna go into details on those epics cl games the past week. way too much room for argument there. just some general observations.

1) arsenal pretty much choked. im not saying that they would beat utd if they didnt choke. but from what i saw. i felt they were choking. i.e. arsenal v. utd in cl and v. chelsea in bpl.

2) chelsea, liverpool, man utd (ill confirm this after the cl finals) are the best team on earth right now. especially chelsea.

3) i dont believe in offensive football anymore. not the real madrid i love nor the barca that i respect. its just not that way to go anymore. it might work when the galacticos are still around. with the kind of tactical style these days. the playmakers would be the likes of gerrard, ballack, lampard. youth team wont be able to produce players like zidane, figo anymore. unlikely...

4) you dont have to agree. but i think chelsea completely outplayed barca. both rounds. but props to barca. playing that beautifully in 2009 is really something. real played like that in the beginning of the season. lets hope la liga gives us more next season.

5) pique was good. but i think he was overrated in the second game (not saying he was bad). he shouldnt have pushed the pace that much. what he did gave him the coverage and attention from fans and media. it showed off his skills. but by playing like that, xavi was not utilized. xavi dropped back to his old dmf spot he played a few years ago to cover for pique. xavi is a better playmaker for obvious reasons. pique can help out but i dont think he should have taken over.

6) dani alves is without a question an asshole who plays good ball.

7) didier and anelka like to dive too much these days. not only is didier shooting freekicks like cristiano. now hes picking up his shitty habits.

8) newcastle... keep it up. a few more to go. i cant lose middlesborough, newcastle, espanyol in 1 season. gosh remember those teams? celta de vigo, real soceidad, leeds, parma, brescia.

9) ireland is such an overrated player. dont even get me started. hughes. you have to do better with the players you have.