I was initially critical of BS' last post. "Big four? What big four? Surely, at least five and even that is slighting a number of other teams," I thought. Sure, Chelsea are at the top, followed by Manchester United and Arsenal, but fourth place is up for grabs, and not just between Liverpool and late-arrival Manchester City. Spurs and Villa want in, too. Everton looks like they're going to throw their hat in the ring (methinks, not in time, though). Moreover, had Fabergas not stepped up in a huge way, would the Gunners really be sitting so pretty? Who knows what happens if Rooney takes a knock?
But he's correct. Why, one might ask, are Chelsea, Manchester United and Arsenal still at the top? I would argue, their benches. A season is long, players get tired and they get injured or the take leaves for other reasons. Case in point, Drogba left for ACN and Chelsea still flourished, van Persie went down and Fabergas stepped up, Rooney. . . is an outlier. Many point to an over reliance on Wayne Rooney and fear for Manchester United should he be injured. Certainly, he is on-form and that should be a concern, but how big? Arshavin and maybe Michael Owen sit behind him waiting for a chance. If that's not enough of an argument, Manchester United lost Ronaldo, whom many felt was their best player and still, they are competing for the league title. The opposite end of this argument is easy to spot as well, Everton and Fulham. Since Saha and some other injuries have returned (plus the acquisition of Landon Donovan), Everton have been on a tear. Some of it is probably luck, but the return of injured starters and spending some cash Everton's weak bench, which, by themselves, were barely keeping the Merseyside team out of relegation. Fulham were playing ever-so-well, right up to the point when they lost Dempsey and Zamora. With neither on the pitch, Fulham looked truly toothless, they had no one even close to the caliber of Dempsey or Zamora to replace them.
So what of Liverpool? Not doing so hot, but still a very wealthy team. Benitez has complained time and again of not having money to spend. Noticeably, on a second striker. Torres can be a monster, but he has spent a lot of time injured this season. N'Gog has proven poor quality. Dirk Kuyt was pushed up front, with some effectiveness, but Liverpool then lost a mid-field work horse; Babel is a poor replacement. Gerrard too has been injured a number of times, Benayoun, who was on-form, also lost part of the season with busted ribs. For Liverpool, who were not functioning well as a team to begin with, these were too many injuries to bear. Liverpool has not gotten any breaks, they have had a poor season. Yet, they are still in contention and I expect a better season from them next year.
BS too is correct about the smaller clubs not doing well in the Champions' League, but I am less inclined to chalk it up to "experience." If Everton can beat Manchester United, then why not Barca? Because Everton cannot afford to rest their key players in the Prem and expect to get a result against any but the weakest of the Prem sides nor can they rest those players against any Champions' League side. Everton may be able to fashion a decent Champions' League run with healthy players and if they are well rested, but when that's over, they may find themselves in in the bottom half of the table, if not in a relegation battle, in the league. The only teams that can consistently succeed in both the Champions' League and the EPL are the big four, plus Manchester City (probably), because their money buys depth, not just starting-eleven stars.
DC United fans probably think this self-evident. We have seen what the lack of depth can do to a team engaged in multiple tournaments plus a league. It is not, however, an argument not to break up the big four's hold on the Champions' League. So what if the fourth place team doesn't excel every time? Honestly, it makes it that much more romantic and exciting when an Aston Villa or Tottenham do make it to the elimination stages (which would happen sometimes. It's a tournament: the effect of outlier outcomes is multiplied due to the small sample size). I just find changing the rules because you don't like the results to be dishonest when not completely daft. Besides, the "race for fourth" may seem silly (Who wants to be third loser? You wouldn't even get a medal at the Olympics), but it can be interesting. I certainly think it is this year.
No comments:
Post a Comment