UEFA’s No-Hoper League

 

With the Premier League title all but sealed for Manchester United, and their cross town rivals Manchester City clinching a coveted top four finish to compete with Europe’s elite in the Champions League, only two league affairs remain outstanding this season. The first of which is who will avoid the dreaded relegation trapdoor, and lastly who will finish fifth thus securing the only UEFA Europa League place on offer through league positioning. 

Focused on the latter, the picture may become all the more clearer this weekend as Anfield will somewhat be the stage of a European shoot-out. Currently, Liverpool occupy fifth place, and will host sixth place Tottenham Hotspurs who are only two points behind their opponents. With only one more game to play after this fixture is concluded for both clubs, it would be right to assume that much is at stake in this match-up. However, a lot of the build-up of this fixture in recent weeks has questioned the wisdom of finishing fifth, and deemed whoever secures this position a poison chalice, in qualifying for an opportunity to enter the Europa League. Why?

Well simply, the Europa League formerly known as the UEFA Cup is seen amongst many as a dud competition that lacks the prestige of its bigger brother, the UEFA Champions League. With the Europa League staging its matches on a Thursday night, its scheduling does present the awkwardness of playing Premier League games more often on a Sunday. This is compared to a traditional Saturday when a team’s league rivals, are more likely to play their matches. You only have to hear the sound bites from Spurs boss Harry Redknapp, and look at his body language to see he is less than enthusiastic about trying to qualify for the Europa League. I think deep down, this attitude is also shared by his Merseyside opponents this weekend. 

Personally I think the way how the Champions League has been fixed as the be-all and end-all of club football, and the revenue the competition can generate is the primary cause. Whatever the exacting reason is, it is a shame from a sporting perspective that such a recognised competition that the Europa League holds, is panned in the manner that it is. Some can remember great moments the competition has created. From a rampaging Ronaldo (the Brazilian one) representing Inter Milan and winning the tournament in 1998, to a thrilling 2001 final where Liverpool eventually beat Spain’s Alaves, and not to forget the miraculous comebacks that littered Middlesbrough’s path to the final in 2006. Europe’s second tier event has its own place in the footballing history books. 

Clearly all football supporters would want their team to finish as high or as far as they can in any competition. However as a Liverpool fan, I will be brutally honest and say that I am one of those in that camp that deems the Europa League as a worthless exercise. This is despite wanting to see the club post the best possible finish, which for this season is fifth place in the Premier League.

But why should I along with many other have such an outlook, as the Europa League is one of only two European competitions on offer to win, and presents an additional opportunity to gain success over the course of a season. Particularly as Liverpool have gone five years without a trophy, a situation that only Arsenal infamously better out of what was once the ‘big four’, as they have gone six years without success.

Despite this, the Europa League for one reason or another is just not seen as a lofty sort after prize. In fact for me, winning the much maligned English League Cup (Carling Cup) is a more famed accomplishment and has been for almost ten years. If we use Liverpool’s 2010-11 Europa League campaign as an example, the team would have had to play a staggering 19 matches to win the competition. This is half a Premier League season, and four more than a team who wins the Champions League whilst navigating the August playoff round to enter the tournament’s group stages.  This is far too many considering this number could rise if a team is unfortunate to also have to compete in the earlier preliminary qualifying rounds. 

I think I would be right in saying most of the teams that often make up the Europa League cast list, are outfits with pedigree but do not hold a bolstering squad for both a domestic and European assault. This is underlined especially when the competition is dimly viewed, and has two distinctive windows for Champions League dropouts to enter the event. One phase opened for teams failing to reach the Champions League group stages, and another passage for teams finishing third in the actual group stage itself. The latter actually occurred to Liverpool in the 2009-10 season, when they finished third in their Champions League group and I thought this was a disgrace. Surely rewarding failure does not help the credibility of the Europa League current and future development. 

Michel Platini was voted in as UEFA President in January 2007, with campaign that targeted the less fashionable football associations of Europe to let their voices be heard. With a promise that they too will have a chance to help shape the European football map along with its more powerful neighbours if he was voted as president. Well after four years at the helm, why doesn’t he do just that? Why doesn’t he make the Europa League more credible, by granting the winner of the competition direct entry to the following year’s Champions League competition, along with that getting rid of the avenue of putting in failed teams into the Europa League?

Those around me would well attest how much I have long been asking why this exercise is not employed. The Europa League is the only competition where if won there is not a natural progression to qualify to a higher level of competition. Domestic cup winners qualify to get an opportunity for the Europa League glory. Europe’s national league champions are entered for UEFA Champions League competition, and the UEFA Champions League winners get to compete for FIFA’s World Club Championship.

If the winners of the Europa League gained entry to the Champions League you will soon see the perceived stronger clubs take the competition more seriously. More importantly it would also reward the continent’s overlooked clubs an opportunity to be in the Champions League, and break up what has now become a cartel of clubs that influence and dominate the tournament. By facilitating this directive, it would act as a clear visible sign that Platini is withholding his promise. Less recognised clubs of Europe or teams who do not realistically have a chance of qualifying for the Champions League through money and league position, have a shot at the big time whilst growing and developing.

Looking at the Premier League, had Middlesbrough won their final against Seville in 2006, they should be entered for the following Champions League campaign. Had Fulham seen of Atlético Madrid in last year’s final, they should have been entered for this current season Champions League tournament. If such teams are good enough to win in Europe with such a demanding schedule of fixtures, then the Europa League needs a worthy carrot to entice the competing clubs and retain football’s idea of rewarding success. Perhaps I have it wrong but isn’t that a large component of competitive sport? It would sure help nullify this growing lacklustre attitude of UEFA’s Europa League, and turn it from no hope to all hope.

The Green Grass of Home

With the traditional summer months fast approaching, those of a sporting persuasion will begin think of the hallowed lush turf of Wimbledon, and its famed tennis championships. Holding the distinction of being the oldest tennis tournament in the world, Wimbledon is considered the most prestigious event on the tennis calendar. 

A position that plays in no small part thanks to the tournament’s steep history, and its importance on tradition. Currently, Wimbledon is the only Grand Slam tournament which is still played on the sport’s original surface of lawn grass.

With that said, looking at the tennis circuit as a whole, there is an apparent lack of grass court events being played. In fact, there are only seven during the year on both the men’s and women’s tour combined, which is frantically boxed in duel two week window either side of Wimbledon.

The existing schedule of tournaments staged is dominated by outdoor and indoor hard court events, and clay court competitions. With such a focus by the gatekeepers of the sport, there is a growing number querying why grass does not feature just as keenly during the year.  

The lack of grass tournaments is somewhat a strange scenario, particularly as tennis’s roots so to speak, have largely been based on this surface. The 1920’s saw a significant shift begin as what is now recognised as the French Open, embarked on a switch and began to be played on clay. Along with the prominence of the Open Era in 1968, such movements have helped usher the differing court surfaces we have today.

But why is there a dearth of grass competitions if for so long it was the primary surface of choice? In reviewing the situation, it is easy to understand why grass court events are not plentiful. The cost of grass court maintenance is significantly higher when compared to its counterparts, and the required natural elements needed to play, are a large part of when grass tournaments can be staged.   

 

Even so, as the three main surfaces differ greatly in terms of texture and feel, a court’s facade can favour one style of tennis player to have an advantage over another player, and their natural approach. So should the tennis world continually allow grass to go overlooked?

Both the men’s and women’s tour which is administered by the ATP and WTA respectively, set aside a period which is defined and concluded by a forthcoming Grand Slam event on the diary. Based on the surface which the Grand Slam tournament is recognised for, the respective tours dedicate at least one prime event during this time, which acts as a fitting pre-cursor to the imminent Major. Wimbledon and the grass court season is the only exception. Using the men’s ATP tour as an example, the nine primary events that rank just beneath the Grand Slams, five are contested on outdoor hard, three on clay, and the remaining tournament is an indoor hard court competition. 

At present, we are in the midst of the clay court season as both the men and women players recently participated at the Madrid Open. For those wondering, Petra Kvitova took the women’s singles title in the Spanish capital, and Novak Djokovic continued his winning run in 2011 by defeating Rafael Nadal in the men’s championship. Before returning to the matter at hand, I must give a special mention to Rafael Nadal, who played one of the most astonishing shots you will ever see. If you have not seen the shot, I implore you to look it up on the vast media sources available on the internet.  

With that bit of housekeeping done, it is clear the different surfaces play an important part of the sport’s package. Grass court tournaments should be given the due time and attention that its equivalents presently hold. An equal amount of court surface events on show, would present a challenging situation for the players to adjust their play, and try to negate the demands each surface brings. Players would look to be more proficient on all of the featured surfaces, and allow a greater variation of tennis matches played whilst enhancing our public interest and the sport’s charm.

Off The Record

 

With the current Premier League season reaching its dying embers, the May Day match-up between title rivals Arsenal and Manchester United could be described as history repeating itself. The perennial competitors during the Premier League’s existence have often been the two featured teams jousting for league supremacy. At the very least, their encounters have been critical in deciding the destination of the major honours during seasons past.

The latter may be more of a suitable assessment of their up-coming league encounter at the Emirates Stadium. Depending on when you have read this, mathematically the Gunners could still be crowned champions this season if they got a positive outcome against Manchester United. But with a string of disappointing results, and dropping vital points in the past few weeks in their pursuit of the Old Trafford outfit, Arsenal’s title tilt is seemingly in tatters.

The two teams respective managers in the shape of Arsene Wenger and Sir Alex Ferguson have hardly shared what can be described as a jovial relationship, despite their rivalled association somewhat cooling in recent years. However, what both men share in their many years of competing against each other is their hunger for success.

With that, what a suitable time to ask who has produced the more outstanding achievement during their terms at their respective clubs? Is it Sir Alex Ferguson’s treble winning vintage of 1999, when his team won the Premier League, the FA Cup, and European Champions League? Or is it Wenger’s boys who were not only unbeaten in winning the Premier League in 2004, within this time, they set a new record of going 49 English league games undefeated? A feat that spanned over three seasons which ultimately came to an end by yes you guessed it, Ferguson’s Manchester United through the help of Wayne Rooney. Who's achievement is the daddy of them all?

Personally as a sporting fan I have always been feed that honours, were the epitome of competitive sport. It is what as onlookers we define between first and second, a winner and politely a loser, and what a professional sportsperson aspires to achieve in their respective field. Manchester United’s success saw them chalk up only four defeats during the course of that season in all competitions, which naturally included an unblemished run in the FA Cup.

What is often overlooked is that the Red Devils had no defeats in their European campaign also. A campaign that saw them being pitted against celebrated European heavyweights Barcelona and Bayern Munich twice in the group stage, arguably the leading team on the continent during the late nineties in Juventus, and again Bayern Munich on a third occasion in the final. It should be said that the German team were chasing a treble of the own at that stage going into the European final. So in that respect and the level of opponents that faced them, it is pretty hard to argue a case against labelling this accomplishment more outstanding.

However, the Arsenal case should be considered just as closely. Their unbelievable 49-game unbeaten streak began at the tail end of the 2002-2003 campaign. After a shock home defeat to a Leeds team fighting against relegation, Arsenal’s loss handed the league championship to Manchester United. Arsenal’s brilliant run began in the subsequent match that followed with a 6-1 win at home against Southampton.

On a side note, Arsene Wenger has always been renowned for his team’s sintilating displays during his time at the London club, a status that still stands today despite what some call his current crop being a faltering outfit. However, during that particular season of 2002-2003, I personally feel this was the best expansively performing team Arsene Wenger has ever produced at Arsenal. A factor which led Wenger himself to state at the start of that campaign, his team were capable of going the entire season undefeated. The visionary was laughed at in some quarters at the time, but his bold statement would ultimately be achieved all be it a year later.

Without digressing too much, you could see that Wenger indeed had the confidence in his 2002-2003 squad to create history. With thirteen games in all competitions negated and nine of them in the league that was symbolised with a 4-1 victory away to Leeds, Arsenal were looking good until a trip to Everton when a then sixteen year old upstart named….Wayne Rooney (him again), scored a late winner for Everton and inflicted Arsenal first defeat of the season.

However, the 2003-2004 season was far more promising as the team continued the run from the backend of the previous season, and used it to springboard in securing the league title. Marrying desired league results with attractive football at home, and more pertinently away to difficult grounds such as Old Trafford, White Hart Lane, and Stamford Bridge all in a fashion most football fans like to see in their teams perform at whatever the level. One other club has only achieved ‘Invincible’ status that Arsenal claimed, and this was Preston North End who achieved this feat over 100 years ago. But that time, Preston completed their programme over a much smaller course of 22 fixtures, not the 38-game schedule that is played today.

Many have made arguments against both cases. From a domestic perspective in home competitions were Manchester United pitted against many dangers? Barring Arsenal, it is hard to argue realistically there were many challengers in the Premier League to halt United’s trophy haul like there is today. Chelsea were not of major prominence yet, and the ‘big four’ stable which I like to now call an expanded ‘significant six’ had not been established. Not to mention finance which was a key factor then, as it is now has help to bring many teams year after year complete multiple trophy hauls during a season.

Barcelona achieved the same treble in 2009, and went one further by winning an unprecedented six trophies that they were eligible for during that calendar year. Last year’s Champions League final saw both Inter Milan and Bayern Munich looking to complete a treble after securing a domestic league and cup double. But then it is quite likely more people have scaled Mount Everest compared to walking your residential roof, does it make the task any less challenging?

Some have said Arsenal’s league feat as magnificent as it is, was completed in a slightly less competitive arena than the last two seasons we have had, where any team regardless of status and league position is viably capable of toppling their opponent. But is the level of the fellow top teams better now than it was then? With only six defeats in the whole campaign of 2003-2004, Arsenal by far and away was the best placed team when it came to the business-end of the competitions they did not win.

Perhaps with such a line-up, Arsenal should have made more of their success then acquiring 'only' the league title. With semi-final appearances in the League Cup and FA Cup, but were defeated by Middlesbrough and Manchester United respectively along with disappointment at the quarter-final stage to Chelsea, does this make Manchester United’s achievement that much more exceptional? Or does it highlight how close Arsenal were to running the table and sweeping the board?

Lets be honest, it is quite a tough call either way. It really is a case of different strokes for different folks, and dependant on your persuasion some would favour one feat over another. Despite my first statement that it is always about what you win, in an age where money dictates and results are more important than the manner in which you win, perhaps I edge slightly towards Arsenal’s achievement.

My decision is transient in its nature and does change whenever I assess, and do apologise to United fans, but to achieve success with exquisite style along with substance, it is hard to overlook Arsenal’s feat. You cannot be lucky over the course of 49 competitive games the Premier League is famed for. Cast a look at Manchester United’s ‘Unconvincibles’, and how they tried to emulate the feat in the current season before stalling away to Wolverhampton.

Put it this way, without hesitation I feel the current Barcelona side is the best team I have ever witness. I was not around to see the 1970 Brazilian World Cup winning team which purists deem the best side to ever grace a football pitch. But I think it is the most stubborn of opinions who do not feel we are witnessing history when watching the current Catalan outfit.

With that said, I leave you with this conundrum. How would Fergie’s treble-winners or Wenger’s ‘Invincibles’ fare against Josep Guardiola’s Barcelona of today?