Chelsea fan Soupdragon takes particular offense at the vitriol thrown in Lampard’s direction by Chelsea-haters – who seem to be everywhere, especially in the media.

Are you so desperately concerned about the economic affairs of other clubs that it reduces your enjoyment of “the beautiful game”?

Do you condemn the ‘classless behaviour’ of certain teams unconditionally, whilst justifying similar behaviour by your own club’s staff with equal vigour?

Do you care more about the critical coverage of a player’s autobiography than their value as a footballer to your national team?

If so, you’re either a sports journalist (Ed: where journalist = scum) or one of a billion disillusioned fans.

At any given moment, countless beings worldwide will be perusing their domestic and foreign dailies, hoping to stumble upon some genuinely interesting and informative reading material.

Those of you who turn straight to the sports section will have inevitably come across a recent trend which is threatening and undermining the professional analysis of our game.

There has been a sudden increase in articles written by campy, self appreciative, cowboy journalists, and the game’s reputation is suffering as a consequence. The arrogant flippancy championed by ‘men’s men’ like Mark Lawrenson and Richard Keys is now considered the trademark of a knowledgeable pundit.

Football journalism has gone from ‘sporting bout’ to ‘thought: without’.

We do not read objective articles which encapsulate an evening’s football action; we read fabricated trash which parades as the all-encompassing view of an apparently uber-cynical sporting public.

The bitter, middle aged press reps are doing their best to warp the public’s perception of the game beyond recognition. It’s time for those who claim to care about our national game to take notice of the impact these mediocre propagandists are having.

Any self respecting arm-chair analyst will accept that the papers will always influence public opinion, and that by agreeing with public opinion you are usually regurgitating the loaded statements of aforementioned ‘crotchety hacks’.

It intensifies your enjoyment of the game if you have your own opinions on sporting matters. It is your duty to be strong enough to disagree with the status quo. Instead of searching for shreds of evidence to support the press’ spite-fuelled barbs, take the time to consider the implications of their frequent accusations. Do you really think one player should be excessively vilified for behaviour that is ever-present in the game? Why does another player with similar behavioural tendencies deserve to be spared the condemnation?

I make a point of avoiding sporting articles with sensational headlines; a person can end up exposing themselves to simplistic, agenda-driven conjecture without due consideration. Sporting lifestyle articles always question or support a character’s motives and morals. This kind of material is published to encourage the growth of extra layers of superficial interest in the game and will either support or dismantle the reputations of certain teams and players.

Now I know ninety nine percent of you are now saying “I make up my own mind.” And “I don’t even read the papers“.

Every incident is revisited and over-analysed in all facets of football. Every opinion is dismissed or supported, and there are no grey areas. When you are watching the game on television, you will find pundits and commentators are happy to explore the recent criticisms of a player or a club, usually regurgitating the most palatable public theory which falls in line with the fans of the most popular clubs. You must then expect to repeatedly encounter a loud and unapologetic repetition of these opinions spouted by drunken trolls in your local watering hole (usually with a few naughty words interspersed), either way you will certainly come across the main talking points from the morning’s papers. Don’t forget, you are reading about football on the internet too.

The press and the pundits are cogs in the mechanism of one particular behavioural pattern which stifles the validity of almost all rudimentary analysis of the football. Most sports writers lavish praise upon particular players and clubs (whom they will happily admit they support and/or have ties with) and speak or write with pure contempt in regard to others. This always comes across as a misguided attempt to show everyone that the middle class fifty-somethings (with a penchant for a night in with the thesaurus and a bottle of Marks and Spencer’s finest red) can be just as barbarically prejudiced as your average 20 stone Millwall fan with the club logo tattooed to his forehead. It is a comical parody of one of the unwritten laws between football fans. Your status as a ‘real fan’ is STILL determined by the volume at which you can holler “My team are f**kin’ great mate. Yours is well sh**e.” Whilst holding 3 cups of Bovril and a claxon.

(I’m still not sure if the brown stains which frequently appear on Mick Dennis’ articles are the result of repeated Bovril spillages or his inability to control the stream of an equally foul substance which tends to spew from his mouth.)

This is a reflection of the working class attitude which refuses to relinquish its demeaning grip on a sport which has outgrown it’s simplistic roots theoretically and financially.

I am forced to endure Adrian Chiles’ ‘endearing’ mannerisms on Match of the Day 2 (up to and including wild arm flailing) and I must say, watching him flounder is far more interesting than listening to his child-like realisation of any given Sunday’s sporting events. His face lights up like a shark that’s been plonked into a pool full of wounded seals every time the opportunity to stick the knife in on a high profile victim arises. Gavin Peacock could be half way through a sentence, expressing genuine concern over the seriousness of a player’s injury, then BAM. Adrian decides that he can’t contain himself, inanely tumbling through yet another hilarious critique of the size of Ashley Cole’s ear-rings.

Sensational.

So finally the subject of the article comes into focus; my disillusionment at the press’ unjustified and irrelevant criticism of certain characters and clubs. Some players suffer at the hands of the press, while others are afforded comparative immunity.

Football has always been about the heroes, but sadly villains sell papers. The tounge-in-cheekery of a bygone era has been entirely usurped in favour of repetitive and agonising bitching that wouldn’t sound out of place in a lady’s weekly.

“Have you seen Frank Lampard recently? He has gotten sooo fat.”
“That Jose Mourinho is sooo up himself.”
“Arsenal are sooo beautiful to watch.”

Perhaps we should be scrutinising the spiteful fools who make a living pimping negative ideals to a public starved of conversation points.

“Mick Dennis’ performance was way under-par on Wednesday. He repeatedly resorted to biased bitching utilising a collection of pre-rehearsed clichéd metaphors. He yet again regurgitated the theme of another forgettable article in which he criticised Chelsea. Perhaps he should lay off the burgers and stop looking at his feet in interviews, the ugly git.”

See how it feels Mick?

I am starting to wonder whether the fans would be better off disregarding the “interest” articles written by the new breed of tabloid sport journalists.

Frank Lampard is a man with the weight of the British sporting press resting on his shoulders. What has been described by Mourinho as a press ‘campaign’ against one of his most valuable players has gone so far that the ‘knowledgeable’ journalists are calling for him to be dropped from club and country. I can take the never-ending abuse of my club, as most of the abuse that comes our way is pathetically unquantifiable.

However, when a player of Lampard’s quality is shown such disrespect, you start to understand that (like the majority of the fans) sports journalists don’t actually want to deal with facts and figures unless it suits their agendas. The journos want to take a small sample of the truth, contort it until the information is unrecognisable then feed it to the public like it’s the awe-inspiring validification they’ve all been praying for.

In the World Cup Frank had a poor tournament by his usual standards. So did everyone else. End of story.

But it’s not the end of the story is it? Steven Gerrard weighed in with a whopping 2 goals at the and suddenly he should not only displace Lampard, he should be named as England’s captain as well.

Where were the journalists championing Frank Lampard as the most viable candidate for the England captaincy after he was our man of the tournament with a 5 goal haul two years ago in Portugal? Never once did the newspapers express that Gerrard’s permanent lack of form for England might eventually lose him his place in the team. Why has Lampard’s temporary dip (mainly for England rather than for Chelsea) been afforded such significance?

Last season, Frank broke a domestic record by scoring the most goals from midfield in the Premiership’s history. He was regarded as the second best player on the planet in 2004, and England’s most valuable player in the year of the last European Championship. He holds the record for the most consecutive appearances of all time in the top division and is considered to be a key figure in the star-studded Chelsea side who have won the domestic title two years in a row. Chelsea’s ‘failure’ in Europe consists of 3 latter stage appearances in 3 years, where twice they were beaten by the eventual winners.

Lampard’s achievements with Chelsea have been facilitated by his unrelenting determination and dedication, and he comes across as a likeable and intelligent character in his interviews and press conferences.

It’s re-assuring for members of the press to see their vengeful fabricated opinions repeated without due consideration, but the idea that the best midfielder in the country should be left out of England’s first eleven is laughable.

Don’t dismiss the facts and figures, and instead of being so critical of Frank Lampard, afford him the same respect you would to any other player with his credentials and capabilities.

If you don’t take heed of my advice, I promise that you will continue to massage the tabloid press’ collective ego and the England team will be weaker as a result of this flippancy. A man can only stand so much unjustified criticism, and it is plain to see that the public campaign against Lampard has affected his confidence.

You have to ask yourself what’s more important, the satisfaction of undermining a Chelsea player or the positive development of one of England’s finest midfielders?

Roll on Euro 2008.

From Soccerlens.com - Football News

Twice Steven Gerrard has taken the time to condemn foreign players diving in interviews. In one instance he stated that, if he saw a team-mate diving he’d say to them “WE don’t do that here. Cut it out” and that he “jumps off his sofa” when he watches football at home and someone dives.

This is Steven Gerrard pretending that he has been caught by the Bolton defender last season. This is crafty, as he knows that generally, when two players come in for a tackle, the referee is most likely to be watching ONE player’s feet as he cannot watch both. This allows him the space and time to jump as if the other player has caught him.

Steven Gerrard’s much maligned decision to dive for a penalty in the Champions League final is only contested by Liverpool fans. As you can see here, he uses the same unusual ‘Straight-standing-leg, flick-back-the-kicking-foot’ technique present in his other dives (most notably the Sheffield Utd penalty). This is an unusual way to dive when there is no low level contact, which in any sane referee’s eyes would blow his attempt to cheat out of the water.

Fortunately for Steve, the referee is blind.

This is the penalty from the Liverpool vs Sheffield Utd match. Rob Styles made himself out to be a prize moron by saying he thought there was contact, then upon being proven wrong said “oh, well the Sheffield Utd player was trying to take Gerrard down in his own penalty box”. This was another example of Gerrard straightening his standing leg and flicking back his foot to throw himself off balance.

It may seem that it is just the referees and Andy Gray who are blind to Gerrard’s constant diving. That however, is contested by the ever pseudo-intellectual comments made by “our la” Rafa Benitez (the humble, intelligent, and fair one of the two latin managers).

This is a quote taken from an interview with Benitez after he had analysed a video of the Bolton match.

“Perhaps they have other rules here but the referee should protect the players who want to play football.

Bolton were diving all the time and you know they like free-kicks.”

And last but not least, THE whole team montage from soccer AM against Bolton (they tried to find a dive from the Bolton players in the same match but couldn’t).

… and people tell me I have rose-tinted glasses on.

This is a picture of Gerrard flying, somehow splaying both ankles outward against hungary, which was condemned as the worst dive of them all. No contact, but as usual, Gerrard’s legs goto jelly in the box.

Ian Wright claims that it’s the foreigners fault for bringing it into the game (after seeing this dive), and that we should do it too to keep the game balanced. Perhaps that’s fair, or perhaps Steven Gerrard should not state in interviews his UTTER DISGUST with diving when he does it on a regular basis.

The Drogba article is next…

Editor’s Note: This article is not meant to incite Liverpool fans but to highlight the hypocrisy of one Steven Gerrard, and to point out that diving, no matter who the diver is, is never acceptable. So please, this is not a matter of Liverpool’s honour, but about football.

The author is a Chelsea fan, who is preparing an article on Drogba’s diving (hopefully).

From Soccerlens.com - Football News

Who is better – Liverpool’s Steven Gerrard or Chelsea’s Frank Lampard? That where this discussion turned to, and since it has been such a contentious point for both sets of fans (plus England fans), let’s find out…

How do you compare the two best central attacking midfielders in world football?

Honours

Frank Lampard

Club (West Ham, Chelsea):

• UEFA Intertoto Cup (1999) (West Ham)
• FA Premier Asia Cup (2003) (Chelsea)
• FA Community Shield (2005) (Chelsea)
• League Cup (2005) (Chelsea)
• English Premier League (2004-05, 2005-06) (Chelsea)

Personal:

• FIFA World Player of the Year runner-up (2005)
• FWA Player of the Year (2004/2005)
• European Footballer of the Year runner-up (2005)
• PFA Player of the year (2005)
• Most goals scored in a season by a midfielder (2005/2006)

Steven Gerrard:

Club (Liverpool):

• 2006-07 Community Shield (Liverpool)
• 2005-06 FA Cup (Liverpool)
• 2004-05 UEFA Champions’ League (Liverpool)
• 2002-03 League Cup (Liverpool)
• 2001-02 European Super Cup (Liverpool)
• 2001-02 Charity Shield (Liverpool)
• 2000-01 UEFA Cup (Liverpool)
• 2000-01 FA Cup (Liverpool)
• 2000-01 League Cup (Liverpool)

Personal:

• 2006 PFA Player of the Year
• 2004—05 UEFA Champions’ League Most Valuable Player
• 2001 PFA Young Player of the Year

Standout abilities

Frank Lampard:

Frank Lampard has lethal shooting accuracy with both feet whether he is at close range or hitting the ball from distance. He is a typical “goal scoring midfielder” in the Scholes/Poyet mould. His ability to delay and time his runs makes him a lethal target man when arriving in the penalty area. His ability to maintain control of the ball under pressure, and pull competing midfielders out of position makes him an asset strategically as well as technically. His eye for the long ball is outstanding, and he is able to pick out players from a distance with clinical precision. He is also very dangerous from set pieces, and is a confident talented penalty taker.

He is a competitive player who likes to dictate the tempo of games, whether he is speeding things up with a surging run or calming things down with a pressure releasing lateral ball to a player in space, he is often the controlling influence in midfield battles.

He holds the record for the most consecutive appearances ever in the top division, and his amazing fitness levels are revered world wide. He is an influential and well respected player within the game, and has exceeded his potential tenfold through hard work and perserverance.

Steven Gerrard:

Steven Gerrard has explosive potential, and is a player capable of bringing any game back from the dead. His behaviour on the field is exemplary, chasing down every ball and making tackles your average centre back dreams about. His vision for the pass which unlocks defences is incredible, and his inspired cross-field passing is matched only by his ferocious long distance shooting, which seems to improve when his team are desperate for a goal. Gerrard is a talented free-kick taker, and is always a threat from dead ball situations.

He is not a typical central midfielder, as he holds the natural ability to outpace most players over short distances as well as the engine to keep him moving from box to box over 90 minutes. When he is on form, he is a fearsome prospect to play against, which lifts his team and decreases the confidence of the opposition.

He has the backing and support of the public because he plays with a passion and ferocity that is apparent in every run, every turn and every shot he makes.

When in possession, he encourages his team to press up the pitch and his influence can be the determining factor. His movement off the ball contorts defenses and causes opposition players to make mistakes, which in turn creates gaps for him and his team-mates to take advantage of.

Weaknesses

Frank Lampard:

Lampard’s slight lack of pace over short distances means he can get caught in possession when making attacking runs. The fact that his form doesn’t often drop means that when it does, he often tries too hard to get it back. He is quite badly affected by negative press, and needs to develop his self-confidence to maintain his professional manner on the pitch even when he is considered to be playing poorly. He can get wound up, and sometimes shows dangerous zeal in the protection of his team-mates and will often directly contest what he perceives to be the correct refereeing decision by flying into challenges. Lampard can take a little while to get into the game, rather than starting explosively.

Steven Gerrard:

Gerrard’s tendancy to look for the “Hollywood” ball, can undermine the quality of his build-up play. Sometimes he is overly rash in the tackle, and can find himself getting wound up on the pitch if he isn’t getting enough of the ball. Inexplicably, his influence in big games is sometimes not up to the incredible standard he has shown in other similar instances, often when he is expected to be the biggest influence. He has been injury prone in the past. His team haven’t facilitated his development as he has been their standout player since he broke into the first team.

All of these negative traits seem to arise when either of the players have hit a particularly poor vein of form. They both are still better than anything else the premiership has to offer in midfield, regardless of their form.

My Conclusion

• The players are of equal standing, yet they are not quite as similar as people suggest.
• Lampard thrives mostly on possession, where Gerrard thrives mostly on powerful distribution.

The thinking man’s choice would be Lampard, as he provides a calming influence as well as a lethal cutting edge in any game, and when he is playing well, will boss any midfield in the world.

The passionate fan’s choice would be Gerrard, as he provides the explosive influence that turns a game in one swift movement, whether it’s with a inhuman crossfield ball to test the defence’s resolution or a netbursting 30 yarder in the dying seconds.

For those of us that like to think we’re both passionate and thoughtful, it is almost impossible to say which player you would rather have lining up for your team.

They both hold most of the same properties, as well as being the best in the world in regards to their “standout skills” mentioned above.

Needless to say, you wouldn’t want to play against either of them.

Comments please!

Editor’s note: Bear in mind that while this is a great topic for debate, I don’t want to see either player derided unnecessarily. Think before you write, and if that doesn’t work, don’t write.

From Soccerlens.com - Football News

Contributing author Soupdragon2 takes a suicidal swipe at Chelsea-haters.

Is Carrick worth two-thirds of Shevchenko (18.7 million and 29 million respectively)? Is it such an exorbitant sum for the best centre forward in recent history (Henry was going to Barcelona for the same fee before he had a change of heart, and is the same age)?

Would you rather get Senna for seven million, or Ballack, a proven world class midfielder for free? (Granted the wages are different, but that reflects the quality of the players) If Ferguson is talking about Chelsea relying on ‘pensioners’, the press should call into question his decisions. Roy Keane, Ryan Giggs and Paul Scholes have all been crucial members of his team, and are all older than Ballack and Shevchenko.

What is a better deal? Chelsea selling Eidur Gudjohnsen (age 28) for eight and a half million or Man Utd selling Ruud Van Nistelrooy at the same age as Henry and Shevchenko for around ten million?

• Chelsea have spent 50m and sold just under 22m worth of players this season.
• Liverpool have spent 14m, and sold 5 million pounds worth of players.
• Manchester United have spent 21m million and sold just over 11m, after Glazer was allowed to take over the club and use it entirely as a financial pressure release (Ferguson apparently wants two more high profile signings before the window closes).
• Arsenal have spent 397m on a new stadium and Rosicky, but I am not sure of the sum they received for the sale of the land at Highbury (I assume it would only slightly recoup the loss).

The figures are pending the sale of Ashley Cole from Arsenal and the sale of Robert Huth from Chelsea.

According to the public and the press, it is a terrible threat to football to pay massive sums for assets that could guarantee a good financial balance for a football club in the long run. Spending money on players makes for entertaining football.

Agreeing to sell your valuable players (Ashley Cole, Henry and Reyes) and relying on young players is bad for the supporters and is damaging to the clubs standard of football and reputation.

I wonder which club is really looking to provide entertainment for the fans?

Is it more damaging for the English game that Chelsea are selling players at cut rates to other clubs and making and spending money at a similar ratio to other top clubs. Chelsea are bringing the best players and new sponsorship interest to our league. Man Utd and Arsenal have attempted (and in Man Utd’s case succeeded) to sell the two most prolific strikers in our league for financial gain.

Chelsea have bought young players from smaller sides such as Leeds etc, and the space devoted to the alleged tapping up stories coming from Chelsea’s bitter ex-chairman has been huge, one day had 3 pages of coverage in one tabloid paper. Arsenal allegedly taking advantage of legal loopholes with their player’s pay packages and an unusual financial relationship with a feeder club gets 2 small paragraphs 3 pages in on the same day, the next day, more Bates hate is printed on the back and inside back page.

Barcelona’s disgust at Wenger taking another young player prior to the signing of professional contracts gets 3 paragraphs and is touted as “shrewd business” rather than saying he is a “Shyster” like they quoted Bates about Chelsea.

Matt Lawton in the mail stated that a Liverpool at 50 percent beat a full Chelsea team, in direct opposition to Mourinho’s statement that Chelsea are only at 50 percent and Liverpool are ahead in their preparations for the season (The 50 percent was referring to their fitness levels, but of course as it suits the journalist’s argument, he talks about the number of first team players on the pitch without considering that Liverpool introduced all of their key players with 20 minutes to go against a tired Chelsea).

Chelsea started without 3 crucial players who were expected to start the season in the first 11, and lost another when Ballack limped off (Joe Cole, Petr Cech and Makalele).

Of course the mix ups between the John Terry and the left backs for the 2 Liverpool goals means that the press call Terry’s leadership skills into doubt the day after their favourite Steven Gerrard is ‘pipped’ at the post for the England captaincy, co-incidence? “There’s nowhere to hide” they claim.

2 comments critiquing the England setup (Gerrard was played out of position and was ‘disgusted’, and he “was angry” that Walcott went) in the World Cup from Steven Gerrard are analysed fairly and no-more is said the next day, it is just his opinion after all.

Frank Lampard makes 1 critique, in which he stated that he AND Rio Ferdinand were doing something to combat the lack of training and words from a fellow professional are widely publicised that Lampard is a “coward” for complaining and not taking the blame. Reading’s centre forward. Will anyone be calling Gerrard a coward, and if they are will the papers and websites run it as a story?

Gerrard has worse statistics since Lampard has come to the fore at Chelsea in the last 2-3 years in the premiership and in international competition. The stats did not matter then, and people were of the opinion that Lampard and Gerrard were of an equal standard. The first time Gerrard slightly out-performs Lampard (Gerrard scored 2 goals and Lampard didn’t get any) and suddenly the numbers are what counts and Gerrard should be the England captain because he’s such a hero. That would makes Gerrard the one who should be granted protection from substitution while Lampard would be likely to be dropped if there was a midfield re-shuffle, oh and what of John Terry, arguably the strongest and most influential club captain in the world?

This is not meant to be an unbiased article as such, the facts are in there, and my opinions on the facts may leave you with varying feelings about your previous Chelsea-related perceptions.

Perception relies on positive or negative focus. If the papers (aka. “The people’s voice”) focus on how much worse off the Premiership is for Chelsea’s wealth, it becomes worse off in everyone’s opinion.

Feel free to express your opinions.

*Pulls on flak jacket*

From Soccerlens.com - Football News