The Importance of Sport (NEW CONCEPTS)

[Mick Harper]

Man City 2 Arsenal 1

I must endeavour to be more AE than SB (saloon bar) now that Arsenal have completed their melancholy journey from being hot favourites in four competitions to winning probably none. So, first, the rule:

[Mick Harper]

Brighton 3 Chelsea 0

It could have been ten. So whither Chelsea? Whither Rosenior? Whither American moguls and their fancy new investment vehicle of buying every promising young player in sight, giving them ten-year contracts so the amortisation takes care of Fair Play rules, sticking them on the pitch together and hoping for the best?

It might, for all I know, come up trumps next season (or the season after) as the young buds grow together into the Chelsea Physic Garden but, moguls, I wouldn't bank on it. For a start, you still have to pay off the money some time. For another thing, they've got wise to you (no pun intended) and now you only have five years to pay it off for Fair Play purposes.

So you're stuck with these kids. And, so they say, you're stuck with Rosenior (or a Rosenior-alike) 'cos no bigtime manager will come near you, they like to buy in experience 'cos they know they'll get the sack if they don't deliver immediate results. Oh yes, and you've just reported a bigger loss than any club has in the whole history of football so you won't be able to finance the move to Earls Court and a stadium that might make you some money.

Considering all the factors with my customary gravure, I won't be investing my pension pot in your scheme, if it's all the same to you. (Chelsea Pensioners, geddit?)

[Mick Harper]

They've just sacked Rosenior. Let's hope he was on a ten-year contract too. Pundit reaction has been exceptionally wide of the mark: universal sympathy for Rosenior because 'he had been given an impossible task due to the faulty policy of the Chelsea hierarchy.' What a bunch of bollocks.

He lost his job because he'd 'lost the dressing room'. Which is always fatal because it can never be recovered in any time period relevant to modern top level football.

This has nothing to do with who's in the dressing room. It occurs when a manager who has neither the track record of successful managership or an illustrious playing career experiences a run of bad results. (In this case the loss of six of the last seven Premier League matches.) This is the supreme, if regular, test and Rosenior failed it.

The results are not the result of Chelsea's policy. You can spend two billion pounds on the wrong-est of players but they should still be able to scrape a draw against Fulham.

But even if you can't, you might still retain the support of the players if you know (and they think you know) what you're doing. Rosenior didn't. Or they thought he didn't, and persuading them is part and parcel of managership. All day long. To be fair. Brian.

[Wile E. Coyote]

Wileys view is that if you are going to appoint a manager whose philosophy is built on employing a relentless insane Bielsa high press, running excessively, and then immediate rapid counter attacking, if you do win the ball.....Then its best to do it between seasons, not when the players are at their most knackered........

[Mick Harper]

Look, Wiley, we know what you're up to. You're fed up with what we pay you and you're bucking for the Chelsea job. One phone call will kybosh that, my fine feathered friend. You'll be out by Christmas with only a fat cheque to console you. Think on't.

[Mick Harper]

Talking of dopes and their money, the bloke commentating on the The Tour of the Alps yesterday intimated that Ineos were pulling out of cycling and the team will be rebranded with a £100 million four-year deal with a new sponsor, ready for the Giro d'Italia.

Not before time, I thought, since 'Sir' 'Jim' Ratcliffe managed to turn the previously world-beating Sky team into permanent members of the broomwagon. While doing much the same with Manchester United.

But, it turns out, from what I can see, it's just new jerseys with King Rat still turning the allen keys. Since he won't countenance the brilliant drugs policy of the previous regime, I can't see our lads charging up mountains in formation like they used to in their medically-assisted pomp.

Great days. I for one was prepared to look the other way.

[Mick Harper]

[Mick Harper]

Arsenal 1 Newcastle 0

Were the Youtuberati correct in castigating Arteta for leaping around in joy at the final whistle? They were right to point out that a one goal margin is nothing to shout about when goal difference is likely to be the deciding factor, but they omitted a more important, a more AE, reason:

1. One-nillers are fine over a season, you might easily win the title on the back of them despite the occasional risk of late equalisers.
2. One-nillers are not fine when you have to specifically win five matches to win the title, because of the late equaliser risk.
3. When combined with the goal difference factor it's an absolutely daft policy.

What does Arteta have to do? Stop lumping it up the park basically. This is a sound policy when you're a goal ahead and possess an ironclad defence. Playing it out from the back does, it is true, risk equalisers more than lumping it does. But it risks losing the title on goal difference even more.

[Mick Harper]

AE has a technique known as 'too many world records' which is used for identifying fakes. But last weekend, in the home of AE, it has been used literally for the first time.

[Mick Harper]

'First use/in the home of AE' technically makes this claim invalid under the world record rule. However, the fact that a third element, 'breaking the two-hour barrier', is involved makes that claim invalid, some would say.

[Grant]

They were wearing special shoes.

[Mick Harper]

Of course! I even wrote about it. Duh.

[Mick Harper]

This Week's Cycling Quiz

[Mick Harper]

The Euro Denouement

1. The Champions' final will (probably) be between an English team and A N Other
2. The UEFA final will definitely be between an English team and A N Other
3. The Conference final will (probably) be between an English team and A N Other

But is that good news or bad news?

[Mick Harper]

More news on the marathon footwear saga

The three world record-breakers were all on EVO-3's from Adidas. No relation to the EVO-3 Mitsubishi wonder-engine. Nor to the EVO-2, the running shoes flogged to your average long distance runner for a mere three figures.

But those world records may be destined for the dustbin because, coming up fast on the inside, are the brand new Nikes being given a run-out by their fast-finishing but also-ran elite runners.

What was the USP of these new brooms? Nobody knows because Adidas insisted their guinea pigs taped up their shoes. Which probably accounted for why they didn't break the record as well but it kept the trade secret intact for the new season launch when the American marathon season starts..

What was that secret? Four different theories were advanced by watching sneaker-sneakers but favourite was Adidas's breakthrough idea is having breaks in the shoes so the front, middle and back of the foot can be boinged up into the air at differential rates. Others thought that was deliberate misinformation being put around by the Adidas security detail.

Alf Tupper commented, "I was lucky if I could nick somebody's spare plimsolls they'd left in the dressing room."