A Fan’s Grief (19 May 2013)

Wondering why this didn't get published until nearly three years after the events it describes? Please see here.

I said it was the Bargaining stage, but my wife said it was pure Denial: if Andre Marriner awarded the obvious penalty to Gareth Bale in the 20th minute instead of making an ass of himself (Marriner) for booking him (Bale) for diving, then maybe just maybe Newcastle decide that having the opportunity to play the spoiler against Arsenal gets them fired up enough to at least hold the draw. I mean, Koscielny's goal was pretty ragged, to say the least. A team with something to play for doesn't give that up, do they?

Unfortunately, that's the kind of not-very-rational counterfactual you have to console yourself with when your team has slumped enough through the final two months of the season to find themselves no longer in control of their own destiny. It's painful, but is it surprising? I can't be the only Spurs fan who was hoping against hope that they'd avoid another late-season collapse, while at the same time watching each match with an air of dread, kind of expecting it. Because what had changed to prevent it?

Everything looked so good after Spurs beat Arsenal 2-1 on March 3rd, and then followed it with a total shellacking of Inter Milan, 3-0, on Thursday, March 7th. With ten games to play in the Prem, Spurs sat 3rd, two points ahead of Chelsea and seven ahead of Arsenal. They would be heading back to the San Siro without having given up an away goal. Things were looking good.

Three days later against Liverpool at Anfield, Spurs held a 1-2 lead going into the final quarter of the match. Liverpool looked on the ropes--and then in the 66th minute Kyle Walker got too casual and badly misplayed a backpass(?) to Hugo Lloris, which allowed Stuart Downing to easily steal the ball and beat Vertonghen on the line. (Breathe deep to quell your revulsion, then watch it here.)

Am I the only one who felt it, right then, that feeling of a switch being flipped? One minute, Liverpool are looking like a team beaten, Spurs are 24 minutes from an unbeaten run of 13 matches, including five wins in a row, and then the momentum shifts. As the match progressed, Spurs looked like they might be lucky enough to escape with a draw, but then in the 81st minute Jermaine Defoe made a dreadful backpass, Assou-Ekoto fouled Suarez in the box, and Spurs somehow managed to lose.

From there, the wheels came completely off: four days later at the San Siro, Spurs got totally outplayed and only advanced in extra time off a last minute Adebayor goal to win on away goals. Three days after that, they lost at home 0-1 to 11th-place Fulham. In their next tie in the Europa League, against Basel, they went out on penalties. Their draw against Everton on April 7th dropped them from third in the league to fifth, as both Arsenal and Chelsea passed them.

Going into the last weekend of the season, they'd gone unbeaten in seven, with four wins and three draws, but still trailed Arsenal by one point for the final Champions League spot.

So here they were on the last day needing help from Arsenal/Arsenal's opponent Newcastle to get into the Champions League, save their season, and not lose their best player. Their best hope was to get an early goal to put pressure on Arsenal and perhaps enliven Newcastle. They should have had that chance in the 20th minute, but Marriner shafted them, and after that the team looked subdued for most of the rest of the match. Arsenal scored, and little hope remained. A limping 0-0 draw looked like a real possibility. Then in the 89th minute Gareth Bale uncorked one last amazing goal (doubtless raising his transfer fee by another £5 million in the process) and Spurs finished
the season with a vapid half-triumph. One more collapse, one more fifth-place finish, one more impending loss of their best player.

(Video of Koscielny's goal for Arsenal and Gareth Bale's for Spurs here.)

Repeat a tragedy enough times and it becomes a farce.

But how I was hoping. Spurs played most of the season with a squad containing one-and-a-half strikers (and even that may be giving Adebayor too much credit), a didn't-make-much-sense amalgam of players brought in to fill the hole left by Luka Modric's departure for Real Madrid, and one player whose rise has been so meteoric, I've been continually terrified that one day I'd hear he'd failed a PED test.

If you're an Arsenal fan, Spurs' yearly farce is delicious (read this ESPNFC post to get a feel for the level of gloating we're talking about), but for the rest of us, isn't Spurs-to-the-Champions-League the better story? Getting third or fourth place with a limited, unbalanced squad, keeping the most exciting player in the Prem, finding out what AVB can achieve when he actually stays with a squad for more than one season (which he's never done) and with the greater transfer flexibility afforded by Champions League money and the appeal to outside players looking to join a squad in the ascendancy? If you root for any team besides Arsenal, tell me the truth: would you rather see one-dimensional Theo Walcott against Europe's best, or Gareth Bale? It can't just be Spurs fans who are tired of watching Arsene Wenger scowl on the touchline as his overmatched team--always punching above their weight, but still--crashes out of the Champion's League and finishes the Prem in 4th place.

Yes, I'm a diehard fan, and yes, I'm biased, but Spurs in the Champions League would have been the better story. We've already seen the movie (just last year!) where Spurs finish fifth and lose their best player. But here it is: Hello Europa League for Spurs, Hello Real Madrid for Spurs' Best Player: The Sequel. So sure, I'm making my way through the five stages of grief. But how many stages of boredom are there?

More Thoughts on the North London Derby

It's not that I can't speak rationally about Tottenham Hotspur. It's just that doing so is like trying to describe a vibrantly colored oil painting in terms of whites, blacks and grays.

For example I could describe Spurs' inability to put Saturday's match away in terms of accumulated fatigue, both long- and short-term. It's a long season, and Spurs played in four different competitions this year (the Premier League, the League Cup, the FA Cup, and the Europa League), only recently got knocked out of the FA Cup, and still are participating in the Premier League (obviously) and the Europa League. Furthermore, before Saturday's game, they played on Wednesday, the previous Sunday, and the Thursday before that. Having watched more high-level soccer than any normal human should, I can assure you that the outlier physical specimens that are professional soccer players still need 96 hours between games to (more or less) fully recover.

So a young team, facing a shocking level of pressure (Spurs haven't won the top level of English football since the '60s), after a ridiculous four matches in ten days, took a one goal lead while playing up a man and somehow let off the intensity a little. Speaking rationally, is that really a surprise?

It isn't. In black and white, clearly that's part of what happened.

But let's bring some color back to the discussion. The other part is that Tottenham Hotspur are cursed.

Tottenham 2 – Arsenal 2: A True Fan’s Match Recap

I awoke Saturday feeling great excitement while trying to ignore an equally great trepidation. That morning, my beloved Tottenham Hotspur were playing their most heated match of the year, the North London derby against their arch-rivals Arsenal. This specific iteration of the derby was arguably the biggest league match between the two teams since the advent of the Premier League. Tottenham started the day in second place in the league, three points behind surprise league-leaders Leicester City. Arsenal sat in third place, three points further behind. No one seems to believe that tiny Leicester can possibly hold on to win the league, so pundits have started saying that this Tottenham team, playing the best football seen from a Spurs side since perhaps the '60s, with the youngest squad in the Premier League, allowing the fewest goals, and holding the best goal differential--these are not the sort of descriptors normally given to Spurs, by the way--should be considered favorites to win the League.

Everyone picking Spurs as favorites to win the Prem clearly hasn't really watched a whole lot of Spurs over the years, and so they're failing to take into account a very important detail. I have, and I know better.

You see, Spurs are cursed.

Here's one example: Spurs went into the final game of the 05-06 season up a point against Arsenal for the final Champions League spot, only to have literally half their squad get violently sick the night before with what was initially reported as food poisoning. They lost their match, Arsenal won theirs, and Spurs ended up in the UEFA Cup.

(The illness turned out to have been caused by a particularly nasty virus, but still, it's fair to call that ridiculously bad luck.)

Here's another: The 2011-2012 Spurs side was in third place for most of the season, but then took a dreadful six points from a possible twenty-seven from late February until late April to fall to fourth--still usually good enough for Champions League football--and then got booted from qualification because stupid Chelsea, outside the top-four in the Premier League that year, won the Champions League. Need I even mention that the third-place team, only one point ahead in the table, was Arsenal?

Here's one more: When a player hasn't scored in a long, long time, a match against Spurs frequently puts an end to that streak. I've lost count of the number of times that an opponent has scored, after which the commentator says something along the lines of, "That's his first Premier League goal in 216 games!"

So when Saturday's pre-match commentary mentioned that Arsenal's Alexis Sanchez hadn't scored since October, a run of eleven straight games, his longest drought since he came to the Premier League, can you understand why my trepidation took on a hue of terror?

But let us not forget that I am a fan of Tottenham Hotspur in the purest sense of the word. Thus while I was desperately afraid, as experience would dictate, I was simultaneously stupidly optimistic, because love makes you stupid.

I watched the match through my fingers. Spurs had all the early possession, but you could clearly see their relative lack of experience. All they could do with their possession was take bad shots and made bad decisions. Everyone wanted to be the hero. Still, they were, for the first part of the game, clearly the better team. I prayed that they'd score and settle down a little.

Predictably, it was Arsenal who scored first. Aaron Ramsey took advantage of some poor defending and put Arsenal ahead in the 39th minute.

Arsenal carried their 1-0 lead into the second half. But then in the 55th minute, Francis Coquelin got a stupid yellow card--his second stupid yellow card--for a reckless, pointless foul on Harry Kane. Match referee Michael Oliver literally shrugged as he pulled the card out his pocket, like What choice do you leave me? And suddenly Spurs were up a man with 35 minutes left to play. And then Toby Alderweireld scored off a corner kick in the 60th minute, and Harry Kane scored a gorgeous goal in the 62nd, curling the ball in from the side of the box, and just like that, Spurs had a 2-1 lead.

And what happened next? Did Spurs, the better team, playing at home, up a goal and a man, with a style based on high pressure and ball possession, take over the game and calmly dispatch the weakened and demoralized Arsenal side? Did they quickly get another goal and put the game away?

Do I really need to answer that?

No, they did not. Instead, I had to watch the sad spectacle of Spurs trying to kill off the clock like there were four minutes left instead of thirty. I watched them waste time, cheaply give possession away, and defend desperately. Anyone who turned on the game during the last twenty-five or so minutes would have been hard pressed to believe that Arsenal were down a man--they had most of the possession and all of the thrust.

And of course--of course!--it was Alexis Sanchez who scored the equalizer in the 77th minute.

It had to be. This is Spurs, after all.

A rational person would tell you that there's no such thing as a curse, that this is the kind of weird confirmation bias that sports fans so regularly participate in. But being a sports fan has nothing to do with rationality. Really. Ask any true fan. If he's being honest, any true fan will tell you that rationality doesn't hold sway because in sports you are dealing with a realm of magic. It is because of the power of this magic that we watch grown adults run around playing what should be children's games, except in front of thousands of people for millions of dollars. We plan our days around watching. We sweat and we scream. Rational? Good god no. But once you have seen that there is magic in the world and it is on display on the sports field, its power can be too much to overcome.

So yes of course Alexis Sanchez scored the equalizer. Only a desperation tackle by Kevin Wimmer against Aaron Ramsey in the final minutes kept Spurs from losing the game outright. And thus Spurs squandered yet another chance. Of course they did. It had to be that way.

So now will I finally do the rational thing and pull my energy away from this fruitless endeavor? Will I watch only idly for the rest of the season instead of opening my heart and pouring myself into something over which I have no control? Of course not. This is not the realm of rationality. This is the realm of magic and of love, and in the face of such forces I am powerless.

Watch Out, Zizou, That Chick Is Crazy

I once likened being a Real Madrid fan to being in a dysfunctional relationship with a supermodel. But during the Florentino Pérez years, it's been more like an abusive relationship. Sure, she's super-hot, but you get a little tired of getting gut-punched all the time.

At least I did. My interest in Real Madrid has waned to the point that I pretty much only watch the Clásicos and maybe some late-stage Champions League matches--the equivalent of checking out the supermodel's exploits on Facebook from time to time.

Up until right now, when they hired Zinedine Zidane to replace the never-likely-to-succeed Rafa Benitez as manager, Rafa Benitez whom they hired because they fired Carlo Ancelotti for reasons that only make sense to an abusive supermodel. Zidane seems almost certain to fail, even if he is actually ready to manage a team of superstars like Real Madrid. He may be, but talk about a trial by fire. But for him to succeed would require the crazy abusive supermodel to stop being a crazy abusive supermodel, and on the evidence, she's never going to get the therapy she needs until Pérez is gone.

Zidane remains the most beautiful player I've ever seen, so I'll have to watch, for a while anyway, because I want to know: Can he translate the beauty he was able to create on the pitch as a player into a similar beauty as a manager?

So I'm getting involved with Real Madrid again. I'm not quite sure how to extend the analogy in this case. Maybe it's like the supermodel has started hanging out with someone who's even hotter. When the supermodel proves too insane, maybe the hot friend will move on to something better.

Only the entire soccer world is watching. Zizou, I wish you well.

Three Recent Qualifiers

(This wasn't actually published on 19 June 2013. It had to wait until 31 March 2016. For an explanation why, see here.)

Over the course of twelve days, the USMNT played three matches and took nine points out of a possible nine. I wrote that despite a porous defense, the US looked to be good for seven points in the three games, and since they were lucky to get away with the win in Jamaica, I'll say my assessment was pretty solid.

Problems still clearly remain. Klinsmann seems to have settled on a center-back pairing of Besler and Gonzalez, and while it's true they anchored a defense that only gave up one goal in three games, it was hard to look at their performance on the pitch and think, "Awww yeah, we've got this nailed down." The way Gonzalez didn't close [a player whose name is now lost to time] last night toward the end of the first half seemed a little too indicative of where the defense is right now. Good enough to qualify out of CONCACAF? Sure. Good enough to face a Spain or Brazil or the real Germany? (Sorry, that friendly was a good win, but it doesn't really count.) No way.

It's a little premature to write our ticket to Brazil right now, but with 13 points, the lead in the group, and four games remaining, you've got to say the US have put themselves in a good position to qualify. If they take six points in their matches against Mexico (here) and Costa Rica (away) in September--a stretch, but not impossible--then their two matches in October could practically be friendlies. And then from there we'll have however many friendlies prior to the World Cup, and that might give us the time we need to get our defense up to actually acceptable.

U.S. 4 – Germany 3

Just like you don't want to make too much of a loss in a friendly, you don't want to make too much of a win, either. Congrats, certainly, to the USMNT for beating the Germans, but keep in mind that a) this was Germany's (at best) B-team b) the difference between win and draw was Marc-André Ter-Stegen's bone-headed own goal and c) the U.S. got completely outplayed during the final 20 minutes, as was fortunate to finish with the win.

Certainly, though, this match, coupled with the one against Belgium, gives us a good sense of the team right now.

Jozy Altidore showed the form that had him scoring 23 goals in the Eredivisie this past season. He was excellent. He made a couple of nice runs early--probably should have scored on the Graham Zusi free kick in the 7th minute in which he got in front of the defender but headed well wide. His movement on the first goal to shake Mertesacker was excellent--as of course was the finish. His run and pull-back cross to Dempsey in the 60th was lovely as well. A goal and an assist would normally be a man-of-the-match performance, but

Clint Dempsey was terrific, again. Two goals, both excellent, earns him Man of the Match. He continues to improve, and is easily the U.S.'s best field player right now.

Oh, and by the way, he plays for Tottenham. Lukas Podolski and Per Mertesacker? Arsenal. Please feel free to suck on that.

Michael Bradley. The team had so much more thrust than they did against Belgium. I used to malign him as "coach's son," but either I was wrong or he's vastly improved (or both). He ties the whole team together. Without him we're far worse.

The defense. Man oh man. It's just a major problem. I don't know what else to say. How many chances did Germany put wide in the first half? How easily did they score in the second? We might be able to get out of CONCACAF with defense this poor, but if we don't have it worked out a year from now, we'll be repeating our performance of 1998 and heading home after three matches. (We might even want to consider reinstating the cardboard cutout of Mike Burns.)

And in light of what I said about DaMarcus Beasley being our top-choice left back, please consider Edgar Castillo. He was utterly and completely outmatched by Sidney Sam, and his non-effort in the 87th minute, when Sam juked him and he literally just stood there, should be enough to get him removed from the team. If there really isn't a better player around to take his spot, well, my point is proven, isn't it?

How well can we expect to fare in the upcoming qualifiers? If Altidore's problem was confidence, you have to hope he put that problem to bed against Germany--he was excellent against an excellent team. Dempsey looks great, and Michael Bradley keeps the whole offense ticking. Against Jamaica, Panama and Honduras, with the latter two games at home, [check this] you'd like to think that the U.S. is good for seven points. But the defense is porous, to say the least. Anything less than five points will have to be considered a disappointment, but with the defense that the U.S. currently has on display, you have to consider that even as few as four could be a real possibility. I'd be shocked if they did worse than that, and if they do they're in real trouble.

U.S. 2 – Belgium 4

I wrote this last week after the match against Belgium, then decided to wait to publish it until after the Germany match in case it ended up looking a bit hysterical. But the Germany match showed that the concerns expressed here were justified. I'll add a little more about U.S.-Germany later.


On the one hand, you don't want to make a bigger deal over it than it is: it was just a friendly, against a Belgium team that is substantially stronger than any of the USMNT's upcoming opponents. It was also the USMNT's first time playing together since the 0-0 draw in Mexico on March 26th. The European-based players have just finished up their long club seasons and are a little fried. They have another friendly on Sunday. Their first upcoming qualifier, at Jamaica, is still a week away. There's still time to get a bit better prepared.

On the other hand, you don't want to downplay it, either. Yes, Belgium are very strong, but the game was really more lopsided than the score even showed. Given that the US's second goal was off a questionable penalty, and that a penalty should have been given for DaMarcus Beasley's first-half hand-ball, the scoreline could well have been 1-5, and legitimately so.

Yes, it was just a friendly, an opportunity to test out some players and tactics and to tune things up. The intensity of a full World Cup qualifier just isn't there on the part of either team. You don't want to jump to rash conclusions.

With that in mind, there were some worrisome aspects on display. The single most damning part of the match occurred during the first 15 minutes of the second half. During that time, Belgium really turned up the heat, looking for their second goal, and during those 15 minutes, they looked by far the superior team. The goal looked pretty much inevitable.

Yes, it was just a friendly. But based on the evidence on display on Wednesday night, we simply aren't competitive with the top teams in the world. And wasn't Klinsmann brought in to make us exactly that?

Am I about to suggest that maybe Klinsmann wasn't such a good hire, and maybe it's time to look for a replacement? No, I'm not. First of all, because Klinsmann's job should be secure until such time as it looks like the MNT is in serious danger of missing the World Cup--and since they are currently in third in the hexagonal, a single point behind Panama and behind Costa Rica only on goal differential, it's a little early to get hysterical. But more importantly, because I don't see what Klinsmann is doing wrong. And it is that, more than anything, that as me concerned about the future of the MNT.

Klinsmann was brought in to make us competitive with the top teams in the world, but he was also brought in to establish a better foundation for the team, in the vein of what's been done in Germany. Germany's last generation got all the way to the final of the 2002 World Cup; it's hard to say they were unsuccessful. But the team we've seen since 2006 has been a team reimagined and reborn. Previously, Germany was built around strong defending, physical presence, and dominance on set pieces. The Germany team currently on display, on the other hand, is playing the best and most beautiful attacking soccer of any national team in the world with the exception of Spain. And the development system that's so elevated the German national team is bearing fruit down at the club level as well, as this year's Champions League so clearly showed.

So is the USMNT developing in a similar fashion? There are two salient details in answer to that question, and both involve Beasley at right back. The first detail is that he's playing there. He started in that role against Costa Rica and Mexico as well, so it's safe to assume that he's the current top choice. Beasley is 31 years old, now on the downslope of his career. He is a converted left wing. He is working hard and his defense is improving, but after Wednesday night, would you say you are comfortable with him in this role? Did he look comfortable? No, he did not. He looked like a stopgap.

The second detail, and far more worrying, is that no one seems to be suggesting who else could be playing there. The USMNT relying on a stopgap converted left wing is one thing; that he appears to actually be the best choice is another.

And so it is in exactly this area that I'm most concerned. Among the defense, Geoff Cameron was the only player considered second-choice. He looked poor on multiple occasions. But okay, maybe whoever ends up there will do better. But Clarence Goodsen and Omar Gonzalez are considered the top center-back pair, and the defense as a whole looked completely overmatched, unsure of how to play together, and not really very competent. During that 15-minute stretch when Belgium brought the heat, it appeared that the U.S. had no answer.

The defense was the weakest part of the squad, sure, but was there a place where the team looked solid? Sacha Kljestan and Jermaine Jones were competent. Jozy Altidore moved well and looked okay, but as everyone has pointed out, given the 23 goals he scored for Alkmaar in the Eredivisie this season, he looked tight and lacking in confidence when he received the cross from Dempsey in the 5th minute and didn't try to one-time it. Graham Zusi? Competent. Brad Davis? Competent--but, like, Beasley, 31 years old. Is he really the top left-wing the U.S. can field right now?

It was only a friendly. Part of the point is to give players a chance against actual opponents in an actual competitive match. The idea is to show us where we're strong and where we need work. But you hope to see something you can build on. Right now our strength appears to be Clint Dempsey and our goalkeepers. We're struggling everywhere else.

Bayern’s Redemption

You can see the peril of posting something like my last post. I called it not a prediction, but more like a vision. I said that Bastien Schweinsteiger would be the difference-maker in the Champions League final, as a karmic gift from the soccer gods following his heartbreak of the year before.

And I was wrong.

Schweinsteiger certainly played an able match, but the best player on the field on Saturday (perhaps excepting both keepers) was Arjen Robben.

Thus we see the difficulty of interpreting visions.

But perhaps my error wasn't in my essential hypothesis. Rather it was seeing this:
shatteredshattered
as Bastien Schweinsteiger shattered. But perhaps I misinterpreted. That look wasn't "shattered." That look was "How do I not kill Arjen Robben for missing the game-winning penalty before extra time, so I wouldn't have had to be in a goddamn penalty shootout in the first place?"

So perhaps the soccer gods doubly bestowed their grace: Robben received redemption, and Schweinsteiger was given reason to forgive.

Robben was simply and uncontroversially excellent. Consider his game-winning goal: He scored not by cutting inside from the right with the ball at his feet but by picking up a pass straight down the middle. He skipped over challenges instead of falling down in a heap. Cutting inside from the right and diving on contact: I and many others see that as Robben's essential skill-set. (For example, see point four here.) The goal was in some sense so un-Robben-like that you could see it as divinely inspired and ordained.

Overall, it was a beautifully well-played, exciting match. Dortmund had the best of the early part of the match by pressing high and not giving Bayern time or space to get into their flow. Both keepers were excellent--it was amazing that the score remained 0-0 as long as it did. Dortmund fought hard, but after halftime, Bayern adjusted and the question of the second half became, "Can Dortmund prevent the Bayern juggernaut from destroying them?" The answer turned out to be: No, but perhaps with an asterisk.

The main talking point in my own brain over the last few days has been, "Should Dante have seen red for the the foul on Marco Reus that led to the PK?" The talking heads in my brain can see it from all sides. If this had been a normal league match, he gets at least a second yellow--perhaps even a straight red--and is sent off. After all, he did kick Reus in the stomach. You'd be hard-pressed to say a booking wasn't deserved.

On the other hand, referees frequently are reluctant to send a player off in cup matches, especially finals. Remember this?
Ouch!
That happened in the 28th minute of the World Cup final. In any other match, that's a straight red: cleats up into Xabi Alonso's chest. But what was Howard Webb to do? A red card there changes the game completely.

Nicola Rizzoli faced the same choice on Saturday. Every choice (except not calling the foul) had its merits. Had it been outside the box, it would have been a second yellow, without question. That the foul happened inside the box gave Rizzoli some flexibility. It's not the first time I've seen a referee not give a booking when the foul results in a penalty. Award a penalty kick and let the player stay on the pitch: it struck him as a good balance. I'm sure there are thousands of Dortmund fans who are upset about it. I totally see their point. But I see Rizzoli's as well.

Maybe think of it this way: after two losses in the final in the previous three years, the soccer gods simply decided it was Bayern's turn to win.

Today’s Final and a Late-Night Vision

I fell asleep in front of the TV a few nights back and awoke around 3am, just as Fox Soccer was about to show a replay of the penalty shootout from last year's Champions League final. For whatever reason, I often have very poor recall of sporting events past, and last year's Champions League final was no different. It's not like I didn't watch every minute of it as it happened, but all I remembered was that Chelsea won. The specifics of the shootout had escaped me.

Of course, I have no problem remembering the narrative around the match. It was a bit of a surprise that have Bayern Munich and Chelsea in the final in the first place--they were considered the 3rd and (distant) 4th best teams in the semis. But remember that Barça couldn't break down Chelsea's defense in the leg at the Camp Nou, despite John Terry having been sent off for driving a knee into Alexis Sanchez's thigh. In the other semi, Fabio Coentrão made a mistake in the first leg to give Philip Lahm a late cross that Mario Gomez bundled in, a goal that Real Madrid rued when the second leg finished 2-1 as well and Real lost on penalties, with Ronaldo, Kaka and Sergio Ramos all failing to convert.

Bayern were considered the big favorites going into the final. After all, the final was being played in the Allianz Arena, Bayern's home stadium. Meanwhile, notwithstanding a major resurgence under Roberto Di Matteo after the disaster that had been AVB's reign, Chelsea had appeared all season like a team past their prime, and many of us kept waiting for the Champions League match in which they'd finally be found out.

It looked like maybe it had happened when Ashley Cole left Thomas Müller too much space on the far post and Müller was able to head home Tony Kroos' cross. But then five minutes later, Didier Drogba equalized with a powerful header on Chelsea's first corner of the match. Chelsea's luck seemed to run out when Drogba brought down Ribery in the box during stoppage time, but Arjen Robben's penalty was poorly placed and Cech was able to make the save. Extra time came and went, and the game went to penalties.

If you don't remember the penalty shootout, it's worth watching again. Even in replay I found it incredibly tense. Bayern shot first. Philip Lahm went to Cech's right, but Cech couldn't get enough on it to keep it out. Then Juan Mata fired to Manuel Neuer's left, but his placement lacked confidence, and Neuer easily saved. From here, all Bayern had to do was not miss and the title was theirs. Mario Gomez and Neuer himself scored for Bayern; David Luiz and Frank Lampard scored for Chelsea. But for Bayern's fourth, Cech got a hand on Ivica Olic's shot, and Ashley Cole equalized.

Bastian Schweinsteiger shot fifth. You can imagine how bad he wanted it: he's played on Bayern Munich for his whole career, since his debut in 2002 at the age of 18. He played for the side that lost to Mourinho's Inter in the final in 2010. Bayern Munich is his home.

He stepped up and drove the ball hard and low to his right. Cech dove and maybe just got the barest touch. Still, it looked perfect--until it hit the post and deflected back out. One centimeter to the left and it bounces into the goal, but it wasn't to be. He pulled his shirt over his head and held his face in his hands.

Then--of course--Didier Drogba stepped up. He fired to Neuer's right, Neuer dove to his left, and it was over. It was the last kick of Drogba's Chelsea career, and probably the most important. Abramovich finally had his Champions League title. The Chelsea players ran around in mad celebration.

Schweinsteiger fell to his knees, totally shattered.

It's now a year later. Bayern go into today's match against Borussia Dortmund as heavy favorites, both because of what they did to Barcelona in the semis and that they won the Bundesliga by an astonishing twenty-five points. Dortmund are expected to be without their best player, playmaker Mario Götze.

Predictions in advance of matches are entertaining, but kind of silly. Yes, Bayern are the heavy favorites, but soccer is so low-scoring that a single early mistake can change the entire tenor of the match. As they say, "that's why they play the game."

I understand all that, so don't call this a prediction. I clawed my way out of deep sleep to watch a late-night reply of the end of last year's match, and I watched Schweinsteiger shatter, and it felt like a vision: Schweinsteiger, rebuilt, will be the difference. This is his year. No one on the field wants it more, and the gods won't deny him again.

What I just said is every bit as silly as the most rationally-based prediction. But given how painful those dark hours of the night can be--and I bet that Schweinsteiger had more than a few in the aftermath of that penalty miss--I think it is somehow better to believe those glimmers of light we see, the ones that pull us out of heavy dreams.

I'll be rooting for him.

Reflections on the Barcelona-Bayern Munich 2nd Leg

Yes, it's been weeks, but I wasn't going to not comment on the Barcelona-Bayern 2nd leg. There was just too much that was interesting about it.

1. Arjen Robben's goal in the 49th minute.
(Watch a weirdly letterboxed version here or the clips below, which sadly both start close to when Robben received the ball, and so don't clearly show Alaba's pass.)

[Technical difficulties are preventing the upload of those clips for now. I hope to have this squared away soon.]

First of all, consider just what an amazing pass David Alaba actually made: from the left touchline, just inside Bayern's defensive half, diagonally across the field and in behind the defense. Alaba turns 21 on June 24th. On that day, hoist a beer for the best left back in the world. He's that good.

What I found especially interesting about the goal, beside that it was awesome, was Ian Wright's commentary about it. He kept repeating just how bad Adriano's defense was on the play. But I didn't really agree, and still don't. I've watched the clip many times. The flaw Bayern exploited wasn't simply Adriano's, and the solution to it isn't simple.

First of all, let's do away with the notion that Adriano had simply made a mistake by letting Robben get onto his left foot. Watch Adriano's position as he moves to close Robben down. Robben is closer to the endline than Adriano is and is moving directly toward goal. It's not like Adriano simply forgot that Robben likes to pull the ball back inside and shoot the exact left-footed curler he did here. Adriano simply has to close Robben quickly. If he overplays Robben to prevent Robben's inside run, then Robben continues at pace directly toward goal with the defense completely behind the play. Adriano can neither allow that to happen nor allow a simple right-footed cross across the six-yard box, which even the profoundly one-footed Robben is capable of.

Robben knows that Adriano has to close him down quickly, cutting off the direct route to goal, and so uses that fact against him: he waits until Adriano has nearly regained proper positioning but is still moving at pace, and then switches to the inside run, at which point Adriano's momentum carries him out of position. Note also that Robben is moving away from the goal as he does this. If the problem is simply Adriano's defense, what would you suggest he do better?

The answer, for what it's worth, is that Adriano initially needs to be closer to Robben as Robben receives the ball, in order to be able to set himself into a proper defensive position with his balance properly squared. But this solution comes with its own problems. A change in Adriano's positioning demands shifts in Barcelona's entire defense. For example, if Adriano plays closer to the endline, preventing a pass like Alaba's from going in behind him, then the entire defense has to play that much deeper. But a deeper back line gives Bayern's dangerous midfield more room to work. Alternately, Adriano could play more out to Robben's side of the field, but then the backline has to stretch their positioning to fill the space as best as possible. However, this creates larger channels for the offense to attack into. And let's say again where the Alaba was when he sent his pass to Robben: against the left touchline, just inside his own half. I propose that if you position your defense to prevent a 60-yard crossfield diagonal pass from the left back, you are creating untenable tactical problems for your defense.

What I'm getting at is that, given Barcelona's approach to defense, the play was nearly indefensible. Barcelona's defense is predicated on high pressure and a high backline, so as to squeeze the space the attacking team has to work in. Against that kind of position, the combination we saw on the play--an astonishingly accurate diagonal ball from midfield in behind the defense, being run onto by a very fast player who is a danger both to break toward goal or to pull the ball inside--created a situation that Barcelona was always going to struggle to handle. In many ways, their best bet was to hope Robben simply wasted his shot, which he has done throughout his career with substantial frequency.

(Against a defense that doesn't play an offside trap and instead tries to get both it's defenders and midfield behind the ball, the situation is totally different. Then Robben can be easily doubleteamed in this sort of situation. But that's not how Barcelona play.)

2. How little Barcelona actually troubled Bayern's defense. On some level, I can hardly believe I just wrote that. Barcelona not troubling a defense? Is that even possible?

What it points to is that Barcelona currently have a big hole in their squad. As long as Messi was on the field and fit, it was possible to ignore the problem. After all, Barça have run away with La Liga this year, so far scoring an astonishing 109 goals in 36 games. Of those 109, Messi has 46 (and another eight in the Champions League)--over 42% of Barcelona's total goals. With that kind of success, you might not worry that your next-highest scorer (Fabregas) has only ten in the league.

But once the obvious 42% of their scoring disappeared--and make no mistake, he was absent in the first leg as well, notwithstanding being on the pitch--it became clear just how much of the remaining 58% Messi also accounts for. Go back and watch his goals against AC Milan in the return leg at the Camp Nou. In both cases, how does he find the space to get the shot away? The only answer that makes sense is that Messi films the world at a higher frame rate than we do--than anyone does--and when his brain processes that visual information down to a standard 24-frames-a-second, everything happens in super-slow-motion. Holes that none of the rest of us ever see appear obvious to him.

That means he can score even when you collapse an extra defender or two or three against him. We've all see him do it, and it's amazing. But the other thing he can do, once he's pulled two or three or four defenders over to him, is to pass the ball on to a teammate, who finds himself terribly open and basically unable to not score.

Without Messi on the pitch, what was there to move Bayern's defense around and create opportunities for the rest of the team? The 7-0 aggregate scoreline gives you all the answer you need.

There's nothing particularly insightful about saying, "Take the best player in the world away from his team and notice that they aren't nearly as good." It's true, there's no replacing Messi. But there was an interesting tell in Bayern's defensive positioning that might point to what Barcelona is lacking. I kept noticing that when Barça were in possession, Bayern's back four were sitting comfortably ten or fifteen yards--sometimes more--in front of their own penalty box. Barcelona's obsessive possession-based attacking style is all about relentless probing the defense, looking for exploitable pockets of space. But here Bayern were dictating the space Barça had to work in.

Now, you only do this kind of defensive tactic at the professional level if you are comfortable that your defense is fast enough to recover when a ball is played in behind them; clearly this was true of Bayern on the day. As I watched, it became more and more clear not that Barça were missing Messi, which is obvious, since he's irreplaceable, but that they were missing pace in general. Villa and Fabregas and Alexis Sanchez are all gifted goal scorers, but how many of them remind you of Samuel Eto'o in his prime? How many terrify a defense with their blazing speed?

And what strikes me as especially interesting about this observation is that you don't need a particularly amazing player to make it work. Find someone who is really really fast and is capable of scoring when he gets one-on-one against the keeper. He can essentially be completely one-dimensional. As soon as you have this type of player, the defense has to position themselves deeper to keep him from getting behind them. Moving the defense backward creates space for the rest of the team, and that's all Barcelona need to win games. Xavi and Iniesta may be past their peaks--we'll see--but they are still capable of scoring and creating goals when they get the space they need.

3. How good Pique was. It's a minor point, given how things turned out, but as I wrote in my notes after Pique broke up a Bayern 4-on-3 in the 25th minute: He's single-handedly kept Barça in this so far."

Keep in mind also that his girlfriend is Shakira.

4. This was a passing of the torch. Or perhaps not. I'm reluctant to read too much into it. Yeah, Bayern dominated over the two legs. But would you say unequivocally that Barça end up dominated if they're able to field a fully fit Lionel Messi? It's true that an overreliance on a single player is a weakness, but one that says Barcelona's days in the sun are over? I think not.

Next season will be very interesting indeed.