World Cup build up - Jogi Löw's dress sense, where the hell is Kaka? & part 2 of sh*t that happened before we were born

Week two of my work cup build up. Remember as I said last week, this is being written from the perspective of a 32-34 year old man; so if you're a little older or younger you might have differing opinions (or memories) of some of the things I'll talk about in my World Cup history/catch up. That being said it might be a week or so until we actually get to a tournament that any readers have seen. Unless I've completely misread the age of my audience; and if I have great, I'm all for older people using the internet. My parents have started to use it quite a lot in the last 6 months, although it does mean that I am now on 24 hour IT support (the queries I tend to get centre around saving documents and rotating pictures). All this being said my dad doesn't really go on much about the World Cup in the 50's and 60's, all I ever get told about is Scotland flopping in 78 and Eder's goal against the USSR in 82 (we'll get to those later though, I don't want to spoil any future posts).

Before we go into all that historical shiz (apparently I've stolen the word "Shiz" off of the Mrs, yeah right! I make up my own shiz, I don't need hers!) let's look at what's been happening this week. Everyone is submitting their squads, well not everyone, and in some cases it's the 30 man preliminary short-list, but there have been developments regarding who will be playing in this year's World Cup.

Imagine if Roy Hodgson was this well dressed

The even impeccably dressed, Joachim Löw, has named his 30 man German squad, which is to be trimmed to 23 next week. The biggest news there is that there's only 2 strikers in the 30 and no room for Mario Gomez. I suppose Gomez's omission isn't as big a shock considering he's been injured all season, but two strikers? This is partly down to his refusal to pick the Leverkusen striker Stefan Kießling for calling him a "Sissi", which I obviously find hilarious (I'm sorry but the only links I could find to the story were in German, you have to take my word for it this is 100% true). Can I just say Stefan, just because a man takes pride in his appearance and has a diverse wardrobe, it DOES NOT make him a "Sissi". No World Cup for you!!

The Brazil 23 has been named, no messing about, just like Bosnia. And on paper it doesn't look amazing. I suppose you can't argue with it too much though, they did win last year's confederations cup beating Spain in the final. A lot has been made of the fact it contains 6 players from the Premier League, but then many of them (not all) make sense to me as does the omission of Robinho aka "The next Pele". He has been dog poo this year, I tried to find one of his open goal misses from this season but only succeeded in finding a compilation of misses from his entire career, including one that defies physics for Santos (David Blaine would have been proud of this trick), forgive the crazy Arabic commentary.

You stole Kaka's place!!

And then there's Kaka. Maybe it's the old romantic in me, but I thought that Kaka was having a decent season this year and had hoped he'd make it into Scolari's squad (which would have been his 4th tournament). Alas "Big Phi" doesn't feel so and has chosen to go with the likes of Oscar, and Will.i.an. Personally I think Will.i.an should stick to The Voice (I DO NOT watch The Voice by the way, the Mrs does). Additionally I was amused to see that Scolari had chosen his two OAP sounding strikers Bernard & Fred. I assure anybody reading this who is not familiar with the Brazilian national team, I am not making those names up. Expect a lot of jokes from the BBC and ITV commentary teams this summer. Come to think of it Adrian Chiles is gonna have a field day, maybe their selection wasn't such a good thing after all...

By the end of this week we should know all of the official World Cup 23 man squads, another sign that the tournament is around the corner (tomorrow will be a month until the opening game). I wonder whether there will be any shock inclusions? Do England have any promising uncapped teenage sensations? I suppose we could say Ross Barkley and Luke Shaw. Never fear though, I'm sure James Milner will make the squad, if we're lucky we might even get Stuart Downing too!

We move on to part two of my World Cup catch up, the story so far. We're still in the region of sh*t that happened before we were born. Last time round Brazil were doing their best to mess up every time it looked like they were going to win the thing and Italy and Uruguay were taking full advantage of this.

1954
The 1954 World Cup sounds like footballing heaven. It didn't have a superstar like Maradona, Pele, Baggio or Ronaldo (although it could be argued that it had Puskas), but it had goals. Tons of em. More goals than you could shake a stick at  as they say (I'm not sure why you'd shake a stick at anything that occurred in abundance, especially goals). Hungary, with the aforementioned Puskas, were the favourites to win having been unbeaten for a few years, but in true World Cup fashion they didn't. They lost a dramatic final 3-2 to a West German side sporting revolutionary boots with screw-in studs made by ex-Nazi party member Adi Dassler.

The final is always called The Miracle of Berne, which is apt as the 1954 World Cup was in Switzerland (and even Uruguay showed up),  and as the Germans came back from going 2-0 down within the first 8 minutes of the game to win 3-2 (see, I told you there were goals galore, start shaking your sticks!). On top of that the two teams had met earlier in the group stage and Hungary won 8-3 (shake your sticks), although the Germans had tactically fielded a weaker team, so nobody had given West Germany a hope of winning the tournament.

There are a number of conspiracy theorists that say Hungary were cheated out of winning the trophy, because FIFA didn't want a communist nation winning, they had a perfectly legitimate equaliser ruled out for offside minutes from the end of the game. Oh well, Hungary were a great side anyway, they'd already reached the 1934 final too, they'd get another chance right? It's not like they'd have a bloody political uprising two years later causing most of their best players to flee the country for their own safety and never be the same again...

1958
Fifa went back to snubbing South America in 1958 so the tournament remained in Europe, Sweden being the hosts. Brazil finally won the tournament beating the Swedes 5-2 in the final, don't shake a stick at that, although that is a lot of goals, this tournament wasn't the goalfest that 1954 was (it had the first ever 0-0 draw in the World Cup). That being said there were still a lot of goals, I'm just saying put your sticks down.

For the first and only time to date, all of the nations that make up the British Isles qualified, Wales doing the best of all of them and reaching the Quarter Final, where they were defeated by Brazil. Some 17 year old fella got the only goal of the game, his name isn't that important, unless you'd like some diamonds that have been made from human hair or would like a prediction ahead of the upcoming World Cup.

Just Fontaine scored the most ever goals scored in a single tournament by one player (13), although he scored four of them in the 3rd/4th place playoff, I'm not sure how much they can really count. The 3rd/4th place playoff is like that last day of school when you're allowed to bring toys in (or sometimes you got to watch a VHS, on the TV/Video on wheels, of an old 80's kids film). There's always tons of goals, nobody cares about defending, there's more goals than you can... I'm kidding I'm not starting that again.

1962
When I watch videos and read books about World Cups in the past I often wish I'd been around to see them. In the case of 1962 I don't. Brazil won AGAIN (enough with the World Cup winning Brazil it's becoming tiresome) and from what I read the competition was spoilt by rough/violent play on the field.

One example of this is what has been dubbed The Battle of Santiago between Chile and Italy. Personally I find the whole episode a little boring (a chapter of the book I'm currently reading was based on it and I genuinely considered skipping it). I'll summarise for those of you that aren't as au fait. In the build up to the game, two Italian journalists write an article on Chile saying it's a dump and all the women are prostitutes (I'm assuming the "dump" impression came from the fact that there had been a devastating earthquake a year or so before the tournament, can't speak regarding the comment on the women). Chilean folk are naturally outraged by the whole thing, some poor Argentine reporter has the crap beaten out of him in a bar as he's mistaken for an Italian journalist. Anyway the match comes along and from the word go the Chileans proceed to kick lumps out of the Italians, both on and off the ball. The Italians retaliate and end up having two players sent off. At one point a player fully right hooks his opponent to the ground (breaking his jaw, I think). The ref basically allows a lot of this to go unpunished making the game even more bad tempered. Oh and Chile win 2-0. Not a great World Cup moment in my eyes.

In addition to Chile an Italy scrapping with each other, other acts of violence on the field saw (the names escape me) a Yugoslav player break the leg of a Russian (going unpunished) who then died 8 years later from cancer caused by the complications of the leg break and subsequent surgery; and Garrincha. Sorry let me explain, in case you've never heard of Garrincha. He was basically Brazil's best player in 1962, who managed to be one of the best players of all time despite having bowed legs (one was even shorter than the other) and infamously lost his virginity to a goat aged 14, killed his mother in law in a car accident, impregnated a Swedish girl while on tour in Sweden and sadly died in 1983 from alcohol related issues. He was a more extreme Balotelli, 50 years earlier. Anyway Garrincha was getting kicked and hacked so badly in the semi finals, he ended up retaliating, getting sent off and suspended for the final. "Oh no! How do Brazil cope in the final without their best player?" I hear you say. Well they just pleaded with FIFA. I'm not 100% sure as to how it all went down, but after some discussion between Brazilian delegates and FIFA delegates he was allowed to play the final, Laurent Blanc and Gazza should have done the same.

So to finish off this dour episode in the history of the World Cup (I'm honestly losing the will to type here), Brazil beat Czechoslovakia 3-1 in the final (by the way I can spell "Czechoslovakia" perfectly every time as a result of doing a degree in History and having to type the bloody word every 5 minutes in essays, the rest of my spelling can be suspect, as you've probably noticed). The Czech keeper, who had been blinding all tournament, had a mare and gifted them two of the goals. That's all you're getting for 1962!

1966
1966 was when we did the business. England delivered! We proved we were the best team in the world! Yeeeeaaah that's what happened...

From what I've seen, the 1960's didn't produce classic World Cup tournaments. I mean there were only two (62 & 66) but I get the impression that unless you live in Brazil or England you'll probably struggle to find positive accounts of either tournament.

First of all Brazil, the reigning champions were booted out of the tournament in 1966, 1962 style. Pele limped off in their first game against Hungary and said he'd never play in the World Cup again (liar). Brazil followed Pele and crashed out in the first round. As did Italy who were beaten 1-0 by North Korea in one of the biggest shocks in World Cup history. Apparently on their return to Italy the players were pelted with rotten tomatoes at the airport! Brilliant! Everybody get down to Heathrow for the 26th of June! Bring some old veg... (or fruit, I know that tomatoes are fruits).

Best manager we've ever had!

I don't want to take anything away from England, they were a good side at the time (although they were probably even stronger in 1970) but they got some questionable decisions during the tournament. For example the quarter final against Argentina. A game where Alf Ramsey the England manager, who the more I read about him sounds more like Alf Garnett, labelled the Argentines "Animals". The Argentine captain was sent off by the referee for "the look in his eye". I'm all for disciplining players for dissent but can we really send people off for giving a dirty look? In a World Cup quarter final? Apparently the ref didn't even speak Spanish, so Rattin (the Argentine captain) couldn't have said something offensive. And then there was the crossbar and down "goal" in the final, fair enough it's technically 1-1 after the Lampard indecent in 2010, but all I keep hearing from numerous sources is that there was no way it went in and the linesman only gave it because of experiences of Russians at the hands of German troops during the 2nd World War, or something like that?!? I've even heard  that Ex-FIFA president Jao Havelange claims that the 66 World Cup was fixed. Saying that, he had an agenda when he made those claims and, like Pele, he has a touch of the "batty old Brazilian man" about him.

Anyway England beat Germany 4-2 in the final, "Here comes Hurst. He's got... Some people are on the pitch they think it's all over..." and all that. We won! Eusebio was top scorer in the competition, playing for Portugal, this included FOUR in a comeback from 3-0 down to 5-3 against North Korea in the quarter finals. Now that's more goals than you can shake a stick at!

I'm done with this for now, next week we'll move on to the far more exciting 1970's and more rotten fruit for the Italians.

To finish let's take some time to appreciate some more of "Jogi" Löw's wardrobe

Bit of an assassin look going on here 

Nice fitted shirt

I like to call this look "Winter"

World Cup build up - The ugliest ball ever, Calvin Harris' song and part 1 of the whistle stop guide to sh*t that happened before we were born

I couldn't' give a toss if you are younger or older. As the famous song goes, "I've got love for you if you were born in the eighties...!" 1980 or 1981 to be even more precise. I'm not saying you can't read this if you weren't born in that 24 month period, it's just that I feel those that are somewhere between the ages of 32 and 34 will be of optimum age to see things the way I saw them. For a start you'll probably have been in a similar school year to me. All the best players were, Ibrahimovic, Gerrard, John Terry... ok well maybe I'm clutching at straws but if you start think, "That's not how I remember that!" at any point in the next few weeks, then you may need to have a long look at your date of birth.

So let's begin. As someone who's in love with the World Cup you can imagine I've been keeping up with the goings on in world football in the build up. One of the first things that caught my eye was a recent story regarding Pele. Now Mr Do Nasciamento (that's Pele by the way) has a habit of talking absolute bollocks and doing weird sh*t, especially in the run up to the World Cup. This is the man that, predicted that an African team would win the World Cup by the year 2000 (nobody from Africa has got further than the quarter finals); said Michael Owen would win the Ballon d'Or; and tipped Columbia to win the 1994 World Cup, in case you don't know they failed miserably, going out in the first round, and one of their players was shot dead upon return to Columbia. I'm definitely not making light of that by the way. Just saying, had Pele not been one of the greatest and internationally successful players of all time, people would see him as a slightly senile old man who at one point in his life turned to peddling viagra. Anyway I digress, so Pele has recently responded to the deaths of two construction workers on the site of one of the stadiums to be used at the World Cup saying, "That's normal. These things happen... ...what worries me is the airports not being finished." Pretty crazy eh. Pretty insensitive. But then What do you expect from a man currently launching a collection of diamonds made from his own hair?!?

Awful ball!

Moving away from the ramblings of an old Brazilian man, has anyone seen this years World Cup ball? What the hell is that about?!? I thought we'd got away from all the crap when Adidas re-released the Tango design for Euro 2012. I mean we've had some terrible balls in the last few World Cups, especially that weird gold one in 2002, but this latest one genuinely makes me feel sick when I look at it. Who the hell designed that?!? I could have definitely come up with something better. As the saying goes, If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The Adidas Tango was not broke. The Adidas "Brazuca" or whatever it's called, is BROKE!

My 2014 World Cup ball, it's green for Brazil (geddit)! Much better than the Brazuca!

In other pre-World Cup news, players keep getting injured. Maybe when I was younger I had less awareness when it came to footballers abroad and their injury problems, especially what with the lack of internet in the 1990s (I'm not sure if that whole sentence makes sense but I'm gonna go with it); but right now it feels like they're all dropping like flies. First it was Giuseppe Rossi, and thankfully it now looks like he'll be fit in time for the tournament. Then it was Radamel Falcao. Falcao was my hope for an old school World Cup, with heroes and drama etc And then he goes and get's himself injured in a French Cup game! French Cup! What the hell is the French Cup?!? Nobody playing at a World Cup should be playing in the French Cup, unless it's the Final! Who cares about the French Cup? I don't! I do care about seeing a full strength Columbia and one of the stars of the CONMEBOL qualifying tournament! Monaco! You f***ed up!

So I'm coming to terms with the fact that we may be Falcao-less this summer and then Strootman goes and gets injured. What?!? Add in Walcott and Jay Rodriguez (for all of you, "Premiership is the best league in the world" fans) and that's a whole bunch of entertaining players that we'll be missing this summer. In my opinion, they should have just ended the football season in February and made everyone hold daily training sessions for the next 4 months, padded up, while on a bouncy castle. No more injuries! Please!

A couple of other things caught my eye, the first being that Adnan Januzaj (I had to look that up to spell it, I don't think I'll ever master his name) had pledged his future to Belgium. Yeah? Not Kosovo? Or England in a few years time? Or my old 7-a-side team? Shock! He basically chose the team he could play for right now at the World Cup, and that has a decent chance of progressing to the latter part of the tournament. Although can I say now (and I post a link to this statement when they go out), I don't think Belgium are as strong as people are making out. Yeah they've got good players, hence they qualified for the first time in 12 years, but they won't get anywhere near the Semi Finals in my eyes. In fact I think the Quarter Finals will be a good tournament for them.

Lastly, Bosnia have announced their provisional 24 man squad. Now! On the 5th of May? You've got another week or so, relax. I know it's your first tournament but you don't want to come across as too keen. Play it cool, have say a short-list of 30/40 players and hold a training camp. Then shorten it to 23 men on the last day (and pray that Gazza doesn't smash up a hotel room). Also how p***ed off would you be if you were that one player that got cut from the final 23, maybe I'd take it out on a lamp too.

OK so, believe it or not, I have a lot of people tell me that they read my blog. These people range from the most clued up football fan, to those that read it looking for a cheap gag here and there. In the run up to this summer's World Cup I'd like to fill you all in on what happened before Brazil 2014 and why it's a bit of a big deal (we'll it is to me anyway). I'd like to think that everyone reading this is going to see at least one game this summer and that hopefully armed with my whistle stop interpretation of the history of the World Cup they can say things like, "This reminds me of the time that Frank Rijkaard gobbed in Rudi Voller's hair" or "The time the fella from Zaire just randomly booted away the Brazilian free kick". So if you want to learn something about the World Cup, or my interpretation of it, and don't want to watch all the videos and read all the books etc that I have (nobody with a life would want to), carry on reading from this point onwards.

Part 1 - Sh*t that happened before we were born (I've sworn a lot in this post??)

The Entertainment at the draw for the 1930 World Cup

1930
So in the 1920's, on top of doing The Charleston during times of economic prosperity, the powers that be in international football start thinking to themselves, "We really should hold a tournament to determine which country is the best at football". There are two Olympic gameseseseses in 1924 and 1928 which have football tournaments in them that seem to go down a treat with the fans and convince everyone to hold a world championship. A few countries express an interest in hosting the tournament but one by one they pull out leaving Uruguay, the best team at the time (they won both the Olympic Tournaments which are officially recognised as World Championships), to host the tournament. And nobody had to bribe any FIFA delegates. Being the best team at the time, Uruguay go and win the thing beating Argentina, who are also decent, 4-2 in the final. A final which included a squabble about what ball should be used, a Uruguayan one or Argentinian one. Bet they wouldn't have chosen the Brazuca (see above)! As a final note, if you wan't to sound really clued up on football history or ever get these in a pub quiz; Lucien Laurent scored the first ever World Cup goal for France against Mexico and Guillermo Stabile was the top scorer. Also both Semi finals finished 6-1, now that's a goalfest!

He'd have been up for being Italian in 1934

1934
For any of you outraged by the fact that Diego Costa has switched from Brazil to Spain, that's nothing. In 1934 Italy signed a few guys from the aforementioned Argentine runners up in 1930, and it helped. They hosted it in 1934 and like Uruguay did 4 years earlier they brought home the bacon, with the help of their new Argentine players. Uruguay didn't travel to Italy cos it was too far, not sure if they thought the World Cup was going to be hosted in South America every 4 years. Then again when you consider that the tournament was a straight knockout; screw travelling on a boat for 6 weeks for potentially 90 minutes of football!

Rest up for the final lad! We're operating a squad rotation policy!

1938
So it's 1938. Most of the major fooballing nations are either South American or European. As mentioned before it takes roughly 6 weeks to travel from one to the other, so FIFA will host the 1938 tournament in South America right? With the intention of 1942 being held in Europe... Wrong! It was held in France. As a result Uruguay once again told FIFA where they could shove their World Cup. Italy won the tournament again beating Hungary 4-2 in the final, rumour is that they'd been told by Mussolini that they'd better win it or else... He wasn't the only dictator who had an interest in the tournament, Hitler sent an annexed Germany-Austria team (I'm not sure if he personally sent them, the German FA probably did, but you get the point right). Best story of the 1938 World Cup for me was the one of Leonidas the Brazilian striker that finished the tournament as the top scorer. So he 's banging them in left, right and centre and the Brazilians make it to the Semi Finals against Italy. What do they do? They rest him for the final! If you did that in 2014, people would say you were crazy. If you did it in 1938, when substitutes weren't permitted and therefore you were stuck with the 11 you started the game with, that's suicide. As I said above Italy won the 1938 World Cup so you know how Leonidas-less Brazil got on.

1950
As you probably know, there was a pretty big war between 1939 and 1945, which involved a large number of the countries interested in playing in the World Cup and took priority (the cheek, didn't they know the World Cup takes priority over most things). You might have noticed that so far I haven't mentioned England in any of this. We didn't get involved in the World Cup pre-1950. Why should we? We were the best team in the world. The teams that won the World Cup had basically just won a tournament to determine who was the best after England. We were like the SEGA Team at the end of Virtua Striker. So as you know, we went to the 1950 World Cup and showed everyone who was boss... No! We turned up and lost two of our first three games and went home in the first round, one of those defeats being at the hands of a USA team made up of part timers.

Uruguay turned up in 1950, well it was held in Brazil so they were cool with that. Brazil probably wished they'd have stayed at home. They messed up in 1950 just like they'd done in 1938. So in 1950 there was no final. Instead there was a mini league between the four teams that had won their 1st round groups. Brazil batter Sweden and Spain, Uruguay scrape a draw with Spain and come back from behind to beat Sweden. The maths is as follows going into the last game

Brazil 2 wins 4 points (2 points for a win)
Uruguay 1 win and 1 draw 3 points
Spain 1 draw 1 defeat 1 point
Sweden 2 defeats 0 points

On the eve of the Brazil v Uruguay game the newspapers are declaring Brazil champions in their headlines, musicians are writing celebratory sambas (this actually happened) and the Mayor of Rio (I think it was the Mayor), gives a speech on the pitch pre-kick off basically telling the players how proud they've made the nation in winning the World Cup. Anyone who knows about counting chickens based on the number of eggs you have knows what's coming next... Brazil only need to draw the game to win the tournament, they take the lead and all looks to be going to plan, then the Uruguayans equalise. The crowd (an all time record of an estimated 200,000+) start to get a bit jittery and this feeds through to the players. They Uruguay score again. I won't bore you with the details but they hold on and win 2-1. Everyone is shocked; Jules Rimet (the president of FIFA) doesn't even have a congratulatory speech written in Spanish so he just gives Uruguay the trophy without saying anything; some fans commit suicide, the Brazilian goalkeeper becomes an alcoholic and years later dies penniless (which is quite sad). It's all pretty intense and farcical.

In case you haven't worked out the maths it finished:-

Uruguay 5 points
Brazil 4 Points
Sweden (they won the other game) 2
Spain 1 point

This is me done for now. Next time round in "Sh*t that happened before we were born", Hungary get cheated and Brazil finally sort themselves out.

18 + 18 = 36 and France also flopped

Next time I'll count them up!

What the hell is wrong with me? I pride myself on being a World Cup Nerd. On knowing things about the World Cup, about football in general (and some Cricket), that some "experts" within the media don't know or often get wrong. So where did it all go wrong? Well first of all there was my basic arithmetic. I was so concerned with the fact that I wanted to reel off a stat about the number of times each Milan club had won the league without referring to any books etc that I forgot that 18 + 18 equalled 36 (not 34 as I stated). It's probably bit late to sit here trying to promote my credentials but that poor example of basic addition came from someone with an A-Level in maths (I was going to call it "Mathematics" but I thought that would sound a bit supercilious (I suppose using the word supercilious makes me sound supercilious, well I don't care it was the first word that sprang to mind)). And believe me A-Level maths gets harder than 18 + 18, forget what you hear in the media about it getting easier every year and pass rates going up.

Then there was the France blip. Once again I was so keen to impart my knowledge with regards to a tournament that occurred 14 years prior to my birth that I missed a vital piece of information relating to a tournament that I saw with my very own eyes. To my horror, it dawned on me, around 24 hours later, that in addition to Italy and Brazil, France had also crashed out of a World Cup in the first round despite being holders. This all doesn't make for good reading when you consider what I'm about to do. This post is going to be my last which discusses anything regarding club football, this is your lot! After this my blog becomes World Cup Central and I'll be starting off with a brief history of the tournament through my eyes. So I'm thinking I really need to be "on point" (what a stupid phrase, I suppose it's better than "Chillax", god I hate "Chillax") with my World Cup nerdiness.

Before all that happens there is the small matter of rounding up the 2013/2014 football season. I'll start briefly with my team West Ham, a subject regular readers will have had to endure on countless occasions. So West Ham should be safe this season, they're not mathematically safe (neither am I if my 18 + 18 is anything to go by) but it would take a really unfortunate set of circumstances along with a Herculean effort from a group of teams that have failed to display any fight whatsoever in the last 9 months let alone a fight of Greek mythological proportions. So yes, we will probably live to fight another day in the Premiership. Am I happy with the state of affairs at the Boleyn Ground? No! Is anybody? Maybe Sam Allardyce (or "Allar-diche" as he wants to be known, dick). My issue is simple, it's not to do with aesthetics or clichés about Sam playing long ball and West Ham needing to play "The West Ham Way". It's to do with common sense and it also goes back to what I said a month or so ago about people talking bollocks about West Ham when they never actually watch us.

Big Sam is responsible for keeping us in the Premier League, and considering the performances of managers such as Gianfranco Zola and Avram Grant in the past, I for one am pretty grateful to see us as high as 13th (I think we're 13th?) with 3 or 4 games to go. I'm a realist. I'm not getting above my station. When I look at the other sides that exist in the Premier League, at their fan-bases, their resources, I think to myself that we could only realistically be 3 or 4 places better off than we are. Unless some rich Sheik wants to intervene. But it could be better, and here's why.

We could be 3 or 4 places higher if we played the right team in the right situation. Forget all the lazy talk of long ball, Sam's main tactic is to try and get down the wing (in the main, the left wing) and cross the ball for Andy Carroll. So why does he play a right footed centre midfield out on the left? Sorry if I'm losing you non-football fans here, Diame is a fine player and he can drive with the ball, but he is not a get down the left wing a whip a ball in with my left foot (as you're naturally forced to do in that situation) player. Then we play Matthew Taylor in front of the back four? Somebody please help me here. Unless I (and Konami, back in the day, he was part of my greatest ever Master League team on Pro Evo 5) got it wrong, Tayler is a left sided midfielder or even a left back. When did he become Andrea Pirlo or even Genaro Gattuso (I'll get on to Pirlo and Gattuso later)? Taylor is about as mobile as a lorry trying to do manoeuvres down a small residential road, with a queue of impatient drivers and curtain twitching nosy neighbours looking on wondering what the hell the driver thought he was doing. What the hell does Sam think he's doing? Taylor isn't a great passer of the ball, he isn't an amazing tackler, why is he playing in a position which requires one of those two aforementioned skills, if not both??

And then we come to George McCartney, poor old George McCartney, I've got a lot of time for him. He's solid (at times) and he works hard. I also appreciate that sometimes the best pass on the football field isn't a forwards one (somebody tell the rest of Upton Park). What I have a problem with is his one footedness and his complete lack of pace, which will always be exposed at full back. I also have a problem with us having other full backs (other left sided full backs), who are more comfortable on the ball, who have had to sit on the bench and watch McCartney shuffle down the left side (or sometimes even the right side, good lord!!) of the pitch nervously trying to avoid making any contact with the ball with his right foot; only to have to turn back towards goal and play the ball to Reid/Tompkins/Collins or the keeper because the winger he's up against has worked out (within his first 3 tentative touches) that he's as one footed as I am.

In short:-

Dear Sam Allardyce,

Stop playing the same team regardless of whether we're winning, losing or being annihilated by 10 man Hull. Diame is not a winger and should be playing where Taylor is. Nolan (your love child) shouldn't be allowed in the ground on a match day, unless he's bought a ticket. And if you want to quickly whip crosses into a box you have to play left footers on the left and right footers... yeah you get where I'm going with this.

Finally, do not, under any circumstances, insult my intelligence and try to suggest that players have performed badly because the crowd have got on their backs. I think you'll find the finger of blame can be squarely pointed in your direction, with your painfully slow build up play (which is never gonna catch any half decent premiership defence out).

If you address the above next season I am more than  happy for you to continue managing my team (god help us if we get another Zola).

Yours Sincerely,

Travis Nigel Newton
Alpari Stand Lower
Row R Seat 310 (the fun little corner that abuses the opposition subs)

Somebody print this and send it to West Ham for me!

Now that we've got that out of the way, let's talk other Premiership teams. Let's focus on the top end of the table for once, I rarely do. People people people! Please stop getting sucked into the Liverpool myth. As of writing this, they are probably going to win the league this year. Do they deserve it? Well if you're top after 38 games, home and away, against all of the other teams deemed to be in the same bracket of ability then probably yes. But please stop telling me that it would be good for football if they won it because they haven't spent like their rivals (they have), that they've been more entertaining (City have been just as entertaining) or that the others have been too inconsistent (Liverpool have been just as inconsistent hence it's only this latest run that has brought the back into/ahead in the title race).

If he were still alive I'm pretty sure the BBC would be lining him up as a pundit

I'm not gonna lie, my former ties with Everton mean that I will always harbour a grudge with the red side of Merseyside but at the same time come on guys, please let's stop this unnecessary Liverpool "love in"! The media in this country are so Liverpool friendly it's ridiculous. For a start half of the pundits painting them as this saintly, free flowing, low spending, pure, football team are ex-Liverpool players. Hansen, Lawrensen, Carragher, Redknapp, Owen, Macmanaman, James... they're all "Kopites" (and we all know what Kopites are, don't we Everton fans...). I mean I was watching Match of The Day last weekend for the first time in ages, probably the first time this season, you guys know I can't stand that bollocks; and who were the pundits? Robbie Fowler and Paul Ince, both former Liverpool players!! I get that Ince isn't a Liverpool legend but he'll still have ties and he'll still get nostalgic when he looks back at his Anfield playing days. Just don't get sucked into the hype. Yes Liverpool definitely deserve to be in the title race, but they've had some VERY fortunate decisions go their way (3 penalties at Old Trafford & 2 at West Ham??) and they've shown their frailties as much as Chelsea and co.

On a more serious side note. The one thing I do agree with that's being said in the media is that it would be fitting if Liverpool were to win the league on the 25 anniversary of the Hillsborough disaster. Obviously it can never make up for the fact that Hillsborough even happened, the reaction from the media, the local police and the government of the day. When I think of Hillsborough, especially as a fan who actively goes to football matches and has been doing so since around the time of Hillsborough, I find the whole episode completely shocking and I'm astonished that the chain of events that caused the disaster and followed it were allowed to happen. As I've heard so many say in recent weeks, no man, woman or child should go to a football match (or any other form of public entertainment) and not return. And they most definitely should not have had their tragic deaths covered up or blamed on their own actions, especially when they had done nothing wrong. So yes, it would be fitting if Liverpool won the league this year (and they're currently 2-0 up v Norwich in next to no time) and I can guarantee you I will NEVER buy The Sun newspaper and have NEVER. Their reaction to Hillsborough was nothing short of disgusting and I have no time for their general low brow and often xenophobic stance on the news. Rant over.

He's a West Ham season ticket holder

Finally elsewhere in Europe domestic leagues are coming to a less exciting conclusion (with the exception of in Spain). In France PSG look to have wrapped up the league and would have reached the semi final of the Champions League if Maxwell was any good. The story is pretty similar in Italy where Juventus continue to march towards their 3rd Scudetto in a row, they only ever seem to drop points when I bet on them (it's happened 3 times this year, bastards!). Over in Germany Bayern Munich have outdone both PSG and Juve and wrapped up the league a few weeks ago. I'm not a massive fan of the Bundesliga anyway but this year's competition has been a ridiculous 1 hoarse race largely down to Bayern's ability to buy the best players from their rivals (I mean they didn't even need Goetze; who, may I add, looks like a dude who sits in the row in front of me at West Ham) and Dortmund's injury problems. What with Lewandowski joining Bayern from Dortmund next season I'm sure the Bundesliga will be even closer next year... (I'm hoping you can sense the sarcasm in that last sentence). In Spain the league title race looks as if it'll be even more exciting than the one in England. Atletico Madrid have had an amazing season and they currently lead both Barcelona and Real Madrid and have to play Barca, who they've yet to lose to this season and recently knocked out of the Champions League, on the last day of the season. It's set to be an amazing finish!

And has anyone seen Andrea Pirlo's autobiography? I've been a fan of Pirlo for a while (long before he became fashionable after Euro 2012) and now I've seen excerpts from his book I have to say I love the guy even more. Here's my favourite quote, regarding losing the 2005 Champions League final:

I’ll never fully shake that sense of absolute impotence when destiny is at work. The feeling will cling to my feet forever, trying to pull me down…

There are always lessons to be found in the darkest moments. It’s a moral obligation to dig deep and find that little glimmer of hope or pearl of wisdom. You might hit upon an elegant phrase that stays with you and makes the journey that little bit less bitter. I’ve tried with Istanbul and haven’t managed to get beyond these words: for fuck’s sake.

There's a load more stuff about Pirlo constantly pranking the very short fused Gennaro Gattuso. I can see myself buying the book in a month or so but for now I have a couple more to read (one of which is Zlatan Ibrahimovic's autobiography).

I reckon it's green

Right I'm done talking about club football! The real deal! The main event! The World Cup is coming! we have 52 days to go (as of me writing this sentence) and from now on all I will be talking about is the World Cup. And I'm not talking about the European World Cup, I'm talking a bona fide, once every 4 years, Marco Tardelli screaming, "People are on the pitch", "Beautifully pulled down by Bergkamp", World Cup! A World World Cup! So from now until June the 12th I'll be talking World Cup build up on here; then during the tournament it'll be all the stuff going down and I'm talking real stuff, French fall outs, minows getting spanked, African teams' celebratory dance routines (all the stuff you wont see during half time on ITV/BBC as they'll be to pre-occupied with what colour Adam Lallana's poo is). It's going to be amazing!

What a difference four years make

Somebody tell 'Pops' it's not over 30s night!

Four Years is a long time. It's 1,461 days, 2 million 103 thousand 840 minutes (I used a calculator to work that out, I'm not that clever). As this blog post is about to reveal, it's the difference between being a fat dude derided by millions and a goal machine feared by all opponents. Leap years occur every four years because the earth drifts so much out of sync with time within that time frame that we need to correct this by adding another day to our calendars. Many sporting events occur in four year cycles; the Olympic Games, various non-footballing sports World Championships, the football European Championship and quite possible the greatest event of all, the football World Cup. Obviously the next few paragraphs will focus on this (those of you that aren't that interested in football might as well just jump to the last paragraph).

I'm not really sure as to why a four year gap was chosen between World Cups. Why not a number like five or ten? We tend to count in bases of five and ten due to the digits on our hands. Why not two years or even one? They probably didn't choose one or two due to the travel constraints back in 1930, or was the format determined by the fact that the Summer Olympics were separated by 4 year intervals (they definitely wouldn't have been able to travel as well back in 1896 or 1900). Regardless of the reasoning behind the World Cup occurring every four years the timing of the interval is perfect; soon enough that you're not left waiting too long but long enough for the footballing world to have evolved, meaning the outcome of the tournament can seldom be predicted.

For me the four year gap makes the World Cup something to cherish, the way I see it, and this may sound silly or even slightly morbid, I could be dead by the time of the next tournament. Either that or blind (imagine being blind during a World Cup, that would be the ultimate torture). As extreme as my suggestion above sounds an element of it does ring true, in fours years lives change, priorities change. So as far as I'm concerned I need to watch as many games as possible.

And just to justify my logic let's take a look at how much can change in 2,103,840 minutes through what I consider to be the ultimate barometer of quadrennial change, the World Cup itself.

This is Ronaldo

The first exhibit I'd like to refer to is my favourite footballer of all time, back in 2007 I found myself doing a bit of mental arithmetic in an attempt to establish whether he'd still be young enough to be considered for his country's 2010 World Cup squad. Alas he was barely fit for the side in 2006, come 2010 I'm not even sure he'd have fitted into a kit. The person I'm talking about is Ronaldo Luís Nazário de Lima or more commonly known as Ronaldo. The Ronaldo, you will never catch me referring to Christiano Ronaldo as "Ronaldo", in fact I judge people who do this. Ronaldo's performances over the course of his 12 year World Cup career are the perfect example of how much can change in four years. In 1994 (yeah, he was there) he never kicked a ball, I remember seeing him running off the bench at the final celebrating with the rest of the substitutes. A buck toothed 17 year old boy that I'd heard rumblings about but, what with the lack of YouTube, knew absolutely nothing about. In 1994 it was all about Romario (and to a lesser extend Bebeto), Brazil didn't require the services of Il Fenomeno.

In 1998 they most certainly did. After tearing up both the Dutch and Spanish leagues Ronaldo was now the main man. He wore the number 9 shirt that Romario had claimed four years earlier, god knows what shirt number he had in 1994 (not even I know and I'm normally up with sad facts like that). Romario was nowhere to be seen, he didn't even make the final 22 man squad (it was 22 rather than 23 back then just I case you think that's a typo), Bebeto somehow did though?!? In case you're totally new to this World Cup lark, I'll briefly fill you in. In 1998 a Ronaldo led Brazil got to the final against France, despite their defensive frailties, only for Ronaldo to have a seizure on the morning of the final. The whole experience proved too much for the Brazilians and the were easily swept aside, losing 3-0.

This guy ate Ronaldo

Four years later in Korea & Japan (2002 for anyone that can't do simple addition) Ronaldo basically took out his frustrations  from 1998 on the rest of the competition and became the first man to score more than 6 goals in a tournament since Lato in 1974 (he got 8). That's all you get regarding 2002. Ronaldo was a beast, Brazil won it, let's move on to Germany (2006). In 2006 the guy that turned up with the Brazilian team was not Il Fenomeno. He'd scored a couple in qualifying, he even wore the number 9 shirt, but the shirt was at least a size bigger than it had been in 2002 (if not, 2 sizes). For me 2006 was really sad, because it looked as if Brazil and Ronaldo were clinging on to former glories. Pundits and fans have continually mocked Ronaldo ever since and he's become known as "Fat Ronaldo" (even my girlfriend has referred to him as"Fat Ronaldo", sacrilege!!). The man who four years earlier achieved what no player had done in 24 years was now trotting around out of breath, looking like an old Sunday League player. So my dream that Ronaldo would suddenly shed a couple of stone and somehow end up fitter aged 33 in 2010 never did come true (shock). I'm now hoping that this year is four years too late for 35 year old (turning 36 on the eve of the tournament) Miroslav Klose, who is two goals away from breaking Ronaldo's record for the most goals in World Cup tournaments. Ronaldo deserves that record; please god, make Klose look like a pub footballer.

The real 'Golden Generation

In 2002 Italy should have won the world cup. Maybe "won" is a bold statement but they should have definitely got to say the Final. Evidence to back my bold statement up comes from their performance in 2006 when they did win the tournament, but that's not the basis for my statement. The conviction of my proclamation comes from the the side they the had on paper, Buffon, Maldini, Nesta, Canavarro, Gattuso, Totti, Del Piero, Vieri and Inzaghi. Ask any Italian to name the best of the Azzurri over say the last quarter of a century and the only players who may be able to trump the aforementioned names would be say Roberto Baggio, Baresi and maybe Pirlo. What I'm getting at is the 2002 squad contained a true "Golden Generation", and I'm not talking about those ridiculously false "Golden Generations" that England are supposed to have had at every world cup in the last 10 years (despite being above average, at best). These are some of the finest players to have played for the Italians in the last 20 plus years and they should have gone a lot further.

Being the saddo that I am, in the build up to this year's world cup, I've been watching highlights (genuinely highlights, not clips) of games from the world cup from about 1978 onwards. One of the things that has stood out for me that I probably didn't appreciate back in 2002 was that Italy were absolutely robbed against South Korea in the 2nd round. Had the internet and social media existed in the forms that they do nowadays (or had Italy been England), I don't think we'd have every heard the end of the fallout from that game. It was a joke, red cards, penalties, disallowed goals (and there were loads of em), it says a lot about the referee Byron Moreno that he was subsequently banned domestically for another questionable performance and then jailed for two and a half years for heroin smuggling. Anyway, I feel like I'm drifting away from the subject here, the point I'm trying to make is that Italy were robbed in 2002 but were, luckily for them, good enough to still win the tournament 4 years later in 2006 with many of the players that were part of the squad in Korea/Japan.

But then came 2010. In 2010 their luck ran out; those that remained from 2002 & 2006 were definitely past it and those that replaced the departed/retired squad members, just weren't good enough. Italy went from being a fairly expansive attacking (cleverly attacking) team in 2006, despite the lazy stereotypes, to a team clinging on in 2010, reaffirming the lazy defensive tag they're so often given. Struggling to two draws and a defeat in a fairly straightforward group containing Slovakia (it was Slovakia right? I always mix them up with Slovenia), New Zealand and Paraguay. It was like that bit at the end of Every Which Way But Loose where Clint Eastwood's character is battering the legendary fighter Tank Murdoch, who's just living off of his reputation. If you don't know what I'm talking about, and you probably don't, that film is so old my dad ALWAYS tells me the story of how it was the last thing he went to watch in the cinema, I suggest you watch it online somewhere (or wait for it to come on ITV late on a Wednesday night as it always does).

Italy became the 2nd team in the history of the world cup to crash out in the first round (Brazil being the first in 1966, although Uruguay went one better and refused to defend it in 1934*) in 2010. What a difference 4 years makes eh, you've got to make your chance count.

He hardly looks a fresh faced angel but compare this to the pic below

Another piece of evidence of the effects of a 4 year gap on the fortunes of both nations and individual player is the roller-coaster ride of a story that belongs to Diego Maradona and Argentina between 1978 and 1994. In 1978 Maradona was a slim (yeah slim, I should stop at that with this story he hasn't been slim since the early 1980's) promising teenage sensation in 1978 and was controversially left out of the world cup squad. Not that they needed him, they won it anyway, Mario Kempes, dodgy results against Peru, protesting about plaster casts and all that. In 1982 he was now in his early twenties. Everyone knew who he was but he wasn't quite the finished article yet, Italy famously shackling him in the 2nd round, so much so that he was eventually sent off for retaliating to the "special attention" he was receiving and Argentina crashed out.

You couldn't get a more chalk and cheese comparison from 1982 to 1986, despite the retention of the awful 80's graphics with all television broadcasts, including the little flashing "R" when you were watching a replay; just in case you mistook a replay of an incident as a case of you having a strong sense of deja vu. Maradona was amazing, he probably put in the greatest individual performance by a player at the world cup and Argentina romped home (yes he scored against us with his hand but he also scored at least two goals that tournament where ran past or even through half the opposition on his way to goal). In 1990 it was failure again for Argentina, they would have been out in the group stages had it not been for the 24 team format which enabled the best 3rd placed teams to sneak through to the 2nd round. They got through to the final courtesy of two penalty shoot outs and a magnificent assist from Maradona against Brazil but it wasn't the same, and Maradona was starting to look a lot less svelte. By 1994 Argentina were most certainly living off of their former glories, they were considered decent despite only qualifying via a play off (and a close play off if my memory serves me correctly) with Australia, who were not as strong as they are nowadays. Maradona provided another great assist for Caniggia against Nigeria (I'll leave you to Google that one) and scored a good goal against the Greeks but he would later fail a drugs test and the Argentines would crash out in the 2nd round against Romania.

The last football related contrast I want to talk about is that of Brazil between 1970 and 1974. I know they got to the 2nd round and I think could have mathematically made the final at one point but this is Brazil. Like Germany, getting far in a world cup means next to nothing to them and this side was following up from the performances of the side that many often romanticise about being the best ever. Just as with the Italians of 2002 I can reel off the names in the 1970 Brazillian team, despite the tournament occurring 10 and a half years before I was even born, Pele, Jairzinho, Tostao, Clodolado, Gerson, Carlos Alberto and Rivelinho. Rivelinho sticks out the most for me when I think of the difference between the side in 1970 and 1974, the main reason being that he's the only name from the 1970 side, that I know of, that played in 1974. For me what doesn't help Rivelinho is the way he looks. In 1970 he and rest of the gang were exciting and the football was free flowing. Come 1974 it was all a bit uglier and Rivelinho himself had kinda the look of that old guy in a nightclub, the one with his first 4 shirt buttons undone, showing off his medallion, a good few years older than all of the other club goers (or in this case, his Brazilian team-mates) and just that little bit out of fashion. That's what 1974 did to my image of Rivelinho. As I said before, what a difference 4 year make.

And then there's me. Every world cup my life is significantly different than it was at the last one. In 1990 I was a 9 year old boy, in awe of the whole thing. USA 94 saw a young teenager dazzled by the colour of it all, fighting to stay up and watch the midnight kick-offs. Come 1998 in France I'd found pubs and Alcohol, one of my lasting memories being watching the Brazil v Denmark quarter final in one of the few pubs in Enfield that you could regularly go to as a 17 year old without getting ID'd. By 2002 I'd just finished uni, I was basically a lay about, struggling to wake up to watch games that kicked off at 7am. 2006 was the first world cup I experienced while in full time employment, I didn't enjoy that. Missing afternoon games is not my thing! In 2010 I had my own place and was married, if I'm being honest I wasn't massively happy with my life. It is of no surprise that of all the world cups I've watched 2010 is the one I struggle to recall the most despite being the most recent. And now there's 2014. My life has completely changed direction for the better and I love it! I'm in a great place in 2014 and I feel like this year I'm going to have a great world cup (listen to me talking like I'm playing in it or something). In my head 2014 is going to be the tournament that 2010 could never be and no matter what happens in the 30 or so days after June the 12th I know that it'll be totally different to what I've ever experienced and nothing like anything that happens in the future.

What a difference four years make!

*Did they think it was going to be hosted in Uruguay/South America every year or something??

The King of Procrastination goes to Milan

So I started writing a World Cup related blog post a few weeks ago and then just stopped. Now when I say started I mean, I wrote the bulk of. Could I get round to finishing it? No! On top of this last week I went with a good friend, and long-time supporter of AC Milan, to Italy watch Milan play Parma. Great idea for a blog post I thought, and it is, but did I write anything...? No! Well here's a week late (and brief) post about my trip to Milan. The World Cup one will follow at some point in the not too distant future, I hope.

Milan, Northern Italy. A city famous for its fashion and its two hugely successful football teams. I say successful but if you looked at the Serie A table this year you'd probably wonder what the fuss was about. Over the years though 10 European Cups (I'm thinking Milan have 7 or is it 6) and 34 (once again I'm taking a stab from memory and saying 18 each) league titles kinda defines both teams. As does their ground the San Siro (or Giuseppe Meazza to Inter fans). The San Siro is absolutely huge! I've been to some big grounds in my time and I have a theory regarding how big a stadium feels in relation to where you sit in in, regardless of where you sit, the San Siro is massive. I mean it's the 2nd biggest club stadium in Europe!

Anyway my summary of the whole day is, The San Siro is huge, the Curva Sud is awesome, Milan are rubbish, Mexes is a headless chicken, Balotelli couldn't give a toss, there's a huge difference between what the Ultras think of him and the rest of the ground, and the game was one of the most entertaining I've seen in a while (saying that I was at West Ham v Hull last night, that was the opposite of Milan v Parma).

Here's some pics...

Bit of culture (along with some Romany looking fellas trying to catch pigeons to impress tourists)

Amazing mural on the way to the ground

The San Siro from a distance

HUGE!!

The officials and Abbiati warming up

The Curva Sud (AMAZING)

Poli in the back of the net with the ball while Parma celebrate their 4th goal

And here's a video of Cassano scoring (with some Japanese fella getting in the way), please don't sue me Serie A or TIM or anyone else...

19th Century Football & Teenage Wizkids

I know it's been a while since I last posted here, I know that in the past I've promised to post more frequently. I'm sorry, I intend to change. Honest! Please take me back, you and me are good together! And so on and so forth. In all seriousness I'm back, I know, you're probably thinking to yourselves, "he's had more comebacks than one of those mediocre pop bands that you see on The Big Reunion" (for the record, I have never watched  The Big Reunion; nor do I endorse the watching of such tripe). In all seriousness I am back and the intention is to post more frequently.The intention is to step it up in the run up to the greatest show on earth, the World Cup happening this summer, and then to provide regular posts throughout the tournament, giving both statistical (probably not that statistical) and satirical (probably not that satirical either) analysis. That's the plan anyway, so keep your eyes peeled in the summer months. Even when "England aren't even playing" (see what I did there).

Now that we've got the re-introductions out of the way, let's get down to business. In this case business being footballing current affairs. The first thing I want to talk about is my beloved West Ham united and their current season, this is where the "19th Century" reference comes from in the title; but you guys know that don't you, how dare I insult your footballing intelligence. For anybody who is here for the humour rather than the football, and I like to imagine there's a few of you (you'll like the bits in the beginning and towards the end but probably not the middle), West Ham were recently accused of playing "19th Century Football" by a bitter, and thwarted may I add, Chelsea manager Jose Mourinho. But we'll come back to that, I've got your number Mourinho! "No way Jose!" We're I'm taking you down (In a sarcastic manner of course).

First things first though, West Ham have been awful for large part of this season, stay with me here non football fans, it's going to get "footbally" for a few paragraphs. As I was saying we've been bad for parts of the season and that is reflected in the relegation battle that we find ourselves embroiled in. In short we started the season with some OK results then slipped into a run where we picked up barely any points off of teams that we should pick up points from then had a totally morale sapping month where we played Chelsea, Liverpool, Manchester United and Arsenal and obviously picked up no points, which was concerning considering the ability of EVERYBODY else and his dog to go to Manchester United and get something. Then with our morale at rock bottom players started picking up injuries, we panicked and signed Roger Johnson (THE WORST professional footballer I've ever seen play for West Ham United, it astonishes me that we transfer money into his bank account at the end of the month in exchange for his "services", but that's not his fault), then we started losing to teams we should probably pick up points from e.g. Fulham; no disrespect Fulham fans, one of my best mate's is a Fulham fan, and I don't mean that in a, "I've been racist so now I'm going to say I've got mates of the same racial background as the one of I've just insulted" way. I mean you no disrespect! Back to what I was saying, we then picked up and beat Cardiff, lost to Newcastle, got a very un-19th Century 0-0 draw at Chelsea (I mean has he ever seen scores from the 19th Century? 0-0 draws were invented at some point in the 1960's (probably by Italians! That's a joke my Italian readers (yeah, like Italians care about my blog)))* and then got three 2-0 victories against Swansea, Aston Villa & Norwich.

Now for me it's been a bad season, I don't want West Ham to go down, I don't want to go back to playing on every Tuesday night with that sh*t Mitre ball (once you've tasted the sweet Nike balls of the Premier League you can never go back) but you know what I hate the most about this season, in fact I hate it the most about every season when West Ham struggle (contrary to popular, misguided, opinion that's not as regular as you'd think), it's that everyone I know that isn't a West Ham fan, becomes a West Ham expert. They know from the 10 minutes worth of cleverly edited footage on Match of The Day that they watch once a week, that Nolan is our best player, Jaaskelainen is a decent keeper, all we ever do is knock long balls and Big Sam needs to go.These are some examples of the rubbish I hear.

Let me set the record straight right now, Match of The Day is pure propaganda in the true sense of the word, exaggeration of the facts. At the end of every game they go to Alan Hansen or whoever is the "Analyst" on for the night and say, "What angle do you want to analyse this game from?" Normally they go for the, "The team that won, was the best side on the day", unless they can't find unequivocal evidence in the footage they have to support this theory. Unless you go and watch a football match you'll probably never know this, but it's the truth. I've seen games where West Ham have been awful and won yet we've been singled out for praise by a MOTD "Analyst", or conversely games where we've played really well but just been unlucky and the guys on MOTD have turned round and dissected all of our "flaws" as support for the result. MOTD is the ultimate lazy man's (or woman's) guide to the Premier League, I refuse to watch it.

So here's the truth, with regards to the points I made above and West Ham's current plight. Firstly Kevin Nolan is useless. I've probably said it on here before, he scores a lot of goals for us but they tend to be tap ins or volleys from close range and when he's not scoring, he'll only score around 10 times a season (unless you're in the Championship), he spends his time walking around arguing with anyone who makes eye contact with him, struggling to keep up with the midfield play and not putting enough effort in to support the striker.

As for Jusi Jaaskelainen he's a shot stopping goalkeeper. As a goalkeeper I hate "Shot Stoppers", they look great (especially on MOTD highlights) but the don't do the fundamentals of goalkeeping so well. When I was a kid, I started off as a "Shot Stopper", yeah it's great, you fling yourself about continually tipping the ball over the bar and round the post. Then as you get older, better and understand the game more you then focus more on your positioning, cross catching and kicking. "Shot Stoppers" are the guys on your Sunday Team that tell you that playing in goal is easy and always want to throw themselves around, with your gloves on, in training! Pfffft! Bloody "Shot Stoppers"! Now I am not saying that I'm better than Jaaskelainen when it comes to positioning, cross catching and kicking (god, my dead ball kicking is woeful, my ex-Sunday teams will testify), I'm not paid to play in goal for anyone, and I'm not saying that Jaaskelainen doesn't hold positioning, cross catching and kicking as key aspects of the game that he needs to master, he's not stupid and he's played in the Premier League for over 10 years. What I am saying is that those areas of his game are weak and can lead to defensive instability or even pivotal mistakes that cost the team games e.g. the dropped cross away at Norwich that led to them winning a penalty and coming back from 1-0 down to beat us 3-1. Our recent run of good form has coincided with the introduction of Adrian (pronounced "Ad-re-an" not "Aid-re-an" by the way) who arrived in the summer on a Free Transfer from Real Betis who is good at... you've guessed it! Positioning, cross catching and kicking. PS I love Adrian! Actually love him!

Finally Big Sam and long ball. Yes when we panic or run out of ideas we bang the ball long. And not many West Ham fans are happy with this. It's a similar tactic that England adopt during major international tournaments against any half decent side. You chase the ball down (minus Nolan) for a few minutes until the opposition make a mistake and give it back to you, then you whack it as far forward as possible to the one player you have anywhere near their box who, if he's lucky enough to get a touch on it, he faces the prospect of trying to negotiate 4 or 5 defenders on his own. There is only one player in the Premier League that offers you any hope with this tactic, his name... Andy Carroll. If only he played for West Ham eh... When we're not panicking and knocking the ball long, what we actually do is start play ON THE FLOOR with one of our full backs who then plays the ball to either to a winger, or to a central midfielder who then plays it on to a winger who tries to cross the ball in to the box, unfortunately this is normally on their weak foot because we play our wingers on their wrong sides and we normally have one man in the box who is not Andy Carroll so the cross ends up being cleared easily by the opposition. As for Big Sam. Yes, he has instilled the futile tactic of banging the ball forwards to one man, that I mentioned above. Yes, he spent all of our money on Andy Carroll based on the fact that he wanted to adopt this tactic in times of desperation, meaning that we had no cover when Carroll and other players were injured and had to desperately re-sign a player we released in the summer (Carlton Cole) as well as a defender who was on the books of a team two divisions below us (Roger Johnson). Yes he has persisted with Nolan at times when Nolan has put in very little effort and we've essentially played with 10 men. But we're very very solid under Big Sam, it's no coincidence that we have had the most clean sheets this season. I've been watching West Ham for years and I can't remember a time when we've had a more solid looking defence. Big Sam is not pretty but he's they type of manager you need when you're battling to stay up, just Like Tony Pulis at Crystal Palace. I've heard many stories of how detailed and meticulous he is when it comes to studying other teams and their tactics and how to shut them down. I'm not saying that Sam is the best manager ever, but who can a side battling to stay up with comparatively limited resources attract? Who's available? Who is a proven survivor? Stop watching Match of The Day and leave the West Ham analysis to those that watch West Ham!!

There's a clear distinction between the 19th Century team and the 21st Century one here!

Right, that rant is out of the way, I hope any non- football fans are still with me here because it's about to get very tongue in cheek. Let's talk about this 19th Century bull that Jose's been spouting. Has Mourinho ever read up on 19th Century football? Because I have. Regular readers will know that on top of my razor sharp whit I have a bit of an encyclopaedic knowledge of football history. I've read quite a bit on 19th Century football and what I saw at Stamford Bridge on the night of the 29th of January 2014 was not 19th Century. If anything it was 21st Century. Firstly Where were the long trousers? Everybody knows 19th Century footballers wore long trousers, some accounts even talk of matching coloured caps. Last I checked we went for the conventional shirt, shorts and long socks that night at Stamford Bridge, some players where even wearing that very 21st Century under armour that has become fashionable for footballers to wear (does under armour really make you a bionic defence breaking machine?). And what happened to caps? Why do players not wear them any more? Were they banned like the snood? Bloody foreign types coming over from Scotland playing their passing game and wearing caps, grrrr! Secondly all of our players were full time professionals. If we were playing 19th Century football they wouldn't have even been sanctioned to play a game on a Tuesday evening (don't even start me of the fact we wouldn't have had floodlights), they'd have had to have been up early the next day to go down a coal mine, or in West Ham's case to be at the Ironworks down on the docks of the Thames first thing in the morning.

And if Jose wants to talk tactics I'll go there too. Back in the 19th Century the rules were very different which meant playing styles were totally different. For a start some teams played a game where points could be scored by kicking Rouges. Kicking a Rouge was a bit like kicking the ball out for a goal kick or corner. There were plenty of corners and goal kicks that night, Chelsea had 13 corners to West Ham's 3. Had we been playing 19th Century football we'd have made more of an effort to stop Chelsea's 13+ Rouges. Additionally, last time I checked we played a 4-5-1 formation that night. Back in the 19th Century anything more that 2 at the back would have been considered Parking the horse and carriage so not many teams went for as many as 4 defenders. So Jose might want to get his interpretation of football in the 1800's straight before he starts branding people "19th Century"! We wouldn't even have played Chelsea back then because they weren't formed until about 1905 I believe! **sticks tongue out**

Now to move away from the West Ham talk. On Monday afternoon a friend sent me a screen grab from Twitter, via WhatsApp, of a man (and man is the key word here) in a Lazio shirt. The caption accompanying the image, "Lazio's new 17 year old signing". My first thoughts were, "This is going straight into a blog post. I'll do some digging around, grab some photos of this dude and the rest will write itself." Now this is exactly what is going to happen, but unfortunately, such is the power of social media, the story is old news now. And apparently Lazio are threatening to sue anyone who suggests that the player in question is anything but 17.  I don't care though, I'm running with this and I'm going to assume that you've somehow not seen the detail behind this story. And Lazio, I'm not saying that he's not 17, you can't sue me! I'm just asking readers of this blog to take a look at some photos. So Ladies and Gentlemen, here is Joseph Minala the SEVENTEEN year old that signed for Lazio's youth team in the summer...

Joseph aged 17 on the day he signed for Lazio (ah they grow up so fast)!

Joseph in a youth team game against Inter

Chilling with his fellow teenage team-mates

Joseph meets one of his heroes, Antonio Di Natale (Di Natale is 36, more than double his age)

Girls are always a temptation for teenage football stars, somebody needs to make sure Joseph doesn't get distracted and keeps his feet on the ground...

This is all I have for now, I hope it was an interesting read and I promise to post more frequently (I'll definitely be posting some stuff in the build up to the World Cup).

*That, my friends, I what is commonly referred to as brackets, within brackets, within brackets. You won't find that in any English syllabus!! Ha!