Takeaways from Champions League clash with Real Madrid

Well a wonderful night at Anfield was more or less taken down several pegs by poor performances all across the pitch.  By now most of you, if not surely all of you, are aware that the Reds fell at home to Real Madrid by the score of 3-0.  A Real team with no Gareth Bale no less.  A Real team that had the potential to be looking ahead to an El Clasico match on the weekend with Barcelona.  None of those factors ultimately helped out Liverpool.

The Reds came out on fire and seemed to soak in all the energy and enthusiasm, not only from the Kop, but from the entire stadium.  Perhaps even the entire world, as many LFC fans gathered in front of various TV sets or computer screens or whatever media they chose to watch their beloved football club on with memories still dancing in their heads of a memorable performance against Madrid in Champions League history.  It was not to be such a magical night on this eve at Anfield though.  Liverpool lost their luster fairly quickly.  Despite a good opportunity in the attacking third right off the bat, the Reds lost the gleam in their eyes after about 20 minutes of play and the technical prowess of the tactically gifted Galacticos took over.

While his detractors will no doubt say Dejan Lovren could have taken an extra step before trying to clear what would become Christiano Ronaldo's goa., more blame should be laid on the rest of the defense.  They failed to follow the run in the first place while Lovren initially stepped out toward James Rodriguez.  In the end, it was just a class chip with a top notch finish.  While we, as fans, can second guess this or that, there was little to be done that would actually change the outcome of that play.

It was the second and third goals where blame squarely lays with Liverpool.  Instead of only being down at the half 1-0, having created a couple decent chances themselves, the Reds continue to falter on set pieces and corners.  Taking nothing away from Karim Benzema, but both of his goals could have been and should have been prevented by a team that wants to consider itself top class in the Premier League.  Liverpool have failed too often on similar plays throughout the English league season and, despite their lack of scoring, have defense to blame for several poor performances including the 3-1 loss to West Ham and a less than sparkling 3-2 win over Queens Park.  This can no longer be tolerated.

While I am quick to defend the manager, Brendan Rodgers, he continues a trend that is disturbingly familiar to this writer and the teams I follow in other sports.  Slap some lipstick on the problem, get the supporters to drink the kool-aid and hope it all turns out better.  Some times it works out ok, but more often than not you end up with the same problems you went into the offseason with.  Set pieces and corners were a problem for Liverpool last season as well.  Though I feel Lovren is a quality defender, he hasn't sorted out the problems with the Reds back four as a whole.  Martin Skrtel is a decent defender as well.  However, he is more concerned with giving the evil eye to the officials and tugging opponents shirts than the ball when it is in flight.

The third Real goal was a perfect example of what really ails Liverpool at the moment.  Instead of defenders on their toes, ready to pounce on any loose ball to clear the area, they were flat footed.  One may argue whether Simon Mingolet could have done better when diving out for a claim, but the bottom line is there were at least five red shirts all standing flat footed in the six yard area, flailing about and not clearing the ball.  How it even bounced to Benzema, who was squarely between two red shirts, really is beyond me.  If Liverpool defend those set pieces even remotely better, then this game is still most likely a loss, but a goal differential of -1 looks a lot better than -3.  Especially having to go on the road to Real and Ludogorets still to come.

Other takeaways from this game, for me, are that Rodgers is too concerned with his midfield and their mentality.  While Sterling, technically, began the game as a companion uptop with Mario he ultimately fell back into more of a midfield role as a winger on the opposite side of Coutinho.  I still believe that Borini or Lambert need to be up top as a true striker until Sturridge gets back.  If the midfield is so important to BR, then perhaps he could return to the 3-5-2 system he used at times last season.  To be honest, the outcomes of the matches don't look like they would get much worse if that system was employed.  These are the times I wish I could see training every day, because I can't understand why the strikers aren't options at the top alongside Balotelli or at the very least as his replacements.

In my humble opinion, too much is being placed on Balotelli.  Too many people expect him to be Luis Suarez.  Very few, if any, are a straight up replacement for Luis Suarez.  For those who follow pro basketball, Suarez is comparable to Dennis Rodman.  He presents so many problems to his team and headaches for the coach/manager.  Yet, his effort and results in-game are second to none.  Balotelli simply isn't that player.  Even when in top form, Balotelli has never presented himself as a go all-out every second of every game type of player.  Right now the man can do no right.  By no means did he have a great game against Real, but he was not the reason for the loss and the entire team had a bad game.  Against QPR, Balotelli was accused of being too selfish and taking too many poor shots in his effort to get off his goalless stint.  On Wednesday he attempted to include his teammates more often and is accused of not being ruthless enough and not showing enough effort.

If we take all bias out of it, then Balotelli has not performed up to snuff.  Nobody in a red shirt has lately.  The defense has been poor across the board.  Raheem Sterling is attempting to do too much and more often than not, either trying to emulate Suarez by going to ground too early or taking too many dribbles right into the path of a defender's foot.  Many are praising Adam Lallana's effort against Madrid.  On the Liverpool Echo's webpage, he is even in the top three for player ratings, but it led to nothing.  He too was guilty of taking balls too close to a defender.  Effort does not always mean quality play.  This isn't a youth league where we praise someone for running with reckless abandon the entire game.

One could write an entire article on Glen Johnson.  The man is a wing midfielder at best and no longer seems capable of playing a solid wingback for Liverpool.  Why Manquillo has fallen out of favor leaves some scratching their heads and even Enrique seems like a better man marker than Johnson.  What is currently maddening about this club is the talent is there.  It is just not coming together.  Before the season I boldly claimed that Liverpool would not be this season's Tottenham.  Perhaps I was wrong.

Maybe there really are too many new additions to gel together cohesively.  Balotelli has loads of talent, but is slowly slipping into a sulk state.  Sterling is in poor form and/or trying to put too much on himself.  Gerrard looks top class one minute and then clueless defensively another.  It seems I still believe a combination of Balotelli and Sturridge will produce goals.  I would still have Sterling on the wing of the diamond in a 4-4-2 since he has proven he is willing to get back and help defend.  I now think Coutinho should be the diamond's tip and some rotation of the remaining midfielders can be rotated on the opposite wing, depending on form.  Rodgers has some work to do.  A win on the weekend against Hull will quiet the blood lust of the masses.  However, the entire team needs to find its way.  Regardless of effort or talent, Luis Suarez should not be that much of a difference from last year to this.  Rodgers needs to be a better leader than he is right now and the players need to perform up to their talent levels individually because no one player shoulders all the blame right now.

One or two things cleaned up and this team could be on a completely different note.  But that's how football/soccer/sports in general go.  By the knife's edge are things decided at times.  The season is young enough for quality changes to be made and Liverpool must make them quickly.  With so much opportunity to maintain a European presence, it would be a shame for this Champions League season be their last for another year.  Walk on.

Time for Liverpool to go with two strikers

Liverpool FC needs to go with two strikers.  Now.  Brendan Rodgers proved last season he was more than capable of molding and forming his squads to fit the needs to defeat the opponent on the day.  While he has tried this again this season, to varying forms of success, he has seemed more stubborn in sticking with the lone striker at the top.  Some of the blame can be shouldered by an under-performing Mario Balotelli, but not as much as many fans want to heap upon him.

The Italian enigma has not proven to be the goal scorer he once was with City or even with Milan, but he still has talent in him.  Too many fans see his poor form as the only or at least the main reason for Liverpool's poor start to the Premier League season.  False.  Raheem Sterling has been less than stellar.  While he is still extremely talented and deserving of the first team minutes, he has been less than top notch on the ball in many moments during key games.  He has dribbled into many defenders and many first touches prior to this last international break went too far off foot or even off knees.

Many of the new signees have not lived up to expectations either.  Blame is planted squarely on Balotelli because he is an easy target, but Rickie Lambert has done nothing to show he should be a lone striker.  He was given an opportunity against West Brom and did little to inspire any hope he would do any better than Balotelli.  The argument that he was cheaper than Balo is weak at best, as well.

Fabio Borini has done even less to figure into a starting role as a lone striker.  While many still want to believe he has the talent to be a quality player, he has not shown the quality on the pitch yet in terms of being a featured player.  So with so few options to replace Balotelli, barring a move in January, what are Liverpool left to do?

They cannot continue to slog along at the current pace, despite the fact they have managed to jump up to fifth place in the leage after a disheartening win over QPR.  Daniel Sturridge is still two weeks away from a return, if the Reds are lucky.  Chances are they won't be.  So again, what are the options.  I feel we've seen enough of the lone striker formation to know it's not really going to work with anyone alone up top right now.  Not with Raheem, Mario, Borini or Lambert.

Some will argue that the two striker formation was used and did not work as well, but I don't think one game where nobody was in good form is a good example.  BR can try whatever midfield formation he sees fit, but I think the team currently needs two up top.  I think Mario needs to keep starting the league games.  He can be paired with any of the attacking options.  You can have Borini or Lambert play evenly up top with him or use Sterling in a purely advanced role with the option to use the entire field as well.  I think this will give more space to Balotelli, who currently is trying too hard to take on the several defenders who surround him.

I think LFC will be better off once they regain more health throughout the team as they will be given the options everyone thought they would have at the beginning of the year.  Jon Flanagan's return means you can use a nice rotation at the wingback position that would not necessarily demand using Manquillo and Moreno at the same time to the potential defensive detriment of the club.  Allen gives the team more options in the midfield.  Players just need to start stepping up.  While I understand the modern footballer needs to be comfortable to be at his best, there simply are not enough central midfield spots for everyone to play and be in their preferred spot.

Sterling and Coutinho have the pace and skill where they need to be utilized as the wings of the midfield.  My preferred starting lineup would be Balotelli and Borini starting up top.  If Rodgers wants to employ the diamond, then Henderson or Coutinho can play the tip, Sterling and Henderson/Coutinho would be the wings and Steven Gerrard would be the holding midfielder in front of the back four.  I could do a whole different blog about the defense, so I'll leave those choices to Rodgers and the readers.

Yet the bigger question, regardless of who we contend should be up top, is why there is such a rush to judgement over everything regarding football.  Yes, you need good starts to seasons so more work is not needed later in the year.  However, the grass is not always greener.  Some already say Balotelli should be dealt.  Really?  Even if Liverpool bring in one striker during the January period, why not keep the depth?  Sturridge seems injury prone now and Borini/Lambert aren't any more reliable yet.  Too many people are quick to jump the gun.  As an American supporter, I have more examples than I care to name where teams and/or Universities I support thought they were better off dropping a player or coach only to be proven completely wrong.  Give things time to grow.  After all, even in the footballing world, the juggernaut of Manchester United has proven that knee-jerk reactions don't always yield immediate results.

Hodgson vs Rodgers from Across the Pond

Let me first say, that as an American, I don't always feel like I have the full story of things going on in European football.  I think websites like ESPN FC and This is Anfield do a spectacular job, but not being surrounded by all the news you are still left to wonder if portions of a story are left out.  That being said, this feud between England's manager and seemingly the entire Liverpool club is becoming ridiculous, if it was not already so.

Being a Liverpool supporter, perhaps my viewpoint is slanted, but Roy Hodgson, with every statement he makes, comes off more as a man desperate to somehow hold his job as opposed to a manager with a plan to win games and progress England forward.  Whether by design or by happenstance, Hodgson seems to cement the murmurs of the rumors that he has a grudge against Liverpool.  Trying to test a player's resolve by forcing him to train and/or play while you know he has an injury comes of as antiquated thinking at best and petty at worst.

There will always be spats between club and country.  The very makeup of having different managers with different philosophies and different styles lends itself to these confrontations.  Even US Soccer, though still in our toddler stages compared to other FA's, has seen a spike in club vs country issues, especially under Jurgen Klinsmann.  But those problems have more to do with actual issues like contract dollars in MLS vs quality of play and amount of play in Europe.  This Hodgson fued, that seemingly only has to do with Liverpool players and the club, seems more and more like an actual feud with the club and anyone associated with it.

At least in American media, there are no reports of any disputes with Tottenham or Wenger at Arsenal or Van Gaal at United.  No words have been spoken by Hodgson over the lack of deveolpment by any BPL clubs to develop more English keepers or veiled attacks on City for not somehow correcting the mistakes that Joe Hart likes to make.  It all seems centered on the Reds.  How childish for someone of, not only Hodgdon's age but his pedigree.  No, he hasn't had sparkling records everywhere he has gone, but he has won almost twice as many games as he has lost in his managerial career.  But, whether by grudge or by a feeling of mounting pressure for his job, the man has sunk to media attacks on players he must rely on if he is to keep his job.

While some may argue their overall quality, the bottom line is that when in form, there aren't many players in the English FA better than Daniel Sturridge and Raheem Sterling.  At least at the moment, there are not.  Things are obviously fluid in football.  But Hodgson needs them to perform well for England to perform well.  Yet here he is, trying to test their resolve and coming out in the media to shame them for not manning up.  Managers have many odd ways of getting players to play their best, but these hardly come off as ways of doing so.

I have long been a proponent of the idea that modern players are too coddled and selfish.  That they need to play through a bit of pain.  However, those days are no more.  Players today do play through more pain than we probably know.  As weekend warriors we often whine about the aches and pains come Monday.  Even though these are super-fit athletes, to think they don't suffer from the same ailments is foolishness.  The days of "rub some dirt on it kid" are gone.  Players are in control and Hodgson's ways of dealing with the realities he has been faced with are very unbecoming of a manager of any national level, let alone with the pedigree of the English FA.

This feud cannot continue.  Perhaps Liverpool does need to tweak their training regime.  It is obviously not all on England, when players like Loveran and Markovic go down as well.  However, that is up to Brendan Rodgers and him alone.  It is not for Roy Hodgson to worry about.  It is not for Roy Hodgson to question.  Roy Hodgson needs to worry about his own camp, his own training regimes and focus on moving England forward.  He is obviously not doing a bang-up job, so to speak, if he has England at the top of their group with 9 points and people still clamoring for his job.  Be a man Mr. Hodgson.  Leave the petty feuds of  the past at your doorstep.

Promotion/relegation in the US will not work...yet.

I recently engaged in a fun, spirited debate on Twitter and figured I would expound on my thoughts in this forum.  With the rise of popularity in soccer in America, the debate has been reformed as to whether a promotion/relegation system would work in American soccer.  Before I go into my reasoning, let me give a very rudimentary explanation of what that system is.

All throughout European leagues and several others around the world, there is what is called a promotion/relegation system.  If we use the English leagues as our example, then there are tiers.  The Premier League is at the top.  Then the Championship, then League One and League Two.  Now each league throughout the world has different numbers, but on average it is about two to three teams that move up and down.  In our example, if Southhampton, Cardiff and Swansea are the three worst teams in the Premier League, then they would be relegated to the Championship the next season.  By the same token, the top three or so in the Championship would be promoted to the Premier League.  The same is true of the bottom teams in the Championship going to League One and their top teams promoted to the Championship and so on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promotion_and_relegation : Here is a link to the different pro/rel systems throughout the world.  Now then, on to the point that I argue.  While soccer is gaining steam within the US, it is not to a point where this kind of system would be accepted.  Soccer has gained notoriety through the US National Team's performance at the last two World Cups.  It has picked up steam with an improvement in quality of MLS teams.  Also, the top European leagues are readily available on regular cable and satellite TV packages now, making it much easier to see the top names/teams in the world from the comfort of your own couch or at your local sports bar.

But soccer is not there yet in America.  While we, as fans and players, strive to make it ever more popular and mainstream, at this juncture it is still a fourth rated sport at best.  The NFL is still king in the US.  After that, depending on your own personal preferences, there is the MLB, NBA and NHL just to name professional leagues and not even taking into account the huge popularity of college athletics.  Now I have long argued that there is enough room in our sporting hearts to support many sports equally and with the same passion and fervor.  Yet, the reality is there is only so many dollars to go around and right now those dollars are precious to a league like Major League Soccer when they are still in competition for eyeballs and butts.

MLS, while gaining success and mainstream notoriety, is still in its infant stages.  Promotion/relegation would hinder that growth within America because it would limit the sport we hold so dear to only the most passionate fan who both cares deeply for their team and for the sport as a whole.  MLS is still in dire need of the average fan and it is my contention that the average fan would not understand or support their local team under a pro/rel circumstance.  Although proponents of the system like to throw around buzz words, like elitists and call people MLS cronies for supporting their one corporation approach to the league, the bottom line is it has worked and worked reasonably well.

Yes, there were failures along the way as there would be for any league/business model trying to build from the ground up.  However, nobody throughout the world  can argue with the success and number of right moves (with the exception of on the field quality) the the MLS has made to this point.  Trying to jam American soccer into the European mold this early would just spoil things.  There is a growing passion for the sport and for local clubs.  Promotion/relegation would just dam the stream before letting it grow into a river.  The argument made to me, while valid, says no open league system has ever been shut down due to lack of support.

That's an apples and oranges comparison.  The rest of the world has such a connection and passion for the game, that not supporting their club doesn't register on most fans' minds.  Trying to apply that here in America just doesn't stick yet.  Your average fan is perfectly willing to not attend the game of whatever their favorite team may be because they have plenty of other options.  St. Louis Cardinal fans are often labeled as the best in baseball.  And while that may be true in some instances, if anyone says they show up through thick and thin and sell out every single game, then I have a bridge to Hawaii you can drive on.  If the Cardinals are losing and the St. Louis Blues hockey team is hot or the St. Louis Rams football team is on a winning streak, then butts will be in those seats and not at Busch Stadium and vice versa.  It is true in all other pro sports towns and regarding all other pro sports franchises in America.

You have to take the hardcore fans out of this argument.  The hardcore fan will support their team no matter what level they play against, win or lose, thick or thin.  But hardcore fans, in any sport, are just not numerous enough or possess the amount of pocket money necessary to fully base a club or franchise's financial well being on.  The argument that no open league has collapsed also just doesn't really apply to the US landscape either.  There are plenty of teams and leagues at all levels in America that have fallen by the wayside.  The old NASL had some of the biggest names in soccer playing for it at one point or the other, yet fell apart.  Hockey is littered with the carcasses of former teams and leagues.  RIP to the IHL and CHL as well as team after team after team.  Let us not forget Miami and Tampa Bay and San Jose in the early days of MLS too.

Also, there just aren't the type of facilities or fan base for each and every team to think they would succeed.  A team that plays in front of 2,000 in the USL (no matter how passionate those 2,000 are) just won't be on the same level financially and/or stability wise as a team that averages 15-20,000.  And not to be snobbish, but anyone who thinks a team that averages those numbers at the MLS level would keep the numbers if they were playing in the USL is just foolish.  Again, there aren't enough hardcore fans to support it yet.

In reality, the argument that MLS and North American soccer must have promotion/relegation right now is more elitist than the other side of it.  It would not surprise me if many of the people who advocate pro/rel right now are the same ones who think MLS has to go to the same schedule as European leagues (which would crush MLS under the NFL's mighty boot instead of only having to go up against baseball).  Now before people label me as not understanding the sport or not being a fan or falsely only thinking I support the one corporation system of MLS, let me say you have no idea.

I am for promotion/relegation.  While I think MLS should keep playing during the summer, I do support a more FIFA oriented schedule where there are breaks during international play.  I would not be opposed to MLS letting their franchises' gain full control down the road.  But therein is the key words: down the road.  Let the league keep growing.  Let the fervor for professional squads keep growing in towns and cities like Sacramento and St. Louis and coast-to-coast.  Let the league get to their desired number of teams before we talk of such things as an entirely new system of leagues.  Let each city gain the kind of facilities necessary to compete at various levels of competition.  Let's just let it keep growing for awhile.  Right now, a great concept on paper: the CONCACAF Champions League, isn't really off and running.  It just doesn't matter yet.  I'd rather a tournament like that take off before we try to jam the European model into the US soccer landscape.  People are too quick to want things the way they want it now. Just chill and enjoy the growth of the game.  Maybe promotion/relegation will come before we expect.  Many didn't think MLS would reach the heights it has.  But don't expect more of this league before the league itself is financially ready or all teams across the nation are ready from a stability standpoint.

And as always, remember that these are just opinions.  But mine is right.

For the love of all that is holy people...Think before you speak

Now then, before I go into my little rant and before I get a bunch of responses about freedom of speech and entitlement to one’s opinion, let me state that everyone is entitled to their opinion.  All I am imploring is some thought into the formation of said opinion.   Think about the situation unbiasedly for two seconds before spewing forth the vitriol that comes forth from sport’s fans mouths and fingers.

I have come to the realization that the vast majority of sports fans are lazy.  No, not physically, though that is often the case as well.  I mean mentally.  They look for the easiest target for their woe and unleash their hate upon that person or persons.  While this is true of sports fans across the board, it seems especially true in the St. Louis area, which I call home.  Sam Bradford is a good example.

The Rams quarterback is not and may never be a top 5 QB.  However he is talented and capable of winning a game on his talents alone.  Yet according to the vocal antagonists, he has no talent, can’t hit receivers, can’t scramble, can’t win games etc. and so on.  Very few want to look at the intangibles that lead to those situations.  Bradford went through a different Offensive Coordinator each of his first few seasons.  If you include his college years, he had to learn four different offensive systems and plays.  I challenge anyone to learn the complexity of NFL offensive schemes and terminology that many times.

However, now to the heart of my argument (and I apologize to my journalism teachers for burying the lead).  The goaltending situation for the St. Louis Blues has to bring the biggest section of fools out of the woodwork and has for years, if not decades.  Not since the days of Curtis Joseph and then Grant Fuhr have the Blues had what many fans would consider a “franchise” goaltender and there are probably some that would even argue against those two. 

Having been a goaltender in hockey and goalkeeper in soccer, I have always known that the position inherently brings blame with it.  It is the laziness of sports fans to simply blame the one person who let the goal in, regardless of the situation that led to the shot being taken in the first place.  Now don’t get me wrong, there are plenty of times that the netminder could have done something different or let in a softy.  It comes with the territory.  It is difficult to maintain the mental focus to be in the exact right position at the exact time needed to make a save every time.  However, sports fans (Blues fans in particular) are quick to heap fault on the goalies.

Jaroslav Halak has borne the brunt of this.  After almost singlehandedly leading the Montreal Canadiens to the Eastern Conference Finals in 2010, he came to St. Louis with high hopes and lofty expectations that following summer.  Once the team failed to make the playoffs that season, the laziness went into overdrive and many have failed to recover.  Even during the season where he and Brian Elliot won the Jennings Trophy as the goaltender tandem that allowed the fewest goals during the season, Halak never enjoyed much comfort from the vocal mass.  Even then there were calls for Elliot to be given the reigns.  Halak was the starter in the playoffs that season, and though I don’t know if goaltending would’ve made any difference the way the L.A. Kings took out the Blues, it would have been nice to see Halak not get taken out by his own defenseman in the previous series.

The next season, which was half a season due to the greed of both players and owners, the fools were given more ammunition due to a series of injuries for Halak.  Despite the fact that all goalies get hurt throughout a year and Halak hasn’t had all that many during his career, the vocal mass turned it into the idea that he is always hurt and not durable enough to lead the team.  Elliot’s stellar play that season did not help Halak’s cause.  Halak was still injured come the playoffs, but many say he was no longer the choice of coach Ken Hitchcock because he was on the bench and in their minds fit to play.  There is a difference between fit to start and fit to play if absolutely needed.  The Blues only had Halak on the bench because they were more comfortable in the playoffs using him if absolutely necessary than using an unproven Jake Allen, if Elliot went down to injury.

Even the media is prone to this lazy thinking and bias in regard to goaltending.  In the last two games, the Blues have lost to the Kings and Anaheim.  Both Halak and Elliot gave up goals that they should not have.  However after Halak’s loss, the announcers all but blamed him for the goals.  After Elliot’s loss, the post-game broadcaster said that despite the soft goal, he made several great saves to keep his team in the contest.  This was true of Halak only two nights before, yet the same consideration was not given.

I am, unashamedly, a supporter of Halak and that is most likely very clear in my positioning in this article.  I take nothing away from Brian Elliot and his great play since arriving in St. Louis.  He is a solid goaltender which to fall back on.  However, I feel he has proven that when he is given the reigns by himself with no challenger, he has faltered.  It was the case in Ottawa and Colorado and was the case in St. Louis when Halak was injured and the team did not know the talent level of Allen.  Halak has proven, in the playoffs, he can carry a team.  The Canadiens that year were not as talented as the Blues of the last two.  Yet, Halak (with the help of Carey Price) led his team past some of the giants of the East in Washington and Pittsburgh and within a game of defeating Philadelphia.  He has not been afforded the same opportunity in St. Louis, due to poor team play in 10-11 and injuries the following two years.

On the same token, if you take my own bias out of the situation, Blues fans’ ideas of a franchise goaltender are quite warped in most cases.  Their definition of a franchise netminder is essentially someone like Martin Brodeur.  Someone who will play 65-75 games out of 82.  Those days are gone my friends.  Starting goaltenders today play about 55% of the time.  A bit more if there is not a suitable backup.  Lazily, people blame the goaltending (Halak in particular, but also Elliot on rare occasion) for their playoff woe.  Really, in the Blues' case, there is only one instance when this is absolutely true and that is way back in the early 2000’s when Roman Turek was a main reason that talented squad did not go past the first round.  One could also make the case for Jon Casey being at fault in 97, but that is neither here nor there.

This vocal portion of Blues fans, much the same as Bradford haters, have unrealistic expectations.  Martin Brodeurs don’t just grow on trees.  Also, “franchise” goaltenders don’t always mean Stanley Cups.  Ryan Miller has no Cups.  Roberto Luongo has no Cups and has only been to one final.  No Cups and no finals for Henrik Lundquist.  Ed Belfour could not win with all those talented Blackhawk teams and only won late in his career with a different team.  Look at the Stanley Cup winners from the last decade and it’s about 50/50 whether the winner was a “franchise” goaltender.

2003 NJ Devils – Martin Brodeur:  Of course a franchise netminder.  Possibly one of the best ever.                                              

2004 Tampa Bay Lightning – Nikolai Khabibulin:  Quality goalie, but has bounced around three times since then.

2006 Carolina Hurricanes – Cam Ward:  Again quality.  Great when hot, but not “franchise” in Blues fans eyes I'd bet.

2007 Anaheim Ducks – JS Giguere:  Hot goaltender, was the reason they won.  All but disappeared in the league now.

2008 Detroit Redwings – Chris Osgood:  Yes Hasek was on the team, but Osgood won and Blues fans know all too well about Osgood.  Seemingly only capable of winning in Detroit.

2009 Pittsburgh Penguins – Marc-Andre Fleury:  Franchise goalie, yes, but also faces similar problems to Halak as fans are often clamoring for someone else to take over.

2010 Chicago Blackhawks – Anti Niemi:  Possible franchise, but not with the Hawks.  In San Jose now.

2011 Boston Bruins – Tim Thomas:  One can make the case either way.  I would lean toward him being a franchise goalie until his awkward “retirement”.

2012 LA Kings – Jonathan Quick:  Franchise.  Pure and simple.

2013 Blackhawks – Corey Crawford:  Possibly a franchise goalie, BUT one could argue he isn’t top 5 or top 10 in goalies you would pick if the league was blown up and everyone put in a draft.

What does all this mean?  It means that there is no science to winning a Cup and whether you need a goalie that will be there for years.  Again, if someone does not like one goalie or the other, that is not my business.  I will argue for my favorite and others may do the same.  I ask for fairness and to stop the lazy thinking behind some beliefs.  To blindly blame goaltending as the end all reason why the Blues have not won a Cup or even a game during a season, is ludicrous.  To say Halak gets all the blame but give Elliot credit when the situations game to game are so similar is just dumb.

Please, just think before you open your mouth the next time at the game.  Think before you write your post on Facebook.  Again, both Halak and Elliot have given their detractors plenty to hold on to for reasons they don’t believe in them.  But be fair about it when you sit and calm down and think about the situations clearly.  I still hold out hope for the day when Halak is given his time to shine for the Blues in the playoffs the way he did in Montreal.  Perhaps I will never see that day.  Perhaps Elliot will stay and Halak will go.  Perhaps both will go and Allen will be the man next year.  All these are possibilities that as fans, we thankfully, have no control over.  It will be as it will be.  But stop the laziness.  Quarterbacks that take you to the playoffs right out of the draft are rare.  Goalies that lead mediocre to decent teams all the way to championships are even rarer.  Bring expectations closer to reality.  Think.  See the game beyond the borders of your TV screen and realize that more happens than the singular instance you want to place your blame.  And as always realize that this is just my opinion and it may be different from yours…but I’m right.

Now, if you’ve managed to stick around through that rat’s nest of a thought process, here’s a few quick hits.

-         - The Tampa Bay Lightning’s radio announcer is a joke.  He makes Ken Wilson sound like he needed anti-depressants.  Ridiculous that he’s employed and I am not.

-          - Along the lines of my rant, Blues fans need to give up on Ryan Miller.  The Sabers would ask too much and his contract is too rich.  Ah, but these things don’t exist in those fans’ fantasy world.

-          - 1-7 will not suffice against California hockey teams.  The Blues have to find ways to summon the will to win right from the get go.

-          - I hate the Patriots.  That is why they will win…sigh

-          - I love the show ESPN FC, but their anti-MLS slant on everything is irritating.  If the football/soccer is so terrible then go back to England and cover the sport for them.

-          - I like that Michael Bradley has come back to MLS and the idea that his skills will deteriorate to dust because of the league is beyond stupid.

-          - The more I see of Andrew Wiggins and all the other great freshman in college basketball, the more I am convinced that both college basketball and the NBA would benefit from a rule change that allowed high schoolers to come out right away if they wish, but a player has to stay 2-3 years if they go to college.  There is so much development both physically and mentally that would occur during those years and the on-court product would be all the better for it.

- The more I get back into soccer, the more I’m ok with hockey going back to a system that allows ties.  Nobody likes them, but shootouts are kind of a joke.  Oh well.  Isn’t going to change.

Johnny Football Go Away

Oh how the times and a person's actions can change one's opinion.  When Johnny Manziel burst onto the scene, I was one of his biggest fans.  He reminded me a lot of Todd Reesing, a similarly undersized quarterback with similar attributes in regards to speed, elusiveness and pass accuracy.  Both were small for their position (Reesing was generously listed at 6' and probably well under that and the same could probably be said of Manziel who is listed at 6'1)  They both had a fire and passion and drive to do whatever it took to win.  That's why I rooted for Manziel.  He was getting the accolades that Reesing never could, mostly because my beloved Kansas just wasn't the place to receive media attention for football (and a tiny bit because we Jayhawks may have overvalued his talents).  Manziel broke all the preconceived notions that a freshman could/would never win the Heisman because he was the best player on the field and deserved it, so sports writers had no choice.  However, following the wild ride that is Johnny Football, perhaps we are learning why coach Kevin Sumlin would not give the media access to this kid.  Perhaps we also learn why no freshman had been awarded the Heisman and it may not have been because of stuffed shirt media types as many had presumed.

When I first read about all the goings on with Johnny Manziel (why is is name Johnny with an H when his full name is Jonathan?), I was willing to write it off as a kid being a kid.  Then as time went along and more came out about his things I became more aggravated.  What disturbs me more than just the actions of this 20 year old, are the reactions to it.  Every excuse on ESPN's message boards or Facebook posts seems to say, essentially, "leave the kid alone.  He's doing what any 20 year old would do."  Well, no he's not.  Not every 20 year old is getting smashed.  Yes, many do and it's been glorified to a point that I feel is unhealthy but that's my personal feelings on that topic.  However, most 20 year olds that I knew in college did not let their drinking habits overly affect their lives.  They did not go to rival universities and crash a Fraternity party.  Most 20 year olds weren't saying they could not wait to get out of college and most 20 year old athletes aren't saying they can't go to class because there is too much attention.  I went to school with some of the biggest names in college basketball.  Even big names like Peyton Manning, Andrew Luck or Cam Newton did not have to take online courses to avoid the attention of their fellow students.  (Whether they went to class in general is another matter)

Then comes the Outside the Lines piece and article about Manziel's family.  I was not given the opinion that some local sportscasters were, of Manziel's family taking advantage of his fame.  On the contrary, I think they were uncomfortable with it.  Rather, I was given the image that, though a caring family, they have been affected by money.  Or at least Johnny has.  No one can tell what Manziel has had to go through or fight to achieve or earn from one article.  However, I read into it a lack of discipline that is difficult to instill when someone comes from so much privilege.  This is not a blanket statement.  I have a friend whose wife comes from a family of money and their family all seem like hard working people that just live a different lifestyle than your average person.  However, Manziel, through his ongoing actions, just comes off as that spoiled rich kid that never learned proper lessons and though his father loves him, perhaps never learned how to be a father to him as opposed to trying to be a friend.

The last incident, most recently reported by ESPN, has been the final straw for me.  While $7500 isn't a huge sum of money in the grand scheme, it just begs the question of how foolish is this kid or at the very least how stupid are the people he is surrounding himself with.  His personal friend/business manager is reportedly the one that began telling autograph seekers Manziel would no longer sign without compensation.  If this is true, what in the world could they be thinking?  Are they that naive to think no one would become irritated at this and report any under the table funding that had or could have gone on?  The simple fact alone that they were seeking to get paid reeks of stupidity or at the very least no common sense of judgment.  One can argue for weeks and months on the merits of the NCAA's definition of amateur and compensation for players, but as the current system stands you simply are not allowed to accept money for anything even remotely related to playing your sport.

Not only does his poor judgement irk me, but the kid doesn't even need the money.  D'Marco Farr, former Ram and co-host on 101 ESPN in St. Louis, said it and I agree.  You can at least make the case for kids who are trying to get money to support their families or came from poorer upbringings and want the funds for some spending money.  Manziel was traveling the country over the summer, presumably on his parents' dime.  He had court-side seats for an NBA finals game.  This does not seem to me like someone that needs to be compensated, especially not in the numbers that have been reported.  To make matters worse, and I usually let people spend their money how they will, Manziel is reportedly on tape saying he was going to spend the $7,500 on rims for his car.  Not even touching the idea that there are rims that expensive, could we get any more trivial?  I'd like a hockey mask with a certain paint scheme on it.  Doesn't mean I'm going to go buy it as soon as I receive my first paycheck when I start my career.

Manziel may get drafted into the NFL and he may have the drive to succeed in the league.  However, I see a rude awakening for this young man coming and fast.  He consistently says he's going to live his life the way he wants and that's fine.  He needs to come to grips with the fact that there are consequences for every action we do in life, no matter how insignificant.  And fans need to stop the excuses.  Not every 20 year old is doing or would do the things he is.  Not every 20 year old is under the scrutiny or pressure he is either.  However, there are many, in the sports world in particular, that are and have made much better decisions when faced with similar circumstances.  I wish the best to this guy and hopefully he turns it around.  But for now he needs to go away.  Stay out of the light for awhile, get back to playing football if the NCAA will allow and just shut up.

As always, this is just my opinion...but I'm right.

Well people will never accuse me of striking while the iron is hot, but it's time to discuss this topic.  The idea of University of South Carolina defensive lineman, Jadeveon Clowney sitting out a year to prepare for the NFL Draft was proposed by a writer for Sports Illustrated.  The idea is that he would avoid injury that would be possible by playing his junior year at USC.  This, unexpectedly, sparked a debate that has more holes in it than a doughnut store.

To start with, barring any unforeseen changes, Clowney has already stated that he fully intends to play next year.  Having said that, the argument that he should not play is just ridiculous.  It goes against almost anything we argue about in sports, yet there were several people who argued that it might not be a bad idea and that someone in the future will eventually go through with the idea.  Their argument is that these kids have a right to protect themselves and their potential earnings and some even argued that the NFL three year out of high school rule is unjust.

To me, the NFL's rule is perfect and should be followed by more sports.  The NBA would be a perfect example, but that's an argument for another day.  Most people have conceded the point that nobody is ready for the NFL out of high school or even after one year of college football.  That point has been made mostly on a physical level.  I would argue that the three year rule is good also on a mental level.  There is no perfect age, but nobody can convince me that they or anyone else would be able to handle the pressures of professional sports in America and the money and exposure that comes along with it at age 18.  ESPN analysts were saying that kids should have a right to protect their future earnings and if he's injured he won't earn anything.  I argue that if he doesn't spend time in college learning about life, then he could be awarded a huge contract and end up no different than the other stories of pro athletes that go broke.

While there is no pattern for why those athletes lost their money, lack of financial awareness is one of the more prevalent reasons.  Even the most mature 18 or 19 year old is unlikely to not spend untold riches if just handed money like it grows on trees.  I consider myself thrifty and intelligent when it comes to spending, but even I wish I had some of the money back that I wasted during those years.  Then, to compound their foolish argument, they go further to say that people with the talent should be allowed to enter the workforce whenever they choose.

Why?  Why do we treat talent in sports so different than other professions.  Outside of perhaps singers, athletics is probably the only profession where the majority of the workforce did not have to go to school, learn their craft and hone it while not being compensated.  I find it rather interesting that the very people making the argument fit into my example.  Most any sports writer or journalist was an intern at one point.  Very few, if any, places pay interns any more.  Yet, those people went through the process because it was what they wanted to do.  Why can athletes not do the same?  I know just in my own experience -- people who know me know I'm not boastful or brag -- that I am a better broadcaster than several people who have jobs.  Yet, I'm still trying to get my break while they get paid and have less talent.  Sometimes, that's just how life is.  Why are athletes different?

Some will say it is because they have a far smaller window of opportunity to use that talent as a profession.  I will concede that.  However, the risk of injury is there in training the same as it is during a game.  Even professional athletes get hurt in practice.  The odds are greater during a physical contest, yes, but you can just as easily drop a weight on your foot or hyper-extend a knee while running or pull a muscle as you can get injured during competition.  Those are the risks associated with athletics.  Similar to the risks we take when we seek out a profession.  We do not know if we will succeed or not.  If we fail, we have to find something else to do with our lives.  Athletes are too often given a pass because they have a talent that entertains us.

While I'll be the first to admit that I want my teams, especially collegiate, to win I often wonder why we give so much leniency to athletes.  Not even just in college but in many high schools.  Why does the star quarterback not have to do homework?  Why does the 6'4 basketball player with a great shot and slick dribbling skills not have to study for the test?   Because our society has coddled them and taught them that it's ok to be nothing more than a ball player.  How do we know that Jadeveon Clowney doesn't aspire to be more than a football player?  And should we not encourage him to be more.  Perhaps not.

An example of it not being ok to be more would be Myron Rolle.  Instead of going directly into the NFL Draft, he accepted a prestigious Rhodes Scholarship.  Even people who aren't very academic have usually heard of those and know they are hard to achieve.  Yet, Rolle was criticized by some within football for taking any time away from the game.  Eventually he was drafted in the sixth round when he returned to the US to try his hand at pro football.  Many suggested he would have gone higher if he did not take time away from the game.  Yet they blow that argument out of the water by suggesting that Clowney should take a year off the game to protect himself from injury.

Why does it make sense to those people to not play for a year to avoid injury, but not playing while studying at prestigious universities abroad is a bad idea?  Also, even we as fans often wonder if time off is good for our players/teams.  Many wonder if getting a bye week is bad because you lose momentum.  People who are injured never come back at the exact same level because of their time away from game situations.  So why would it make sense for Clowney to take a full year away from competitive football and then expect to be the player he was right out of the gate?  A year of weights and sprints is going to prepare him better than a year playing in the SEC?  You've got to be kidding.  Also, what of the teammates?

I speak not only of the college teammates a player making such a decision would abandon, but their potential future NFL teammates.  If someone could so easily leave their teammates in college for a potential payday, if they could so easily leave a chance for a divisional, conference or even national title because they feared injury then why would NFL players trust them?  How can one tell their brothers in the locker room that they are willing to make the sacrifices necessary to win the Lombardi trophy when they made no sacrifice to stand with their brothers in college?  Perhaps I'm being naive.  I just hope that athletic spirit and competitiveness never die just for a chance at money.  I hope that Clowney will not be the last to laugh such suggestions off and keep playing.  Only time will tell.

QUICK THOUGHTS

- LeBron is not/nor ever will be MJ.  When I thought about it, Jordan was often compared to Dr. J and much like LeBron just shrugged it off and played his game.  So, most of the difference would be media driven since we live in such a 24/7 news cycle now.  Saying that, I want to like LeBron because he is talented and does seem pretty humble.  However, he is not Jordan and won't be.  I would compare him more to Magic quite frankly with his ability to play multiple positions and facilitate others' offense.

- When are the Blackhawks going to lose for goodness sake?  They're a heck of a team, and as a Blues fan it pains me to say that, but c'mon.  Crawford and Emery aren't what most people envisioned as Stanley Cup goalies, but so far they're looking like it.  Guess we'll see...and hopefully St. Louis ends their streak on Thursday haha.

- In the category of this is why they play the games, see the AC Milan vs. Barcelona match.  Everything leading up to the first leg of the UEFA Champions League contest said that Milan was overmatched and unlikely to even manage must of a fight against such a superteam as Barca.  Milan proceeded to win 2-0.  While Barca is talented enough to win 3-0 or 4-1 in the second leg, it puts enormous pressure on them and proves even the mightiest can be slain with good game-planning and execution.

- Headshots in hockey need to go the way of highsticking and hits to the helmet in football.  I think it has gotten to the point now, and Chris Kerber of the St. Louis Blues' announce team agreed, that it needs to be a penalty whether intentional or not.  If we really care about the safety of players then it should not matter whether there was intent, which to think any one can judge is laughable.  I could spend another entire blog on that and perhaps I will at another point, but I'll leave you with that.

- On a similar point, what's going on with the lack of respect in hockey?  We're to the point where top line players are taking cheap shots at third and fourth line guys (see Taylor Hall's blatant check to the knee of Cal Clutterbuck).  It's a sad state and all because we have tried to legislate out physical play and fighting instead of letting players police themselves.  I do not wish for the days when the saying "I went so a fight and a hockey game broke out" was literally true, but there was a time when sticks did not hit players above the waist intentionally and a price was to be paid if you crossed a line.  Sadly that is not the case now.

That'll about do it for this blog.  Pretty sad that it's been over a year since I've done one.  Just have to find the time and mental willingness to get to it.  Make sure to check out my YouTube videos as well.  I'm going to try to do both much more often.  Leave me some feedback too.  I like sports discussions with intelligent folk.  Ciao for now and remember, it's just my opinion...but I'm right.