A modest proposal from UF

Yes, I know the title may be interpreted otherwise, but this is not Jonathan Swift-style satire.


Instead, this is what happens when I misread Arsene Wenger, mash it up with a Rugby Union rule, spend an hour recalculating the EPL table, then realize what I thought I read was not in fact what I read. I flirted with abandoning the whole idea, but then decided to inflict my madness upon you. So now you're stuck.

The idea germinated from this Spoiler post where Arsene Wenger talks about handing out bonus points for scoring goals. As any of you with reading comprehension skills above mine can plainly make out, Wenger wants to reward teams who demolish other teams with extra points in the table instead of just goal difference. Simply put, a win would still be worth three points, but every goal that a team wins by would also be worth a point. Winning by one goal gets you four points, winning by two gets you five and so on.

Of course, as I have already admitted, this is not how I read it. What I saw was Wenger calling for a bonus point system much like the one in Rugby Union. If I recall correctly, in Rugby Union when a team scores five tries in a match (win, lose or draw), they get a bonus point in the standings. When I skimmed what Arsene had said, I though he was calling for a similar system wherein an EPL club scoring three goals in a match gets gets a bonus point. Of course, I was wrong, but that doesn't mean I stopped working on it.

I was possessed. I went to the BBC website to scour through this season's matches to find out who would benefit the most from such a rule change this year. The somewhat surprising answer--Arsenal.

Yes, Wenger's kids--the ones with all of those nil draws around the New Year--would benefit the most if such a rule were put into play today (with the caveat that I may have missed some results). Arsenal have scored three or more goals nine times this season. Liverpool have netted three or more in eight games and Manchester United have managed the feat in seven matches. At the other end of the spectrum, Stoke City have only scored more that two goals in one match, while Middlesbrough have failed to do so at all this season.

And yes, it does change the table, though in some strange ways. Here is the current table (only useful before this weekend). And here is an ugly look (since Blogger doesn't do tables easily) at how the table would look with the UF BONUS POINT.

Pos. Team (Rank change) points; GD
1. Liverpool (+1) 75; +34
2. Man U (-1) 75; +32
3. Chelsea (0) 70
4. Arsenal (0) 67
------------
5. Everton (+1) 57; +13
6. Aston Villa (-1) 57; +6
---------------
7. West Ham (0) 47
8. Man City (+2) 44
9. Fulham (0) 43; +3
10. Wigan (-2) 43; -2
11. Bolton (+1) 43; -9
12. Tottenham (-1) 41
13. Blackburn (+1) 37
14. Stoke (-1) 36; -16
15. Hull (0) 36; -17
16. Portsmouth (0) 35
17. Sunderland (0) 34
------------------
18. Newcastle (0) 31
19. Middlesbrough (0) 27; -24
20. West Brom (0) 27; -31

As you can see, the immediate beneficiaries are the so-called Big 4. Arsenal have now opened up a ten point gap on Everton. No need to worry about just trying to hold on to those Champions League spots now as they are pretty secure. Liverpool have also overtaken Man U, but that's just temporary, right?Also, Everton and Aston Villa have solidified their Europa League spots under the new setup. Manchester City have had the biggest jump of two places, but are still well out of any European slots (unless 7th place sneaks in).

At the other end of the table, there is not much change. Of course, these teams don't hit three goals very often, so that is to be expected. The team that is immediately helped is, oddly, bottom dwellers West Brom. WBA have notched three goals on three different occasions this season. Since 19th placed Middlesbrough are the one team that have not done so, the three point gap between the two is erased. Both teams still need some four-pointers to get out of the relegation spots, though.

I see this as an evolutionary addition to football changing from two points for a win to three. Whereas that rule change got rid of teams almost exclusively playing for a draw, this rule change might see an end to overly defensive play where the idea is to get one goal and hold on. Of course, there is still no cure for such play in knockout phases, but we'll work on that.

Read more on "A modest proposal from UF"...

Magic Spray? How About Invisible Spray!

Have you ever watched a match where the referee is forced to continuously blow his whistle on dead balls because the defending team keeps encroaching on the 10-yards?

I mean, just look at these guys! (Why yes, that is RvP scoring the equaliser against Everton. Haha!). So what is the solution to this time-draining practice? Well, the Argies think they have the answer.

Just yesterday the Argentina Football Association agreed to use a new magic spray to address the concern of defenders creeping forward during a free kick. And what does this magic spray do? It sprays a line onto the pitch to mark off the 10 yards, and then disappears after one minute! This brilliant idea was brought to fruition by an Argentine journalist who began working with chemical engineers after he lost an amateur match in which he missed a potential game-tying free kick due to the encroachment of the wall.

It's not enough for the Argentinians that we drew them 0-0 at the Meadowlands, now we also get to mock them for idiotic and utterly useless technological advances.

Point #1: Have you ever seen a free kick? Have you ever taken a free kick? Some of these clowns dawdle so long that one minute is nowhere near enough time. The journalist himself notes that in a recent Boca Juniors game it took Juan Riquelme 2 and a half minutes to get off his free kick. Does the ref then give out a yellow card for unsportsmanlike behavior if he has to reapply the invisible spray?

Point #2: What if the Argentinians are playing Colombia (or Robbie Fowler), and someone tries to sniff the line? Is it hazardous to humans?

Point #3: All of these encroachment issues could be solved if more people took free kicks like this:



Of course, it's only a matter of time before Platini and Blatter sound off on this issue and expound for hours on its virtues.

Read more on "Magic Spray? How About Invisible Spray!"...

Blind Item Guessing Game

Further interactivity at UF! Today we have a quickie poll based on an article from Scotland on Sunday. It seems that someone is searching for a genetic mutation found in top athletes, including Cristiano Ronaldo. The club, however, is keeping its name out of the press. It's up to you, dear reader, to cut through the fluff and help us figure out just who the mystery club is.

After the jump, baseless speculation on possible involved clubs.

Rangers or Celtic-These make sense because, well, who goes to Scotland for science? Unless your club is already in Scotland, why would you contract there? The biggest question is, which club is dirtier?
Chelsea-Abromovich's billions have to be spent on something, don't they? Why not attempt to corner the market on the best players so you don't have to pay for under-performing Shevas again.
Manchester United-Ronaldo plays there now. Therefore they named the search after their best current player.
Sporting CP-Ronaldo came from there. Obviously, they would like him back, so why not create another one?
Real Madrid-Never have to pay for aging Galacticos again if you can just farm-raise your superstars.
Bayern Munich-A year after splashing the cash and reaping the rewards, they may have decided that they really like winning comfortably and want to continue to do so forever. Added bonus in their favor--played in Aberdeen this winter for UEFA Cup.
Internazionale, AC Milan or Juventus-Well, if this were corruption, this would be a three team poll. Is gene-tampering the corruption of the 21st century? If it is, you can guess the top Italian clubs will be all over it.
Other-Know something we don't? Add it in.

Enough pontificating, let's get to the voting.

Read more on "Blind Item Guessing Game"...

Point: Stevie G Should Consider Walking Alone

Even I must admit, this just doesn't look right.

There are rumors coming out of Italy that Inter is planning to bid for Steven Gerrard in the upcoming summer transfer window. What coincidence! Inter just so happens to be Liverpool's opponent in today's Champions League matchup!!! Of course, this is no coincidence, and the rumor is nothing more than typical tabloid tripe.

That's too bad, because Liverpool will be better off without Gerrard.

Now, don't get me wrong. I don't think Gerrard is the source of Liverpool's ills, nor do I think getting rid of him would suddenly improve the play - Rafa Benitez is the chief culprit and he has to go, no matter what the Kopites believe. I also recognize that Gerrard has saved Liverpool's skin many a time, and that he and Fernando Torres have carried the club this season.

Gerrard is unquestionably the most talented Liverpool player of this era, and I understand that Istanbul in 2005 wouldn't have happened without Gerrard. But those are precisely the reasons why observers can't see that he's one of the reasons for LFC's current malaise, and that selling him would be a positive step forward.

Now, let's think this the Moneyball way. Does this player bring enough positives to outweigh the negatives, not just in terms of his own play, but the play of the team as a whole? More crucially, can this player's net contributions be replaced by a less costly replacement?

Well, I'm too lazy to pull up the OPTA ratings (and stat-o-phobes would dismiss any statistical analysis out of hand anyway), but Gerrard is not a very efficient player. Yes, he does do a lot with the ball, but that's partly the result of his dominating the ball. Think Allen Iverson - his high scoring is the result of his high-volume shooting. On the other hand, while his long shots and crosses can be deadly, he loses the ball too easily and doesn't put the ball on target often enough.

Contrast his play for Liverpool with his play for England, with whom he has had to share the possession with Frank Lampard and David Beckham.

Also consider his positioning, specifically his unwillingness to track back on defense. He spends most of the match between the halfway line and the opposition 18-yard-box, which is fine when he was partnered with a ball-winning specialist like Momo Sissoko on your side, but when paired with Xabi Alonso or Javier Mascherano, deep-lying midfielders who can initiate attack, his insistence on staying forward either leaves too much space between the midfield and the defense line or stunts the play of his midfield partner.

Simply put, he is, the arsonist and the fireman, as economists like to say. He's hailed as a hero because he comes out at opportune moments and puts out fires (ergo, fireman), but the fires are created partly because of the way he plays (hence, arsonist).

So let's ask the two questions. Does his work as fireman outweigh his damage as arsonist? I'm willing to believe that Gerrard's net contribution is positive, though I'm not completely convinced. Is he so inefficient that his net value could be replaced by a cheaper alternative? Yes, and selling Gerrard would not only free up funds for wages and purchases, but also improve the productivity of his existing teammates.

The last time Stevie G was the subject of serious transfer speculations was in 2005. Two months after he declared, "How could I leave after a night like this?" on the pitch in Istanbul, he rejected a £100,000-a-week offer and announced that he was leaving Liverpool. In retrospect, moving on would have been the best thing for both the club and the player. Liverpool could simply blame the "the money", and rebuild the team around Xabi with the increased transfer kitty, while Gerrard would have learned a great deal from playing in a system that's not built around him.

If the summer of 2005 happens again, Rafa, or whoever replaces him, should wish Stevie luck and thank him for his services to the club, take the offer and quietly thank his lucky stars. It would be the best thing for everybody, whether they know it or not.

And lest anyone forgets their history, let's look back - quick, guess what happened the seasons after the following players were sold abroad: Kevin Keegan to Hamburger SV in 1977, Ian Rush to Juventus in 1987, and John Aldridge to Real Sociedad in 1989? Yup, Liverpool won the League in 1978, 1988 and 1990. The point isn't that selling Gerrard in 2008 will lead to Liverpool winning the Prem in 2009.

No, the point is that no player is bigger than the club and LFC will live on, with or without Stevie. And the club should never let sentimentality get in the way of sensible decision making.

Read more on "Point: Stevie G Should Consider Walking Alone"...