That being said, the small, yet influential United States soccer press corp are, at least, somewhat responsible for Bradley getting a second chance. In the face of significant evidence, no one with a large platform came out and said what seemed obvious to me and others — Bradley didn’t deserve to stay on for four more years. Strangely, no one among the U.S. soccer media elite stood up and took this stand. If Gulati really wanted to keep Bradley, he should have had to explain his decision to a hostile media. But instead of being under pressure to show Bradley the door, Gulati was, amazingly, under pressure to keep Bradley. Maybe Gulati would have made the same decision no matter what the media said, but he definitely kept him when media said he should.

Why did the media give Bradley a pass?

Hold up. What makes you so sure Bradley didn’t do a good job as USMNT coach? What’s this “significant evidence” you speak of?

You can make a coherent, logical argument Bradley did an O.K. and even a good job in his first World Cup cycle. I’ve written about this before, but the pro-Bradley argument goes something like this:

Bradley won the 2007 Gold Cup, finished an amazing second at the 2009 Confederations Cup, finished first in CONCACAF qualifying, won his group at the World Cup (the first time the Americans had in 80 years), reached the Round of 16 in South Africa, he’s a hard worker, his players respect and play hard for him, he understands the American system and he’s the best coach U.S. soccer can get.

Sounds good, huh? And all of those statements aren’t debatable except the last couple. But there isn’t any nuance to this argument and it ignores the obvious: The U.S. needed a miracle just to advance out of the group stages of the Confederations Cup (U.S. 3, Egypt 0; Brazil 3, Italy 0); the U.S. won its World Cup group, but it was in by far the easiest group of the tournament and needed a goal in the 90th minute against world-power Algeria to do so; the U.S. had a relatively easy Round 16 matchup and couldn’t deliver.

(Note: It’s worth mentioning if Landon Donovan shanks his 90th minute shot against Algeria, Bradley would have been axed before he got to the locker room.)

But when I say there is “significant evidence” I’m primarily talking about the decisions Bradley made during the World Cup: Selecting Robbie Findley on the team, starting Findley, starting Findley again, starting Findley again, beginning and ending the tournament by starting Ricardo Clark over Maurice Edu, not figuring out a way to use Stuart Holden and stubbornly sticking to a 4-4-2 when it became painfully obvious they U.S. was better playing some variation of a 4-5-1. Also, don’t forget the U.S. were terrible in the opening 15 minutes of matches and were suspect defensively in general.

I’m not Monday morning quarterbacking; I said all of these decisions were mistakes before they happened. These weren’t great predictions on my part, just obvious objective observations. Even people who didn’t know anything about soccer a week before the World Cup said, when seeing the lineup against Ghana,”That Findley guy is playing again? Doesn’t he suck?”

But, like I wrote three weeks ago, even if you’re willing look at Bradley’s tenure in the most positive light humanly possible, you should still be against him continuing as coach. Why? Because of the 17 coaches that coached the same national team in consecutive World Cups since 1990, only three did better the second time around. History tells us having the same national team coach for eight years almost never works.

I rest my case.

OK, fine. It’s your OPINION Bradley did a bad job and you have your reasons. But it’s only your OPINION. You even admit there’s a “coherent, logical argument” to keep Bradley. So what’s the big deal?

I went back and looked at articles written by influential U.S. soccer journalists since the U.S. was eliminated from the World Cup. To be specific, I researched Grant Wahl (Sports Illustrated), Steve Davis (Sports Illustrated), Ives Galarcep (Fox Sports), Martin Rogers (Yahoo Sports), Jeff Carlisle (ESPN), Steven Goff (Washington Post) and George Vecsey (New York Times).

After looking through their articles and blog posts, I found a grand total of zero articles or statements saying Bradley’s USMNT coaching stint should end.

Some came close, like Davis did in, “U.S. can draw some positives from World Cup learning experience,” where he was as critical as anyone of some Bradley’s decisions, but finished his thoughts by saying, “It wasn’t Bradley’s fault that the United States lacked depth at certain spots.”

Wahl also looked back at coaches that coached consecutive World Cups and found what I found (it almost never works). But he didn’t take the next step and say this is a strong reason why the U.S. needs a new coach.

Galarcep, Rogers and Carlisle also didn’t have a problem with Bradley continuing in his current job. Galarcerp wrote Bradley deserved to keep his job, Rogers wrote, a day before Bradley signed, the two needed to get on with it and make a deal happen and in a chat before the MLS All-Star game, Carlisle wrote, “I think Bradley has done enough to keep the job though. Is he perfect? Hardly, his decision to play a rusty Onyewu came back to bite him I think. But the team played hard for him, and that speaks well of the manager.”

Goff is more a reporter than commentator, but he has a blog where he spews opinion and in two months he never said Bradley shouldn’t be kept. Lastly, Vecsey wrote after the Ghana match, “My own sense is that an American coach is still preferable — at least until American players stop asking “why?” — and that Bradley, as the incumbent, is the best choice for the next four years.”

Waiting patiently for you to get to your point…

I believe all of these journalists wrote what they honestly believed. That said, how is it possible everyone with a large platform objectively looked at the question, “Should Bradley remain USMNT coach?” and all came to the same conclusion?

The easy answer is retaining Bradley is the correct decision and that’s why they all believe they should keep him. I reject this. For the reasons given above, I believe there’s a much stronger argument for getting rid of Bradley than there is to keep him. I wouldn’t expect everyone to agree with me, but I really wouldn’t expect the most influential soccer journalists in the country to all disagree with me.

So, why then? It’s important to point out five of these seven journalists are reporters (the exceptions are Davis and Vecsey, who are pretty much exclusively columnists). They all know Bradley, they have a relationship with him and his players. I’m not arguing they are protecting their friend, but I am saying their relationship has influenced their reasoning to at least some extent.

There’s a reason why newspapers try to keep their news department separate from their editorial department. A reporter is on the ground, calling sources, going out to lunch with people in the know, learning as much as they possibly can. But if that reporter is asked to write a column about the subject they are covering, suddenly they are putting their reporting job at risk. If a reporter covering President Obama writes a column about why President Obama shouldn’t be re-elected, it’s safe to say access won’t come as easy in the future.

Thanks for the Journalism 101 lesson, but it’s ridiculous to expect sports media organizations to have separate reporters and columnists for soccer. The sport simply isn’t popular enough and last time I checked media organizations aren’t swimming in money.

I agree with this. It’s not realistic for media organizations to have a soccer reporter and a soccer columnist. Therefore, though not ideal, they have to do both.

And, in this case, mainstream U.S. soccer columnists failed miserably.

I know it’s an opinion to say keeping Bradley was a terrible mistake, but I truly believe it was and I believe there will be real consequences.

There’s little reason to believe Bradley won’t continue picking the wrong players and tactics. I worry he will stay too loyal to players (relationships can also affect coaching reasoning) like Bruce Arena did (Eddie Pope) and I’m concerned he won’t tackle the job with the same amount energy he did the first time. U.S. soccer needed something new to push the program forward and keeping Bradley wasn’t it.

I hope I’m wrong and Bradley goes on to advance the U.S. further in the 2014 World Cup than it has ever gone before. I just don’t think I am.

—————————

If you liked this article, say thanks by joining the IntelligentSoccer Facebook Page and follow Creaven on Twitter.

Actually, saying, “Chelsea doesn’t have enough players,” is like saying “Wigan’s defense is poor,” or “Fulham struggles on the road.” The situation is so serious I believe Chelsea’s lack of bodies will probably cost the most talented team in the league the title.

The new home-grown player rule in the Premiership isn’t asking much. Teams just need to have eight players on their roster that were trained in England before they were 18. Of the 20 Premiership teams, 19 have met the requirement and most have done so easily (i.e. Manchester United has 12). But, either out of ignorance or arrogance, Chelsea has decided to practically ignore the new squad rule.

Chelsea has only four home-grown players over the age of 21 (Frank Lampard, John Terry, Ashley Cole and Ross Turnbull). Four! Still, this wouldn’t be much of a problem if Chelsea had a plethora of proven, talented 21 or under players, since they don’t count against the 25-man roster. How many of these players does Chelsea have? One, if you count Daniel Sturridge and it’s debatable if Sturridge is even an average Premiership striker. Chelsea’s next best players 21 or under (Jeffrey Bruma, Patrick van Aanholt, Gael Kakuta and Fabio Borini) have 11 Premiership appearances, combined.

So, Chelsea has a total of 17 outfield players that could be named to the first-team without someone asking, “Wow, he’s starting for Chelsea?” In comparison, Manchester United has at least 25 outfield players (which doesn’t include players like Chris Smalling or Tom Cleverly), Arsenal has 23 and Manchester City has over 25. Last year, Chelsea had 20 outfield players make at least eight appearances in league.

How big of an issue is this? Let’s look at center defense. Right now Chelsea is starting John Terry and Alex, two players you would expect to see on a Premiership title contender. But if one of them gets hurt, Branislav Ivanovic, who is really a right back, will probably fill in. And if there’s two injuries, or if someone just needs a rest, Carlo Ancelotti will probably have to go with Bruma or van Anaholt.

With Chelsea playing a 4-3-3, The Blues need to start six midfielders\attackers a game. Counting Sturridge, Chelsea has 11 such players. Which seems like a decent number, but one injury and things will get tricky quick.

For example, let’s say Nicolas Anelka gets hurt for four months. Not a huge problem since Chelsea can fill his attacking position with someone like Salomon Kalou. But one injury means Chelsea is essentially out of proven bench players. If Didier Drogba misses a match or two, suddenly Daniel Sturridge is in the starting 11; if Flourent Malouda gets suspended for three matches, Yossi Benayoun will have to perform; if Frank Lampard gets hurt, Chelsea’s probably screwed.

Predicting Chelsea is going to have injury problems isn’t exactly a bold statement. Most of its best players are pushing, or well over 30; many players played in the World Cup and will be starters in European Qualifying; its lack of depth will force key players to play nearly every match. This isn’t rocket science. The more matches you play, the more likely injuries will occur. Considering Chelsea will probably play around 55 matches — which is how many it played last year — and the same core will be named match after match, an injury plagued season is almost inevitable.

Ancelotti said there will be no more moves this summer, which I obviously think is a mistake. Chelsea should have tried to snap up a home-grown player like Stephen Ireland. Still, the transfer window will be open again in January and by then it should be painfully clear Chelsea needs more footballers and Ancelotti will probably overpay for a home-grown player like Ryan Shawcross. Therefore, it’s silly to say Chelsea has no chance at the title. But, if The Blues have the same roster on May 1 as it does on Sept. 1, someone else will be Premiership champions, probably.

—————————

If you liked this article, say thanks by joining the IntelligentSoccer Facebook Page and follow Creaven on Twitter.

In January, I wrote he was significantly better than Ricardo Clark; In March, I said if there was a draft and I had to choose between Clint Dempsey and Holden — I would pick Holden; In June, I argued he should start against England in the World Cup. Holden ended up playing four minutes in the World Cup (enjoy Bob Bradley Aston Villa!!!) and though I easily could write 1,500 words just on that, for my own well being, and yours, I won’t.

But after watching Holden play 90 minutes in Bolton’s first two Premiership matches this season it’s worth trying to answer the question in the headline: How good is Stuart Holden? The former Houston Dynamo player (I still chuckle when I write Houston “Dynamo”) didn’t exactly look like a Xavi clone against Fulham and West Ham, but he did look like an above-average Premiership central midfielder. Is he?

Let’s first look at what we can quantify. Here is Holden’s passing chart against Fulham and West Ham:

by Guardian Chalkboards

And against West Ham:

by Guardian Chalkboards

Going 48 for 62 (77 percent) is good, but not great (Aston Villa’s Stiliyan Petrov, who is a similar player, completed 64 of 67 in his first two matches). What’s encouraging is when Holden missed a pass it usually was in position that didn’t put Bolton’s defense in a bad spot. Still, in a league that punishes turnovers, Holden missed a few too many easy passes and generated too few goal-scoring opportunities.

When it comes to shooting, Holden’s highlight of the first two matches was his strike from outside the box against Fulham. The low, hard shot beat David Stockdale on the near post, but hit the woodwork. He had a shot on target against West Ham, but it was an easy save for Robert Green (if there is such a thing).

Where Holden’s been really impressive is when Bolton doesn’t have the ball. He’s won 13 of 16 tackles (8 of 9 against Fulham), but Bolton fans will love him for his work ethic. He runs hard constantly and when he loses the ball he gets the “oh no you didn’t” look and works hard to win it back.

(Note: Why doesn’t anyone publish distance statistics for the Premiership? Actually, why does the EPL, which is probably the most popular league of any sport in the World, have a Web site that would have been outdated in 2004?)

The numbers might not be overwhelming, but Holden passed the “eye test” in both matches. He just looked like one of the best players on the field. His technical ability, and more specifically his ball striking skills, are at an elite level, even for the Premiership. I’ve called him a poor man’s David Beckham in the past and he really is that good on free kicks. Unfortunately, Martin Petrov is exceptional on corners and free kicks too, so it’s not clear yet how many dead ball opportunities Holden will get.

So is he an above-average Premiership central midfielder? Probably not, yet. Two matches is an extremely small sample size but Holden’s performances have been solid, if not spectacular, against probably a top 10 team (Fulham) and probably a bottom five team (West Ham). But the talent level is so high in the EPL, it would be a little ridiculous to call Holden one of the 20 best central midfielders in the league after two matches.

That said, as Holden continues to play regularly (which he hasn’t done in a year) and becomes more comfortable with his teammates, it seems more likely than not Holden will improve as the season continues. By January, he might be considered an above-average central midfielder and it might not even be much of a debate.

What is already clear, and should have been clear a year ago, is Holden is one of the best American footballers on the planet and a must starter for the United States national team. Can you imagine a Michael Bradley, Maurice Edu, Holden central midfield in South Africa? The U.S. would have ran teams into the ground. Well, on the bright side, at least we got a large dosage of Clark and Robbie Findley. I’m completely over the World Cup, no, really, I am.

(Note: I just realized I wrote consecutive stories on Bolton. They are my Premier League sleeper, but no more Bolton articles in the foreseeable future. I think.)

—————————

If you liked this article, say thanks by joining the IntelligentSoccer Facebook Page and follow Creaven on Twitter.

The key to the transfer market, like any market, is to master risk versus reward. Ideally, a manager wants to buy cheap assets (players) that have the potential to yield big returns. Coyle has done this brilliantly. In his first eight months as manager at Bolton, Coyle has spent virtually no money and improved his squad significantly.

Since taking over in January, Coyle has “bought” four players over the age of 21. His first was in January when he swooped in to buy underrated American midfielder Stuart Holden (for nothing). This summer, he grabbed pacey winger Martin Petrov (for nothing), veteran forward Robbie Blake (for nothing) and striker Ivan Klasnic, who scored eight goals for Bolton on loan last year (for nothing).

In other words, he bought arguably one of top 10 wingers in the league (Petrov), a player with a high ceiling (Holden), a forward he built a relationship with at Burnley (Blake) and striker who scored as many Premier League goals last year as Peter Crouch, FOR NOTHING!

Coyle has spent money, but they have been small investments in young players that could lead to big returns. He bought 19-year-old former Real Madrid fullback Marcos Alonso for £1.6 and 18-year-old forward Tom Eaves from Oldham, who scored a hat trick against Bolton in preseason for £350,000. Last January, he also rented the two best players available on loan in England (Jack Wilshere and Vladimir Weiss) to secure Bolton’s place in the top division.

Other Premiership mid-table teams have also made cleaver, cheap signings. Newcastle picking up Dan Gosling and Blackpool snatching Marlon Harewood for free were two of the best. But no one has been as consistently good as Coyle.

(Tangent: Steve Bruce at Sunderland has also done a fabulous job this summer. He signed four impact players on loan (Danny Welbeck, Nedum Onuoha, John Mensah and Ahmed Al-Muhammadi). He also bought Argentine defender Marcos Angeleri for £2 million, Belgian goalie Simon Mignolet for £2 million, former Wigan center back Titus Bramble for £1 million and Paraguayan international Cristian Riveros on a free transfer. But what has made Bruce’s summer exceptional is he sold Kenwyne Jones, Lorik Cana, Daryl Murphy and Martin Fulop for a combined £15.5 million. So he made his team better (at least I think he has) and netted over £10 million.)

Other clubs seems to throw economic principals out the window in the transfer market. Stoke signing Kenwyne Jones for £8 million; Birmingham signing Ben Foster and Nikola Zigic for £6 million each; Wolves signing Steven Fletcher for £6.5 million are all very questionable. One or two of these players might prove worth it, but these are examples of lazy signings.

Too many Premiership managers are willing to pay extra for players they know from the Premiership, instead of paying less for players they haven’t personally seen as much in other parts of Europe and the World. Is Steven Fletcher really the best forward Wolves can get for £6.5 million? Of course not. But Mick McCarthy has seen him play and figures he can “do a job” for him. I guarantee there are at least a half dozen better forwards than Fletcher playing in Europe that McCarthy could have got for half the price. For example, in 2007 Mark Hughes at Blackburn signed Roque Santa Cruz for £3.5 million from Bayern Munich; Santa Cruz went on to score 19 goals that season. It’s critically important for medium-sized Premiership clubs to invest in its scouting network because nothing can save a club more money in the long run.

It’s conventional wisdom that it’s all but impossible for clubs like Bolton, Sunderland, Birmingham or Stoke to finish in the top four. Chelsea, Manchester United, Arsenal, Tottenham, Manchester City and Liverpool are too big, they have too much money and their players are simply too good for a medium-sized club to climb all the way up the table and qualify for the Champions League.

This year, that is definitely true. But if over a couple year span a club is able to snatch a couple castaways from bigger clubs (Petrov), sign a couple foreign gems (Holden), find a couple impact loan players (Welbeck), make a profit on overrated players (Kenwyen Jones) and have a tactically gifted coach it’s easily within the realm of possibility a club like Bolton can outsmart the competition and finish in the top quarter of the table.

—————————

If you liked this article, say thanks by joining the IntelligentSoccer Facebook Page and follow Creaven on Twitter.

You’re willing to forgive some lineup head-scratchers (Robbie Findley, Ricardo Clark) because he instilled a “never give up” mentality and made clever tactical changes when he realized he made a mistake. You also think the U.S. can’t get a better coach than Bradley, his players support him and he’s going to give 110 percent over the next four years.

Even if you believe all of these things, I don’t, but if you do, you should still adamantly be against Bradley continuing his tenure as U.S. men’s national team head coach. Why? History!

Coaches rarely manage the same nation in back-to-back World Cup. Some of this has to do with federations being quick to sack their coach, some of it has to do with coaches not wanting to have the same job for eight-plus years, but, more than anything, it has to do with it simply not working.

Here are the coaches that managed the same national team for consecutive World Cups in the last 20 years:

2010
France — Raymond Domenech (runner-up ‘06, group stage ‘10)
Italy — Marcelo Lippi (winner ‘06, group stage ‘06)
Denmark — Morten Olson (round of 16 ‘02, did not qualify ‘06, group stage ‘10)

2006
England — Sven-Goran Eriksson (quarterfinals ‘02,  quarterfinals ‘06)
Sweden — Lars Lagerback (round of 16 ‘02, round of 16 ‘06)
USA — Bruce Arena (quarterfinals ‘02, group stage ‘06)

2002
Nobody

1998
Norway — Egil Olson (group stage ‘94, round of 16 ‘98)
Spain — Javier Clemente (quarterfinals ‘94, group stage ‘98)
Germany — Bert Vogits (quarterfinals ‘94, quarterfinal ‘98)
Romania — Anghel Iordanescu (quarterfinals ‘94, round of 16 ‘98)

1994
Columbia — Francisco Maturana (round of 16 ‘90, group stage ‘94)
Ireland — Jack Charlton (quarterfinals ‘90, round of 16 ‘94)

1990
Argentina — Carlos Bilardo (winner ‘86, runner-up ‘90)
Soviet Union — Valeriy Lobanovskyi (round of 16 ‘86, group stage ‘90)
West Germany — Franz Beckenbauer (runner-up ‘86, winner ‘90)
Belgium — Guy Thys (semifinals ‘86, round of 16 ‘90)
England — Booby Robson (quarterfinals ‘86, semifinals ‘90)

To summarize, of the 17 coaches that coached the same nation in consecutive World Cups, three (Beckenbauer, Robson and Olson) are the only ones to advance their team further the second time around. Three coaches finished at the same stage and 11 coaches did worse on their second try.

Honestly, I can’t explain why the experience of coaching one World Cup almost never translates into doing better with the same nation at the next. Maybe coaches rely too heavily on the same players, maybe coaches become too predictable, maybe players become too comfortable, maybe coaches become too comfortable, maybe its something else. But, whatever the reason, history gives us a huge warning — DON’T KEEP THE SAME COACH FOR CONSECUTIVE WORLD CUPS!

Even if the precedent wasn’t crystal clear, Bob Bradley doesn’t deserve to lead the U.S. to Brazil. Calling up – let alone starting — Findley, picking Clark over Maurice Edu, not figuring out a way to use Stuart Holden, having a terrible goals against record and conceding too many early goals makes it a no-brainer (to me) that Bradley should continue his coaching career somewhere else.

But clearly it’s not a no-brainer to Sunil Gulati and the U.S. Soccer Federation or Bradley would have been released weeks ago. If they do believe Bradley has done excellent job leading the U.S. the last four years, hopefully they’ll realize even great coaches fail when they have to do it all over again.

Well…the “Sell Ireland” momentum has continued and it seems it’s only a matter of time before City hands him over to a team it needs to finish above in the table. The most likely scenario reported is City will send a chunk of cash (my guess is £18 million) plus Stephen Ireland to Aston Villa for James Milner. The Abu Dhabi group has made some head-scratching moves since it took over, but this will take the cake.

The rationale for getting rid of Ireland has three agruements:

1. Though Ireland is good, he’s not that good. He was good two years ago, but didn’t do much of anything last season. Man City is putting together a world-class team, not a pretty good team.

2. He doesn’t fit into Roberto Mancini’s system. Mancini likes to play with two holding midfielders and Ireland is a creative central midfielder. City already has Nigel de Jong, Yaya Torre, Gareth Barry, Patrick Viera and Vincent Kompany to play in the middle. When would Irealand play?

3. City has too many players. It can only play 25 senior players in the Premiership and there just isn’t space for Ireland. City needs to start selling bodies quickly and if Ireland is one of them, so be it.

The first argument — he’s not that good — is at the heart of the debate. If everyone agreed Ireland was one of the best midfielders in the league, arguments No. 2 and No. 3 wouldn’t matter. So how good is Ireland? Quantifying the ability of a soccer player is much more difficult than, say, a baseball player. We don’t have trusted stats in soccer that we do in American sports.

But, it’s fair to say Ireland was without question City’s best player two years ago. Ireland looked like a poor man’s Cesc Fabergas during the 2008-09 season, but not that poor. He scored 13 goals in 50 games and nine goals and nine assists in 35 Premier League matches (Fabergas didn’t score that many goals in league until last season). City finished a disappointing 10th in league (three points out of seventh), but without Ireland City would have finished no better than 12th and maybe much worse. He was also the heart of the team and showcased an incredible work ethic, tracking back defensively just as often as he sprinted forward.

Last year didn’t go as well. He suddenly wasn’t an automatic starter and battled injuries all season. When Mancini took over Matt Hughes, Ireland stopped getting playing time and was relegated to bench duty. It wasn’t that Ireland played that badly last year as much as it was he didn’t play.

Considering Ireland is entering the prime of his career (he turns 24 in couple weeks) there’s every reason to believe he is going to have more seasons, if not better, like the one he had two years ago. Surround him around talented players (like City has now) and with some playing time it’s now out of the question Ireland could have a 15 goal, 15 assist season. Ireland really is that good.

The second argument — he doesn’t fit into Mancini’s system — is true. Last year Mancini played a 4-4-2, with the holding midfielders (usually de Jong and Barry) in the middle. If Mancini continues to play like this, it’s hard to see how Ireland can become a regular starter. But, I got to believe Mancini is going start playing some variation of a 4-2-3-1. No matter how good the players, the best teams in the EPL will eat up a traditional 4-4-2 setup; Mancini knows this. Even if City does stick with a 4-4-2, Ireland could be a key player off the bench and with City playing in Europe this season, Ireland should still get his fair share of starts.

It’s worth noting Ireland doesn’t want to leave, even if it means he could get more playing time somewhere else. There’s a couple reasons why he’s refused to play for the country he shares a last name with, but one of them is he wants to give everything he’s got for the only club he’s ever played for. Unlike many of the new arrivals, Ireland genuinely loves City and it can’t hurt to keep a player like that around.

The third arguement is also true; City needs to get rid of players. I wrote about this a couple days ago. But it doesn’t mean Ireland should be one them. Looking at the midfielders, Mancini should get rid of Michael Johnson, Kelvin Etuhu and Shaun Wright-Phillips before he even thinks of dumping Ireland. But if you’re going to make Ireland part of an exchange  deal, it obvioulsy won’t decrease your squad size.

Still, I understand every player has his price and if City could get, say, something north of £15 million for Ireland, I still think it’s a bad move (it’s not as though City needs money), but I can understand it. There’s absolutely no talk about it, but the club that makes the most sense, an might pay that much, for Ireland is Chelsea. The Blues are desperate for a home grown player and with the loss of Deco Chelsea could use another creative midfielder.

But if City really makes Ireland part of an exchange deal for Milner, it would be a terrible transfer. Though they’re very different types of players, I don’t think Milner is much better than Ireland (if at all) and I think Ireland has a much higher ceiling.

Last year, City gave another Irishman, Richard Dunne, to Villa for a measly £5 million. Dunne went on to have one of the best year’s of his career, while City struggled in the center of defense. As bad as that move was, giving Ireland away this summer will be much worse.

The commentary about the new rule has been ridiculous. I’ve heard everything from the rule will help develop young English players, will hurt the development of young English players, 25 players isn’t enough for an extended period of time, it will cost senior player jobs, it helps smaller clubs, it hurts bigger club and so on. It seems everyone is just guessing what the consequences of this rule is going to be.

Everyone, except people who play Football Manager. As someone who plays the terribly addicting football simulation way too much, I know how to work the system. I’ve played multiple seasons with the 25-senior player limit so I fancy myself an expert.

First let’s go over the rule:

1. By the end of each transfer window, a team must name a 25-man squad made up of at least eight home grown players. A home grown player is anyone who trained in England or Wales for three years before their 21st birthday. So international players like John O’Shea (Irish), Charles N’Zogbia (French) or, the most cliched example, Cesc Fabergas (Spanish), are all home grown players.

2. Players 21 or under are eligible to play even if they aren’t named to the 25-man squad.

3. If a team doesn’t have eight home grown players, then it must have a smaller squad. For example, if a team has only seven home grown players then they have to name a 24-man squad (six = 23-man, five = 22 man and so on).

It’s a change, but not a radical change from the old system (which had no restrictions). I’m too lazy to check, but it wouldn’t surprise me if all 20 Premiership teams last year had eight home grown players in their top 25 last year. That said, if not handled correctly a team could put itself in a bad situation.

There’s two different kinds of teams in the EPL; teams that play in Europe and everyone else. Depending on what group a team belongs to determines how they need to handle the new rule.

Teams that play in Europe

EPL teams that have qualified for the Champions League or the Europa League are already forced to deal with roster restrictions. The European rule is even more difficult, because at least four of the eight home grown players have to be trained at the club (this is going to be a minor problem for Tottenham). But it’s one thing to have roster restrictions for a handful of European matches, it another for a 38 match league season.

The key is to have impact players that are 21 or younger. Counting the league, Carling Cup, FA Cup and European matches, EPL teams in Europe are going to play around 50 matches a season. That’s too many for a 25-man squad, so the top-notch teams needs three or four quality 21 and under players to expand the squad size.

Here’s a team-by-team look at roster situations of the top clubs:

Chelsea — Is in really bad shape. Not just when it comes to 21 and under players, but there isn’t a team hurt more by the eight home grown player rule than Chelsea. Right now, if Chelsea had to name eight home grown players, my guess they would be: Ashley Cole, Frank Lampard, John Terry, Ross Turnbull, Daniel Sturridge, Scott Sinclair, Michael Mancienne and Sam Hutchinson. Ideally, Sinclair, Mancienne and Hutchinson (who are all 21 or younger) should probably go out on loan, but, as of now, Chelsea will have to keep them as home grown players. This leaves unproven players like Gael Kakuta and Patrick van Aanholt as the “extra” 21 or under players.

Let me wrap this analysis up in one sentence: Unless Chelsea expands its squad in the coming weeks or gets lucky when it comes to injuries, its lack of the depth will cost it the title this season.

Manchester United — Unlike Chelsea, United is in solid shape. It has about ten quality home grown players and handful of 21 and under players to help expand the size of the squad (The twins, Federico Macheda, Chris Smalling, Danny Welbeck).

Arsenal — Even with Arsene Wenger complaining about the new rule, Arsenal should have the deepest team in the league. Right now I count seven home grown players that are over 21: Cesc Fabergas, Gael Clichy, Nicklas Bendtner, Alex Song (I think, the dates make it close), Denilson, Theo Walcott and Vitto Mannone. That means one 21 or under player (Aaron Ramsey, Jack Willshire, Kieran Gibbs, Carlos Vela or Armand Traore) will have to be named as one of the senior home grown players. After Wenger makes another couple of signings, Arsenal should have a 28- or 29-man squad.

Tottenham — Doesn’t have a problem getting to eight home grown players, but has only two quality players 21 or under — Gareth Bale and new signing Sandro (there’s also Danny Rose and John Bostock if you’re feeling generous). Tottenham didn’t play in Europe last season, so the compacted fixture list will effect them and 27 players, plus some very fringe under 21’s, might not be enough.

There was talk about there not being enough space for Jonathan Woodgate, but unless Harry Redknapp signs a couple more players Woodgate (if healthy enough) should get a spot.

Manchester City — The Citizens have over a dozen home grown players.

What’s a minor problem is it only has just two Premiership quality players 21 or under (Vladimir Weiss and Jerome Boateng) so it will be playing with, essentially, a 27-man squad in the EPL (a little small).

City is going to have to sell players. I count 29 senior players, so Manchester City needs to sell at least four and probably more since City will buy a couple more players. Shaleum Logan is gone (at least on loan) for sure; forwards Felipe Caciedo and Jo are also gone; Robinho and Roque Santa Cruz are probably out the door; Craig Bellamy sounds like he’s leaving too.

It’s going to be a busy month for Manchester City.

Aston Villa — Almost the entire team is home grown players. Villa also has about 10 under 21 players that could probably hold their own in the Premiership, with Fabian Delph highlighting the group. Villa has roster space for more players (I count 21 senior players over 21) so Martin O’Neil can do some shopping if he has the money.

Liverpool — A lot like Aston Villa. Easily enough home grown players and plenty of “good enough” 21’s and under (N’Gog, Pacheco). Even without Javier Mascherano leaving (though, he surely is), there are roster spots open if Roy Hodgson wants to add some bodies. Which he needs to do.

Teams that don’t play in Europe

Things are a lot simpler for teams not playing on the continent.

Of course, more players the better, but with only a domestic schedule a 25-man roster is lsrge enough unless there’s a serious injury crisis.

Of the other 13 Premiership teams, 12 of them easily meet the eight player home grown rule. The exception is Blackburn. (Note: Though, Blackpool really needs players no matter where they’re from.)

The Rovers have more than eight home grown players, but only six of those are Premiership veterans. They are: Paul Robinson, David Dunn, Jason Roberts, Keith Andrews, David Hoilett and Jason Brown. Blackburn has some younger players that can fill the other two spots, but it sure wouldn’t hurt if Sam Allardyce brought in a home grown player or two.

Will the new squad restrictions produce more quality English players?

The irony of the the rule is it will probably do the exact opposite of what the English FA hopes it does. It’s very possible there will be fewer quality young English players produced with this system, not more. There’s two reasons why:

1. Clubs will be hesitant to send talented young players on loan. The most important thing for a young player to do is play. But now teams will rely on players to stick with the squad if there’s an injury crisis. An example is Tottenham’s Danny Rose. He should probably go out on loan like he did the last year, but now Tottenham needs Rose to stay at White Hart Lane so the club has a little extra depth.

2. Soon, clubs will be doing what Arsenal has traditionally done. They’ll scout Europe for the best teenagers and bring them to England before they’re 18, so they’ll eventually qualify as a home grown player. Instead of focusing on making young English players better, clubs, especially the rich clubs, will go out and snatch the best young European footballers so they can one day be a home grown player. Then they’ll sell the home grown players they don’t want to Premiership teams in need of a home grown player. It’s easier to buy a good young player than it is to make one.

I’m sure some of the mid-table teams will take the Everton approach and pour money into their youth teams to produce young talent. It could make a difference for the national team. But in the end I expect the roster restrictions will invite clubs to buy more young foreign talent, not less.

As soon as Mexico and South Africa kicked off the tournament, I braced myself knowing the World Cup will eventually end, but it still sucks when it did. I feel like an eight-year-old who just had a fantastic summer vacation but now has to go back to school. The difference is the eight year old has to wait nine months before summer starts up again, while soccer fans have four years.

But before we start looking forward (And there is a lot to look forward too: The Premiership starts in less than 40 days. Is Landon Donovan going to leave MLS for good? Will Bob Bradley stay the U.S. coach? Who is Fernando Torres going to play for next season? Can José Mourinho become the first coach to win three Champions Leagues with three different teams?) its time to review what we all digested the last five weeks.

Player of the tournament — Iker Casillas — I understand Diego Forlan was exceptional and led an otherwise mediocre team to the semifinals. But Uruguay finished fourth and if Luis Suarez doesn’t channel his inner goalie, Forlan isn’t even considered the tournament’s top player. So, by default, I say Casillas is the player of tournament. He wasn’t exactly peppered in goal, but he did have five shutouts in seven matches and if he doesn’t stop Oscar Cardoza’s penalty in the quarterfinals or if he doesn’t deflect Arjen Robben’s breakaway, Spain probably doesn’t win the World Cup. But I could easily be talked into Andres Iniesta, Xavi or David Villa being the top player in South Africa.

Coach of the tournament — Joachim Low — Talent wise, Germany was not a top five and maybe not even a top seven team at the World Cup. That didn’t stop Germany from doing what it always does — going deep in international tournaments. Low got his inexperienced players to play with extraordinary confidence and his 4-2-3-1 counter-attacking tactics yielded the most exciting team in the tournament. Germany 4-0 victory over Argentina in the semifinals was best performance this summer.

Young player of the tournament — Thomas Muller — So many good things have been said about Muller I think his performance has become slightly overrated. I didn’t think he was that much better than his teammate, Mesut Ozil. But Muller did score five goals (though one came in the stupid third-place game) and won the Golden Boot (winning a tie-breaker over three other players). I’m going to go out on a limb and say this isn’t the last time we hear from Muller at a World Cup.

Best performance from a player I didn’t know existed 40 days ago — Diego Lugano — He was the other Diego on Uruguay, but Lugano was as good as any central defender the last couple weeks. Uruguay invited a lot of pressure in the tournament and Lugano made it look easy as the final line of defense. He plays for Fenerbache (yeah, I had to look that up) but a move to a bigger club seems likely.

Worst performance from a good player — Wayne Rooney — You know how Forlan carried his team to the semifinals? That’s what I, and many others, expected Rooney to do. Instead, if you only watched the World Cup you would think Rooney was a slight worse player than Jozy Altidore. He really didn’t do anything in four matches. Amazing, considering he was definitely one of the top three players in Europe last season. Nike commercial jinx?

Best goal — Giovanni van Bronckhorst against Uruguay — There are some other candidates (Maicon’s near post strike against North Korea, Tevez’s smash against Mexico, Suarez’s bender against South Korea, Donovan’s roof shot against Slovenia) but without question the best goal came from the Dutch left back. What’s amazing about the goal is just how far away von Bronkhurst was. I estimate 40 yards. Goals just aren’t fired past World Cup goalies from that distance, but van Bronckhorst couldn’t have placed the shot in a better spot. A nice way to cap a career.

Best game — Uruguay vs. Ghana, quarterfinals — It’s worth remembering this was one of the best games of the tournament even before the craziness of the final seconds. I already wrote extensively about the final moments, but looking back it all doesn’t seem real. Ghana was one handball, penalty kick and penalty kick shootout away from advancing. One of the worst sucker-punch losses in sports history.

Most exciting game — United States vs. Slovenia — Years from now, Landon Donovan’s goal against Algeria might be looked upon as the moment when soccer became a mainstream sport in the U.S. But, for me, the U.S. game I’ll remember most from the 2010 World Cup was the 2-2 tie against Slovenia.

The best victories (or in this case ties) are when you have completely given up hope. You don’t think there any chance your team can comeback. That’s how I felt at halftime against Slovenia. The U.S. was down 2-0 and looked completely dead. The passing was terrible, the energy wasn’t there, the tactics were all wrong and Robbie Findley was on the field. During halftime I went outside to suck down a cigarette and as I watched the sun come up, I thought to myself, “What a fucking disaster.”

Then came the second half and I don’t think I’ve ever jumped off a couch faster than when Donovan powered his shot over Samir Handanovic and into the roof of the net. Hope was restored.

The next 30 minutes were excruciating. The U.S. needed to score to survive and it wasn’t as though Slovenia was laying down. There weren’t many chances, but when Donovan’s long ball met Altidore’s head, that went to Bradley’s feet and into the net, I was as excited as I’ve been about anything in long time (which is kind of pathetic, I know). I wasn’t crying (like the guy in the video below) but I think I broke the record for most Kirk Gibson fist pumps in a 15 second span.

A couple minutes later — controversy. The U.S. scored the game-winner when Edu volleyed home Donovan’s free kick, but the goal was disallowed because of a phantom call. Who knows how the U.S. World Cup run would have been different if the goal stood (the U.S. would have been able to rest players against Algeria). The no goal was the main storyline after the match, but it was hard for me to be too outraged. I was just happy the U.S. was still alive.

Worst game — Uruguay vs. France — There might have been slightly worse matches, but Uruguay and France took place on the first day of the tournament and it was such a bummer watching a boring 0-0 tie. Uruguay decided to play ultra-defensively, completely overestimating the threat of France’s attack. Uruguay gave us some good matches in South Africa, but its first certainly wasn’t one of them.

Best goal celebration — South Africa — It came after the first goal on the tourament when Siphiew Tshabalala (what a name) went upper 90 against Mexico. It wasn’t over exuberant, but gets a lot of points for originality and was, in short, just cool.

Most entertaining off the field plot — France implodes — Nothing like a national team confirming the worst negative stereotypes of their country. In fairness, any team coached by Raymond Domenech might have quit. It’s amazing he lasted as long as he did. That said, for a team as talented as France to completely pack it in for the most important tournament on Earth was disgraceful. Though HIGHLY entertaining.

Best fans — The Netherlands — I don’t think I would have been too much of homer to say the U.S. fans, which gave U.S. soccer a home-field advantage at a neutral stadium for the first time ever. But I got to give to the Dutch. They badly out-numbered the opposing fans at every match. It was impossible not to feel sorry for them after the final. Plus, everyone wearing neon orange shirts looks great in HD.

Most puzzling moment — Jong Tae-se crying — Before North Korea’s first match against Brazil, Tae-se started crying uncontrollably during the national anthem. If it was any other player in the tournament I would have found it somewhat endearing, but not Tae-se. Tae-se was born and raised in Japan (he has North Korean parents). Unless you have gone through the hell of actually growing up in North Korea, you have no business being on the North Korea soccer team. North Korea is the most totalitarian country on the planet and coming from Japan to represent them, just so you can play international soccer, is wrong. But crying during the national anthem? It doesn’t make any sense. Was he thinking, “Wow, I’m so honored to have a chance to represent a country that starves its people to death, while at the same time spending billions on a nuclear weapons program. I’m going to have to start crying.” I mean, come on. I would like to think the tears started flowing because he realized he was an embarrassment wearing that shirt, but I doubt it.

Most feel good moment — Andrés Iniesta World Cup winner — The best part of Iniesta’s goal in the 117th minute to win the World Cup was that we weren’t going to have to go through the tragedy of crowing another world champion by penalty kicks. It was also a great goal. He chipped the ball to himself and lashed it in the net. But then to take off his shirt to honor his fallen friend was a great touch. It was a great way to end an awesome five weeks.

Not only is Spain currently the reigning European and World Cup champs, but La Roja has lost only two matches in the last two years and during that run they had the longest undefeated streak (35 matches) and longest winning streak (15 matches) ever.

So why has Spain been so good?

There’s a few reasons: Spain has two world-class strikers (Fernando Torres and David Villa), a couple solid center defenders (Carles Puyol and Gerrard Pique) and probably the best goalie in the world (Iker Casillas). But what has put Spain on a different level the last few years is the play of its undersized central midfielders — Andrés Iniesta and Xavi.

Neither are physically gifted. Both stand 5-foot-7 and, to be blunt, are slow. But their intelligence and technical skills easily makeup for not being athletic freaks. This might sound weird, but watching them play soccer reminds me of the best poker players in the world. They’re constantly weighing risk versus reward and are incredibly good at it.

(Inside Xavi’s head: OK, I got the ball just past the center circle. I could try a chip pass to Villa but there’s only a 12 percent chance it’s going to work and a four percent chance he’s going to score. I could give Pedro the ball down the flank, but there’s a 22 percent chance the pass will be intercepted and and there’s a three percent chance the other team will score on the counter-attack. I could take on my defender and try to make something happen, but there’s a 37 percent chance I’ll lose the ball. OK, well, I’ll just give the ball to my boy Iniesta and see if he see’s something.)

Against the Netherlands, Xavi completed 80 of 99 passes: He was 18 for 20 on short passes, 51 for 59 on medium passes (which is off the charts good) and 11 for 20 on long passes. To put this in context, Xavi’s counterpart, Wesley Sneijder, was 26 for 46 on his pass attempts.

Sometimes this could lead to boring soccer. To keep the poker analogy going, Xavi and Iniesta are constantly folding (square passes), not willing to play until they’re holding a monster hand (when there’s a gap in the defense). Even if Xavi and Iniesta do attempt a somewhat risky pass, it’s highly unlikely the other team will be able to generate an offensive opportunity from the turnover. When they lose the ball, they lose the ball in “safe” spaces. This is why Spain didn’t concede a goal in the knockout stages of this World Cup or Euro 2008. (This, and Arjen Robben not being able score on breakaways.)

That said, a lot of soccer players are risk management experts, what separates Xavi and Iniesta is their technical skills. It’s one thing to know the right play, its another to execute it over and over and over again. One could argue they are the most technically gifted (best passers, best dribblers, best trappers) central midfielders in the game. You almost never see an errant pass or the ball bouncing awkwardly off their shin. Nearly every pass is weighted perfectly and accurate. It’s like they’re robots.

It also doesn’t hurt that Xavi and Iniesta play on the same club team and know each others games better than anyone. They also know how to win together. The last time Xavi and Iniesta were on the field and lost an elimination match was in the 2008 Champions League semifinals against Manchester United.

(Note: Iniesta is currently the Michael Jordan or Joe Montana of soccer. Remember in the 2009 Champions League semifinals when Barcelona needed a goal against Chelsea in the final seconds? Iniesta came through with a brilliant volley. In the 2009 Champions League final, Iniesta dominated Manchester United’s midfield en route to the title. The only reason why Barcelona didn’t win the 2010 Champions League final was because Iniesta was injured.

Then came Sunday. If you haven’t watched the match yet or are going to watch it again, keep your eyes on Iniesta from about the 55th minute on. Early in the second half, Iniesta got the “There’s no way I’m fucking losing this game” look. He went from being one of a handful of great players on the field to being by the best player and there wasn’t a second place. He started to get himself between the Dutch midfield and defense and he sliced and diced the Netherlands from there. His positioning and movement was fantastic. His game-winner is what will be remembered, but how about that pass which sent Cesc Fabergas through on goal? Probably the pass of the tournament.)

But how much winning does Iniesta and Xavi have left? So far they’ve won four La Liga’s, two Champions League’s and a European and World Cup trophy. José Mourinho’s Real Madrid team will be a stiff foe in league, but Barcelona still have the best team and it’s not out of the question the central midfield tandem could win two or three more La Liga titles and another Champions League or two.

Internationally, Xavi will be 32 and Iniesta 28 for Euro 2012 and, barring injury, they will still have all of their skills. If Spain wins that tournament, the Spain team from 2008-12 should be considered the best national team ever and Xavi and Iniesta should be considered the best midfield pairing ever — if they aren’t already.

——————————–

Betting Summary

I finished the World Cup in the black! I nailed two in-game bets during the semifinals (winning $36) and my Spain winning the World Cup Future bet cashed in (winning $22). I did lose $40 on a variety of other bets during the final (check Twitter account for details) but overall I’m happy with my World Cup wagers.

Individual matches: 4-9 (made $6)
Prop bets: 0-5 (lost $45)
Parlays: 1-2 (lost $15.68).
Over\Under: 5-2 (made $62.59).
Future: 5 wins, 4 losses, 1 push — made $24.33
Total: Made $32.24.

You can get my most up-to-date bets on Twitter at IntelSoccer.

Also, if you want to start betting on soccer or any other sports, please click on the Sportsbook ad on IntelligentSoccer and signup. I’ve belonged to SportsBook for years and I can tell you it is the best online sports book on the Internet. I only get paid if someone signs up after clicking through the ads on IntelligentSoccer, so please go that rout. Thanks so much!!!

Ten of the Netherlands 23 World Cup players — five of whom will probably start against Spain — were part of Ajax’s famed youth system. Barcelona’s academy (La Masia) has contributed nine players to their country’s national team and as many as seven could start in the final.

There are obvious reasons why Ajax’s and Barcelona’s youth academy’s have been so successful: a winning history, great coaches, money. But it’s not as though they have a monopoly on history, coaches and cash. Other clubs do the same and haven’t produced a world-class, or even first-team, player in years (Chelsea). So how has Ajax and Barcelona done it?

Well…I don’t know.

I could ramble for a couple paragraphs about how the Dutch and Catalan cultures help breed footballers, highlight how both clubs focus on improving technical skills and throw in some anecdotes from my time in both cities and I might be able to convince you that I actually know what I’m talking about, but it would mostly be bullshit.

This is what I do know. Ajax and Barcelona wouldn’t have the youth systems they do if they weren’t as cold-blooded as they are.

Last month, Michael Sokolove in the New York Times Magazine wrote a fantastic cover story on the Ajax youth academy. What’s clear from Sokolove’s piece is when Ajax brings a young player into its system, the Amsterdam-based club isn’t interested in producing productive Dutch citizens that could go on to be successful in something other than soccer. It’s not the YMCA. Ajax wants soccer players, that’s it.

Scouts go around Amseterdam watching kids play soccer that are nearly a decade away from puberty, bring the best to Ajax, coach them for a couple years and if it doesn’t work out (like it almost never does) say dank je but no dank je.

Sokolove asked a 15-year-old player in Ajax’s youth academy if he thought some of the skills he’s learned as a soccer player (focus, perseverance, the ability to perform under pressure) will help him if doesn’t make it with Ajax, “No,” the boy said. “We’re training for football, not for anything else.”

The children in youth soccer academies are treated as assets. Clubs compile cheap, young talent and hope one out of fifty, or hundred, or two-hundred, will one day help the first team win matches. In Ajax’s case, its not even that interested in the youth players helping them win the Eredivisie as much as they hope they could sell the young starlets to bigger clubs in Europe.

Is this wrong? Yeah, a little. It’s not as though these kids are being kidnapped from their homes and forced to dribble around cones with a gun to their head; they want the chance to play for the clubs they love. But, on some level, it’s child exploitation. Eight year old’s shouldn’t be treated like stocks. That said, being heartless and focused on the ultimate goal (making great soccer players) might be the only way to consistently produce players capable of playing at the highest level.

Copying this formula in the United States would be difficult. It’s one thing for parents in Amsterdam’s suburbs or Southeastern Spain to allow their children to spends hours every day with Ajax and Barcelona coaches. They know its within the realm of possibility their kids might one day really be a great footballer. There’s precedent. But the New York Redbulls or Seattle Sounders don’t have the same tradition. It can’t point to examples of players in their academy that have gone to become FIFA Player of the Year, or even a starter for the national team. It’s one thing to sell parents on a dream that has happened before, it’s another to sell them on a dream that hasn’t.

But it’s hard to see how the U.S. will ever become a top five soccer nation if it doesn’t have at least one youth academy that rivals Ajax, Barcelona or River Plate. The current system — plucking the best teenagers from around the country to the national residency program — has had limited success at best. The top coaches need be teaching the best eight year old’s in the country, by the time they’re 15 it’s too often too late.

Many, maybe rightfully, will protest in the U.S. that it’s asking too much of players too young. But one would be hard pressed to find anyone in the Netherlands or Spain right now complaining about Ajax’s or Barcelona’s youth soccer academies.

Ajax youth players on the Dutch national team — Martin Stekeleburg, Gregory can der Wiel, John Heitinga, Andre Ooijer, Nigel de Jong, Wesley Sneijder, Rafael van der Vaart, Elijero Elia, Ryan Babel, Klass-Jan Huntelaar.

Barcelona youth players on the Spanish national team — Victor Valdes, Pepé Reina, Gerrard Piqué, Carles Puyol, Andrés Iniesta, Xavi, Cesc Fábergas, Sergio Busquets, Pedro Rodriguez.