An Israeli and a Scot in a Moscow pub... (495 hits)
Category: SportsRating: 1.33 on 28 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by Flash Harry (View user info) at 2008-05-09 08:41:12 EDT
So, the denouement to the mostly tightly-contested season in living memory is upon us. Victory for Manchester United against Wigan will cancel out almost any scoreline Chelsea manage against Bolton, and crown Sir Alex's team as the Champions of England once again.
The teams will then have barely enough time to roast an FHM model before they fly out to Moscow to thrash out a deal which will see one of them dubbed the best in Europe. For United, such a result would be the parmesan on their delicious bolognaise; for Chelsea, success would be viewed as a soft, well-kneaded dough, from which the loaf of domination might rise.
As a neutral, I have observed the thrills and spills of both teams from a safe distance. When Mourinho left Stamford Bridge last year, I believed the serpent of Stamford Bridge had bitten its own tail, and would limp over this period of games in a pitiful position. I cannot help but wonder, however, whether their remarkable form stems from the impressive team spirit installed by the departed Portuguese, rather than the encouragements of the underwhelming Avram Grant.
Manchester United, meanwhile, seemed to do their best to encourage the chase when a weak team was sent out to play at their closest rivals' London fortress. It seems Sir Alex felt victory was improbable, even with the presence of his lauded superstars, and so chose to rest Ronaldo et al for the vital tie with Barcelona.
The tussle is akin to a furious barbarian wielding an axe, in opposition to a sophisticated fencing champion. Chelsea are direct, powerful, and efficient; United are skilful, sleek and subtle. Grant plays the man-mountain Drogba up front, who flits between powerhouse and pansy, with fast wingers and the free-scoring Lampard charging on to any flick-ons the Ivorian manages.
Ferguson, meanwhile, has championed the 'strikerless system', wherein Ronaldo, Rooney and Tevez intermingle with one another's runs and attempt to unhinge defences with delicate passes, phantom dashes and powerful efforts from distance. It is a fascinating battle of contrasting styles.
Ironically, neutrals who wish to savour the conclusion to the season may have to decide which of these institutions is the lesser evil. The Red Devils of Manchester were long-viewed as arrogant guardians of success during the nineties, whereas Chelsea have now gathered a reputation for nit-picking, bickering and unfair extravagance. That they purchased the championship under Mourinho is inarguable; United, meanwhile, seem to have earned the right to spend heftily due to their sustained success and consistent stewardship.
Logically, United should win the league. Nothing can be taken for granted, but they should have enough to overcome Wigan. In the Moscow showdown, however, the match is too tight to call. Those who believe that destiny has a peculiar habit of cropping up in sports will see arguments for both sides to win.
It is fifty years since the Munich air disaster, when Manchester United lost a team of young starlets. Additionally, their ginger schemer, Paul Scholes has chosen an opportune moment to re-discover his finest form, since he was suspended on the last occasion Ferguson found his team in the final.
For Chelsea, the sad passing of Frank Lampard' mother cannot go unmentioned. Their famous team spirit will only be augmented, which could lead to an indefatigability which even the best player in the world will struggle to overcome. And, of course, Abramovich, the man without whom Chelsea would be squabbling with West Ham in mid-table oneupmanship. The Russian will see it as destiny that this, the first building block of his great dynasty, could be won back home in Moscow.
Those who like to see football played with panache, nous and no little defensive stubbornness, should urge on Manchester United to lift both trophies. Such would be a fine reward for team of consistent flair, and for a manager who now rivals Madonna in terms of re-invention.
Which is the most potent: the beauty or the beast?
User Reviews
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2008-05-13 03:20:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by F.J.Bell (user info) at 2008-03-19 05:58:14 PDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Well, I didn't recognise it at first and thought it was the poster's. Then I twigged and realised it was, in fact, Auden,
The reason for the confusion? He didn't reference.
That, where I come from, is called plagiarism missy.
---
WOW, ASK ME IF I GIVE A SHIT...GO ON, ASK ME
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2008-05-09 12:53:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
No Comment
Submitted by HurtByTheSun (user info) at 2008-05-09 12:30:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Fail. There's been too much of that on here in the past.
I'll agree with you on baseball though, fucking pointless, though I really enjoyed watching games at Wrigley Field. It's quite nice watching a team game where you don't want to kill the opposing fans and an old guy will sit next to you and explain the game and touch your dick.
Submitted by FALLEN (user info) at 2008-05-09 12:24:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I was just trying to stir the pot a bit and be the "evil football hating American"
but i'm too tired.
Enjoy your football post, God save the Queen and all that.
I do hate baseball though.
Submitted by Banjo (user info) at 2008-05-09 12:10:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Soccer is a stoopid word - That's all I got to say about that
Submitted by HurtByTheSun (user info) at 2008-05-09 12:09:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Chris Patterson wears pads, so do Cuisiter and the Lamont brothers. It's just that they're so thin you can barely see them. Also they're more gel pads rather than plastic shields, I believe.
Submitted by HurtByTheSun (user info) at 2008-05-09 12:08:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Oh man I feel so gay for saying this, but soccer is a derivative of 'Association Football', which is the 'proper' name for football.
Submitted by Banjo (user info) at 2008-05-09 12:07:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I've not seen a proper rugby players wearing pads.
I met Jason White a few weeks ago, he is a mighty mighty man! I have his Lions shorts, or should I say I gave bf his shorts.
Submitted by FALLEN (user info) at 2008-05-09 12:03:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
yeah, I have no idea what soccer is either.
I would be cool to change the name to American rugby.
I dont like our football either.
or baseball
I HATE baseball
Hockey is a sport.
the rest, not so much.
Submitted by HurtByTheSun (user info) at 2008-05-09 12:03:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
To be fair Banjo, a lot of rugby players do now wear very light upper body armour.
http://www.team-colours.co.uk/rugby/impactor-shoulder-pro-padding.htm
Fuck all compared to the ridiculous pads in AF though. Plus, you can actually wear a rugby top without the pads and not look like you're drowning in a lake of polyester.
Submitted by orphelia (user info) at 2008-05-09 12:02:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Please email me a brief synopsis of this post as WTFINRAT!
KK Thnx :)
Submitted by Banjo (user info) at 2008-05-09 12:02:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Google search definition of soccer... *creased*
is when an individual fucks members of the same sex and enjoys it. In the USA, soccer usually involves women with short haircuts who refer to themselves as "lesbians." In many other countries, soccer often involves a very violent form of sadomasochistic homosexuality known as "hooliganism".
encyclopediadramatica.com/Soccer
Submitted by Banjo (user info) at 2008-05-09 12:00:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Oh no, wait, rugby players are not a bunch of snivellling pussies with kevlar padding on. I'm not sure they'd appreciate the association either...
Submitted by Banjo (user info) at 2008-05-09 11:57:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
It's not soccer its FOOTBALL!
wtf does soccer mean anyway. Foot --> ball
At no point should anybody other than the goalie handle the ball unless of course its a throw in.
So we've established that football is not soccer, we should now appropriately name that silly American sport with the sweaty crotch fat men with too much padding throwing around the funny shaped ball...
I know, we'll call it American Rugby!
Submitted by F.J.Bell (user info) at 2008-05-09 11:56:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by FALLEN (user info) at 2008-05-09 16:53:27 BST (#)
Ranking: 0
seriously,who watches soccer anyway?
is it even on TV?
=====================
Aah. 'Twas but a matter of time before a short-nosed Yank wandered over this way...
Submitted by FALLEN (user info) at 2008-05-09 11:53:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
seriously,who watches soccer anyway?
is it even on TV?
Submitted by F.J.Bell (user info) at 2008-05-09 11:16:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Just saw the swervingest free-kick ever: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mX0y1kumtss
Submitted by Banjo (user info) at 2008-05-09 10:21:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by GangsterSquid (user info) at 2008-05-09 10:15:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
http://www.gabbly.com/www.ubersite.com
Submitted by orph (user info) at 2008-05-09 10:06:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I'm hoping the unwashed Muscovite masses rise up and throw off the yoke of their capitalist betters, swarming the pitch, maybe kidnapping, breaking the legs of a few of the players, and then UEFA award the win to Arsenal.
It may happen.
Submitted by LittleMonster (user info) at 2008-05-09 10:01:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
This was good concidering I hate football
Submitted by F.J.Bell (user info) at 2008-05-09 10:00:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Scholes is the funniest tackler I have ever seen. Positively lethal on the slide.
Submitted by Nellypaal (user info) at 2008-05-09 09:59:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
'Ginger schemer' is an excellent description of Scholes. I hope Man U win both games.
Submitted by doctorj24 (user info) at 2008-05-09 09:36:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
STFU, homo!
Submitted by F.J.Bell (user info) at 2008-05-09 09:24:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I enjoyed this a lot for someone who is not a fan.
------------------
I am glad you said that. I wasn't sure how well it would be received by non-Brits.
Submitted by Phallic_Cymbals (user info) at 2008-05-09 09:23:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I enjoyed this a lot for someone who is not a fan.
Submitted by HurtByTheSun (user info) at 2008-05-09 08:50:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Fuck them both, but Man U play better football. Chelsea are one of the most boring teams to watch. Only Rangers are duller and fuck them too.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2008-05-09 08:47:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
One of the best football posts I've read in a long time. Well done.