Like two bald men fighting over a comb: Man United versus Chelsea

The jokes have started early. Rumours coming out of the US that Amazon founder Jeff Bezos is making or has made a bid to buy Manchester United have been met with gags such as “Amazon buys Man U, and immediately delivers the title to their neighbours”. What a sad state of affairs, then, that arguably the biggest football club in the world, with a history as storied as any footballing royalty in Europe, like Juventus, Real Madrid or Barcelona, should be such a source of ridicule. But, then, Chelsea - their opponents today at Old Trafford - aren’t exactly all that far away, themselves, either. Not that I’m suggesting for one minute that The Blues should be considered in the same company, history-wise, as their Mancunian rivals, but it is curious, going into today’s encounter, just how many parallels exist between the two clubs, and not just the shared experience of José Mourinho as manager.

Watching the Manchester derby the other night, I genuinely felt sorry for Ole Gunnar Solskjær - super-sub in his playing days at United and effectively brought in off the managerial bench in December to become, first, caretaker manager at Old Trafford and, since the end of March, permanent head coach. For a rival fan, Solskjær in his day could infuriate with his ability to be brought on by Sir Alex Ferguson late in a game and score the kind of vital goal that secured United’s imperious reputation in the 1990s and 2000s. But since Ferguson retired, that reputation has proven unmaintainable. On Wednesday night, however, the genuinely likeable, articulate and intelligent Solskjær looked crestfallen as Manchester City first broke the deadlock with Bernardo Silva’s 54th-minute strike, and then sub Leroy Sane’s low shot a few minutes later to humiliate David De Gea. It was a game that bluntly symbolised the power shift in Manchester: United, still retaining an army of vastly expensive players (Luke Shaw earning five times more in a week than a teacher of ten years' standing earns in a year...), some of whom there only by entitlement, up against a similarly enriched City line-up coached by Pep Guardiola, justifiably the most admired manager of his generation. City may have bought their way to the summit with Sheikh Mansour’s Emirati riches, but that’s the way it goes. You can no longer stand on ceremony in modern football, as United are finding to their cost.

Compare them, then, with Chelsea. Until Roman Abramovich came along in June 2003, buying Chelsea on the back of their final game of the 2002-2003 season, in which Jesper Grønkjær dramatically volleyed in to beat Liverpool 2-1, thus securing Champions League football for the following term, the club’s legacy was, to be fair, patchy. A single league title, in 1955, a couple of FA Cups and the European Cup Winners Cup twice since 1970 was all they had to offer, with a veneer of glamour generated by a celebrity following in the late 1960s and early 1970s. When away fans sing “where we you when you were shit”, I know exactly where at Stamford Bridge I was standing. Without, though, trawling over the Abramovich era in depth, Chelsea in 2019 are in a weird place: an owner rendered indifferent due to his visa problems (and contemplating offers for the club); a stadium overhaul on permanent hold; a string of successful (and some less so) but short-lived managers since 2005, with the jury out on the current one; the prospect of a UEFA-enacted transfer ban and a squad in desperate need of overhauling, including some highly-paid European stars approaching the point when the club’s policy on over-30s means that they will be frustrated in being offered a contract of longer than 12 months. Throw in the inevitable loss of a star player (Eden Hazard), and the chance that the currently injured starlet Callum Hudson-Odoi might also leave in the direction from where his head has been turned by German club interest, and you see a club that could fall apart in football terms…as well as corporate terms. The turbulence building up around Chelsea is not all that far removed from the mood in camp at Old Trafford.

So, with the fight between Tottenham, Chelsea, Arsenal and Manchester United for third and fourth spot increasingly looking like two bald men fighting over a comb, with all four dropping points as easily as they win them, with just three more fixtures left in the season, the encounter today between The Reds and The Blues, is a real head-scratcher. Chelsea, of course, have been a nightmare this season with their visits to North-West England, their fixtures with Everton and Liverpool highlighting a mental inability to play the second half with anything like the intensity of the first. But, then, you have a Manchester United that has struggled to convince ever since Solskjær was announced with crowd-pleasing intent as the club’s full-time manager at the end of March. And that includes last Sunday’s abject, 4-0 capitulation to Everton at Goodison Park.

Today’s game may just prove to be a damp squib: two beleaguered (relatively speaking) teams, drained mentally and spiritually, trying to summon the energy to win a hotly-contested Champions League spot at the arse end of a season where two other teams are outperforming everyone in just about every dimension. By contrast, go back 11 years and United and Chelsea were meeting at the Luzhniki Stadium in the 2008 Champions League final. Two English teams at the very summit of European football. One, a team with a sainted reputation in world football, the other, an arriviste outfit managed by an unlikely champion-in-contention, Avram Grant. While it may have been decided by John Terry’s unfortunate slip on the penalty spot, these teams were a credit card’s width apart in terms of talent. Today, they might have the talent, but that talent is doing little to justify such a tag.

Both teams today are managed by individuals yet to prove their case, though in fairness, the likeable Norwegian in the red corner has only had a month or so. Both, though, are painfully and obviously lacking the leadership figures that made them each a different proposition in Moscow in 2008. Then, United had Rio Ferdinand, Paul Scholes, Cristiano Ronaldo, Wayne Rooney, Edwin van der Sar and Nemanja Vidic, while Chelsea had Terry, Frank Lampard, Didier Drogba and Michael Ballack. And today? As much as I like César Azpilicueta as a right back, he has been made Chelsea’s skipper by default. He’s not a leader on the pitch, being somewhat anonymous at a time when Chelsea’s players need a kick up the backside. For Azpiliqueta, read Ashley Young in the exact same situation at United. These are, of course, isolated, individual problems out of the many more that exist for United and Chelsea. When you add them up, the great portent of today’s fixture starts to diminish. Quite a bit. Yes, it will be an encounter between a couple of prize fighters, albeit prize fighters who’ve lost their punch and with it, their fear factor. And that’s why it could be a downright let down.

In fact, whether United or Chelsea succeed in reaching that coveted fourth spot (and it’s still numerically possible for third to be reached, too), both sets of fans should be prepared for disappointment. Because whenever they play their European football next season - on a Tuesday or Wednesday, or the less illustrious Thursday night - who owns these clubs, who plays for these clubs, who runs these clubs and even who manages these clubs are all, right now big, open questions. To have one of those questions looming might be troubling, but to have all four? That’s an awful lot to have at stake at once.

Heathrow face-off

Picture: Heathrow Airport

I have had my new UK passport for exactly three years, give or take a week. The previous one was starting to fall apart - no great surprise given that I was living abroad, travelling a lot and carrying my passport everywhere as a required legal form of identification in the Netherlands and France.

With my new passport came the magic biometric identification, theoretically allowing me to pass through so-called ‘e-gates’ at British airports, thus speeding up the transit process while reducing the need for the UK Border Force to have expensive human beings checking my document. Except it hasn’t worked that way: from the moment I had the new passport (at a cost of £177 for a rush job), it has failed to work at the electronic arrival gates of any UK airport I've landed at. Passport officers have assured me there’s nothing wrong with it and, yet, arriving at Heathrow, Gatwick and London City, the passport refuses to work. Not even the British airports authority will acknowledge there is a problem, though a quick search online reveals that I’m far from alone. I - and they - are simply the unlucky ones. It’s quite galling to watch hundreds of other passengers breeze through e-gates while I have to queue up, old school, to have an officer look at my virtually new passport and wonder why I haven’t joined everyone else to go through the ‘digital border’.

The irony of all this is that, as a holder of a good old red European Union passport, I can and do freely pass through the e-gates at other countries’ airports. I’ve arrived at Amsterdam’s Schiphol, Barcelona, Helsinki, Madrid, Stockholm, Zurich and Rome and walked straight through the biometric barriers. A small, but significant victory for Brexit being delayed, perhaps. And, still, no one will admit in the UK that there’s a problem. Other airports have gone further with easing the security process: at Schiphol now new scanners mean that you no longer have to remove your belt (one of the major causes of airport stress for me, given what horror it could unleash…) or take out laptops and tablets from your carry-on. Frankly I find this as big an innovation in air travel as anything else, given that, 18 years after 9/11 we’re still being made to shuffle through departure security in our socks with our trousers at half mast hoping some git hasn’t made off with your out-of-reach MacBook and house keys.

Picture: Heathrow Airport

So this morning I read with interest in The Times news that Heathrow is to install permanent facial recognition technology this coming summer that will mean passengers will no longer have to show their passport at all when departing. It’s long been the case that when taking off the only time you have to show your passport is at the departure gate, along with your boarding pass. I’ve noticed British Airways progressively experimenting with e-gates of their own to speed up the boarding pass check process. The new facial recognition technology will, in principle, do without the need for both passport checks and boarding passes, relying instead on facial biometric identification. The process won’t be without need for passports, however: the £50 million project will require passengers to get their passports scanned and their pictures taken at automated kiosks before then running through the biometric gates.

Heathrow claims the new facial recognition booths could reduce the average passenger's journey time by up to a third, being implemented at various stages of the departure process, from check-in and bag drop to boarding gate. A Heathrow press release says that: "The long-term aim of the technology will be for passengers to be able to walk through the airport without breaking their stride. Passengers have already been trialling the new services in the live operation throughout 2018 and feedback has been tremendously positive." The airport cites International Air Transport Association (IATA) research which revealed that 64% of passengers would choose to share their biometric data in exchange for a better experience when travelling.

Picture: Heathrow Airport

There are, of course, inevitable concerns about privacy with facial recognition. While that might have validity for application in public spaces, airports have to, by need, to be amongst the most secure environments anywhere. Anything which ensures security while speeding up the departure process is surely a good thing, seeing as passing through a hot, sweaty airport while stressed by everything from other people to flight delays is one of life’s least enjoyable experiences.

Heathrow, and when others join it, is playing catch-up, however. “Major American airports already have this [technology] and Asia is light years ahead,” aviation consultant Alex Macheras told The Times. “From the point of view of convenience it undoubtedly works, although customers will have concerns about how their data is protected and airports must be transparent about this.” In the US - which has traditionally been behind the rest of the world when innovating in travel - facial recognition has been introduced for international passengers, in which their faces are compared to a central database. It is claimed that the introduction in the US has halved the time it takes to board flights.

"As our passenger numbers continue to grow, we must look for innovative ways to make it easier and quicker for them to travel through Heathrow with choice, whilst keeping our airport secure," says Heathrow's Customer Relations and Service Director, Jonathan Coen. "Biometrics are key to helping us do that and we are really excited about the biggest roll out of this equipment at any UK airport.  With this technology we’ll be able to offer passengers choice on how they travel through our airport, with colleagues on hand to guide passengers that require it. Biometric technology has been well received by our passengers so far and we’re looking forward to working with our colleagues and the airline community as part of our ongoing transformation at Heathrow, with a focus on enhancing passenger experience."

All well and good, but seeing as I still haven't had any official recognition from Heathrow, the Passport Authority or the Border Force as to why my expensive, three-year-old passport won't work in any of the current e-gates at British airports, I hope the rollout of facial biometrics will be a genuine boon to this passenger's experience, rather than the somewhat irritating barrier my biometric passport has been when arriving in the UK.

Bond is back! Well, he will be...

Picture: Twitter/007

We have known for some time that the next Bond film in the official canon will be the 25th, mostly because the last, Spectre, was the 24th, and also because Eon Productions had been cleverly trailing the hashtag #Bond25 ahead of today’s somewhat slick streamed “reveal” from Goldeneye, the Jamaican house where James Bond came to literary life at the typewriter of Ian Fleming.

In truth, today's event didn’t actually reveal all that much that wasn’t already known or strongly rumoured: Daniel Craig will return for the fifth and final time as 007, Ralph Fiennes will be back as M, Ben Whishaw will again play Q and Naomie Harris will return as Moneypenny. All solid bets there and little different to the days when Bernard Lee, Desmond Llewellyn and Lois Maxwell played, M, Q and Moneypenny against successive Bonds. Perhaps a little surprising, though understandably with no plot-revealing context to explain, is that Léa Seydoux will return as Dr Madeleine Swann, Bond’s love interest in his last outing.

Picture: YouTube

With the principal cast assembled with director Cary Joji Fukunaga at Goldeneye, little was being given away about the plot, beyond co-producer Barbara Broccoli saying that: "Bond is not on active service when we start the film, he is enjoying himself in Jamaica, [which] we consider [to be] Bond's spiritual home. We have built an extraordinary house for him, he starts his journey here. There is quite a ride in store for Mr Bond." Beyond that, and the fact filming would be done in Jamaica, Norway, Italy, London and Pinewood Studios, there was nothing more forthcoming. There wasn't even a reference to the rumoured title of "Shatterhand".

In the past, Bond productions have been signalled with a press event at Pinewood, but today's streamed event, fronted by Radio 1 DJ Clara Amfo, had a makeshift feel about it, which will not do much to settle Bond fans' anxiety about a delayed film and a script that has only recently had scribbler-du jour Phoebe Waller-Bridge of Fleabag fame added to the writing team. The only additional details we could glean is that Rami Malek, fresh from winning an Oscar for playing Freddie Mercury in Bohemian Rhapsody, will also appear, presumably as a baddie since he appeared on video during the reveal declaring that he "won't give Mr Bond an easy ride".

Picture: YouTube

Although the reveal, taking place today, April 25, was clearly a clever wheeze by the Bond PR team (“Bond 25, the 25th - geddit?”), the exercise was much needed. After director Danny Boyle walked away from the project, and Fukunaga was appointed some time later, producers Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson have had to mount some spin control as an information vacuum has developed. Bond films have, in recent years, been released in November ahead of the Christmas season, but with principle photography only just starting, it’s a safe bet that the pledge today of 25 appearing “early next year” will be closer to Easter 2020. All seemed calm today, but Broccoli and Wilson know that the stakes are high for a film that could have even been out before last Christmas, had Craig been tied down to committing to it sooner, and the directorial situation not become so messy under Boyle (with reported differences of opinion over plot direction including Bond being killed off).

Much has been made of the fact that it will be almost five years between Spectre and 25, with Daniel Craig passing his 50th birthday in that time. Looking lean and buff today during the reveal, his age shouldn’t be a issue for the new film, but given that Bond should, ideally, be played by an actor in his mid-30s, the idea of Craig bowing out with this film is probably the right one, shame as it would be, seeing as he has, against expectations, been an excellent 007.

Picture: YouTube

But if the weight of expectation is heavy on Craig’s shoulders, it’s nothing compared with that weighing on Fukunaga and now-veteran Bond writers Neal Purvis and Robert Wade, who are joined by Scott Z. Burns and Waller-Bridge to deliver the script. You don’t stretch the world’s longest running film franchise to 25 movies without raising the stakes of failure. By and large the Bond canon has been of a high quality (Octopussy not withstanding), and the introduction of a grittier approach with Craig has ensured that his four so far are right up there with the best of those by Sean Connery, George Lazenby, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton and Pierce Brosnan. Connery, in particular, is still regarded as the benchmark: I recently rewatched Goldfinger and From Russia With Love and, despite being the second and third oldest, respectively, they still held up extremely well. But don’t discount Lazenby’s sole outing, On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, or Dalton’s brace, all of which took the Bond character closer to Fleming’s literary ideal. Craig may be short(ish), blond and blue-eyed, but he has carried off Bond as a steelier individual than Brosnan’s exquisitely suited smoothie, perfect for an age when Matt Damon’s younger Jason Bourne started to show old Bond a few new tricks.

Overall, though, and despite the pre-production turbulence surrounding Bond 25, Broccoli and Wilson, know what they’re doing and have been doing it a long time. The appointment of Sam Mendes to direct Skyfall and Spectre was a masterstroke that paid off with two gripping, well executed, quintessential Bond films that carried a noirish air about them. Fukunaga has a lot to live up to, and the quality threshold surrounding him is exacting. He has the right cast ingredients, let's hope Wade and Purves’ script, with Waller-Bridge’s help, supports them, and Daniel Craig can leave Bond behind next year in a high. I, for one, can’t wait.

Maurizio Sarri: who's fooling who?

And so a new month rolls around and with it, April Fool's Day. I trust everyone has been having fun enjoying all the pranks. And no, that front page headline you read about Theresa May's government about to collapse wasn't another one.

Neil Warnock, the beleaguered Cardiff City manager, might, on the other hand, argue that April Fools Day arrived a few hours early, as his relegation-threatened side - one which has been fighting against the odds following the morale-sapping Emiliano Sala tragedy - lost to Chelsea yesterday, after the visitors came from behind with a clearly offside César Azpilicueta equaliser, then a Ruben Loftus-Cheek header that followed an incident in which Antonio Rüdiger should have seen red for bringing down striker Kenneth Zohore when through on goal.

As a whole, Chelsea's winning performance stank. I know that's supposed to be the mark of champions, winning despite the odds, but when you get to half time and wished it was the 90-minute mark, having seen nothing to feel in any way accomplished (and paying Sky £8.99 for the pay-per-view privilege), you know you're watching a dreadful game. Cardiff, to be fair, offered little, and sympathy towards Warnock's complaints about yesterday's officials notwithstanding, their looming relegation is sadly inevitable. That doesn't, though, excuse the awful errors of referee Craig Pawson and his assistants. Azpiliqueta and Rüdiger's good fortune masked Chelsea's poor display yesterday, one for which head coach Maurizio Sarri needs to share the blame.

When you win and your supporters still boo you, something must be up. Chants of "We want Sarri out" and "You don't know what you're doing" might be largely reactive, but even the most fickle football fan doesn't call for the manager's head without good reason. Even when Antonio Conte was looking like he was attempting 'death by cop' last season, destroying any value in Diego Costa by sacking him by text and becoming increasingly sulky as the season wore down, the fans were still, largely, behind him. Perhaps winning a league title at the first time of asking helped.

Sarri is still, mostly, unproven. The praise heaped upon him from every grandee in the game for the way he had Napoli playing has largely evaporated, as whatever worked in Serie A isn't in the Premier League. True, Chelsea are still sixth and just a point behind the increasingly Spursy Tottenham; and, yes, that numerically puts Chelsea in with a chance of Champions League qualification. But does Sarri really know what he's doing? Is he really prepared to gamble with the Chelsea future of Callum Hudson-Odoi by publicly admitting that he only watched 20 minutes of his full England debut? To me, that's not a coach trying to apply tough love on a precocious teenage starlet, that's just vindictive grouching. And thus, things continue that way.

Watching Hudson-Odoi's face yesterday, as Eden Hazard, Ruben Loftus-Cheek and then Olivier Giroud went on, spoke volumes. If - and it's probably, now, a case of when - he moves to Bayern Munich, and Chelsea and, indeed, the Premier League, are shorn of a prodigious young talent, we will look back at Maurizio Sarri's obstinacy. Yes, we get it - the lad needs to improve his game. Show me an 18-year-old in any profession who's the finished article? But Sarri is in danger of doing to Hudson-Odoi what Conte did to Costa - diminishing his future value to Chelsea Football Club.

Let's face it, the teenager, along with Hazard, will be off this summer. I can't see the Chelsea board having it any other way, knowing that both players have only a season to run on their contracts. Which makes for an interesting summer ahead. Chelsea will no doubt lose their two prized assets, along with others, and I'm pretty confident that Sarri himself will be on a plane to the Stadio Olimpico, where a certain Associazione Sportiva Roma appear to be coveting the tobacco-loving 60-year-old. And, no, that's not an April Fool joke, either.