Cup runneth...dry?

So, it's the birds' turn to play football.  Said slightly more properly, it's the turn of the women to be in the bright lights for playing football.  The Women's World Cup is upon us.

Like the hockey women, the female footballers are whingeing about not being paid like the men for what they perceive to be the same work.  While Bokolis' cock-jerk reaction is to guffaw and to tell them to get paid like men, go earn like the men, I grudgingly admit that the issue might be a little more nuanced than that.

But, Bokolis will say that equal pay for equal work is bullshit.  Negotiations are all about leverage, which is a catchphrase that really means a side's ability to bully.  When you don't own the factors of production, your ability to bully is limited.

Bokolis will now dismiss the merits of their case.  I actually did some poking around on this.

The USWNT claims that because they do better than the men do in international competition, that entitles them to draw at least as much water as the men.  More accurately, they do comparatively better than the men.

This is because the US women have a relatively higher-level of athlete in their talent pool and because the US women had a head start on most of the world, certainly the nations that would be considered top among the men (Germany, England, France, Spain, Italy).  Germany caught up; France caught up; England and Spain are catching up; Italy haven't yet reconciled that women are allowed to be something other than mothers or whores, and the Dutch women seem to be committed elsewhere.  Others will eventually catch up, and the rankings of the US men and women will converge.

If the best male athletes in the US focused on (soccer) football, even with a lack of quality coaching, we would pound the rest of the world back into the dark ages, crushed as they would be that we took their sport away from them.  Ironically, that would do more for the women's game than anything the USWNT have ever done.

They do not do better than the men, as they do not play the same competition; they play against a talent pool that isn't as developed, or as deep.  Would you like us to take off the governor and put you in against men?  After enough ass-whuppings, at some point, evolution will smile on women and they'll be the physical equals of men.  Society would have broken down by then, and we'd probably have had an ice age or two, affording women even more chance to better their place in its reconstruction.  But that also presumes that women would have evolved to be the hunting equals of men- and equally adept at avoiding being the hunted- which is how we got the drop on them in the first place.

Before that, if we dropped the current USWNT into the fourth tier of English (Men's) Football- League Two- for a full season, they would most likely get relegated. Bokolis is told the league average wages (using 2017-18 figures, employ an inflation multiplier accordingly) is about 1000GBP/week, or 46000GBP ($60k USD, rounding up) per full season. Once they were relegated to the Conference National League, which straddles the line between full-time and semi-pro, wages figure to drop by 25%-35%. $40k-$45k/yr seem fair for you ladies?  Because, you would very likely be relegated from there, as well.  Bokolis is pretty sure that players in the 6th-tier of English football get paid more from their day jobs than from football.

On the basis of percentage of revenue generation, the failed leagues demonstrate that the women cannot draw anywhere near the men.  This is even the case in the US, where the WUSA, WPS, W-league, WPSL Elite have folded and the NWSL is still trying to gain traction.  All this, while MLS chugs along just fine, despite those guys being just a little better than Bokolis was.  At least in the US, the women's clubs function independently of the men's.  In Europe, the women's teams are typically arms of a larger (men's) club.

Sure, as revenue earners, the USWNT compares far better in relation to its male counterpart than does the rest of the world.  In the US, 'soccer' is perceived as the girls sport- that is, it is the sport females are best equipped to play.  Said another way, it is the sport we'd most prefer our girls to play.  You've got seventh-generation American fathers, who wouldn't be caught dead watching soccer, mindlessly putting their daughters into soccer because it seems like the thing to so.  This has been going on for a couple of generations and, as a consumer group, American women- despite what they tell you- have a standard of living suitable to support their national team.

"Girl Power" and all that notwithstanding, women in the rest of the world still prefer men's football to women's football.

As such, taken in total, the men's world cup cycle generates 40x-50x the revenue that the women's world cup cycle generates.  Said another way, for every billion that the men's game generates, the women's game generates $20-$25 million.  Nonetheless, the WC prize pool for women is already at a greater payout rate than for the men. This is actually understandable, as there are far greater carrying costs associated with the men, who are far more greatly valued assets.  If Sheikh Mansour puts in a bid for Alex Morgan- well, you've heard what happens on those yachts- whatever he pays is barely going to eat into what City will get by selling Leroy Sané back to a German side.

The players suffer further humiliation by having the lords of the game- and a few other chauvinists-  suggest that they'd be more of a draw if they played in revealing, form-fitting and otherwise more suggestive outfits.  Does it need to be said that this could also be harmful, even dangerous?  The fucked up thing is, as it is a weighing machine in the short term, these fuckers would be right in the short run.

Amazingly enough, Bokolis does not want this.  I like my sex with my sex, and my sports with my sports.  Some hornbag will make youtube videos cherry-picking the best-looking asses of female volleyball players in those shorts and get a bunch of people to look.  Still, I'd rather see the pros of the skin trade, swimsuit models and porn whores, in those outfits than athletes.  Seeing pics of Hope Solo's nasty looking growler- even though that was not meant for our consumption- was bad enough.  Seeing Megan Rapinoe in the swimsuit issue was a soul-scarrer of a train-wreck.  I'd much rather watch them play football than shake their asses.

Aside- ever since Bokolis let a female friend convince me that Alex Morgan was not that hot, I've never been able to judge the looks of any of them.  In fact, when I saw Julie (Johnston) Ertz WAGged out at Super Bowl 52, my first thought was alarm that she may have given up football.  Of course, she has been playing professionally the whole while, but I'd never know.

Besides- and, Bokolis will blow that fantasy right out of the water for you- for the most part, jocks, female and male, are weird.  But, hey, they've got to earn, so go on with your patronage.  I'll try to reel this back in, while also trying to forget about Rapinoe in a thong.

So, they don't measure up physically, and they don't earn like the men. To boot, as opposed to doing their own thing, they have submitted their game to the patriarchal FIFA's rule. Nonetheless, the women are effectively asking that the cash cow that is the men's game (further) subsidize the women's game by bringing pay in line with the men- in effect, to bump up the women just for the sake of doing it.

hmmmm....ok, Bokolis will bang it around.

Training should be funded as closely to equal as is feasible all the way up and down the age levels, and elite-level women should not have to train and play on crappy turf fields, which would be unconscionable in the men's game.

As far as being paid, the reality is women's football is currently a second class sport, and there is a certain amount of grinning and bearing it that female footballers will have to suffer from choosing a calling that doesn't fund itself.  If schoolteachers have to suffer and no one cares, no one is going to give a fuck about the lot in life of a female footballer.  That said, Bokolis thinks there is little to be gained by being ruthlessly pragmatic.  Continuing to treat them like second-class citizens could quite possibly damage revenue on the men's side by turning women off to the men's game.

The American women, in particular, attempt to invoke Title IX, intended for federally funded and/or educational institutions, and assert that it should apply in this case.  Bokolis scratches his head, as, not only does Title IX involve entities that are not intended to be profitable (which FIFA most certainly is not), Title IX is the main roadblock to ANY college athletes getting paid.

While the education aspect is certainly not applicable, Bokolis isn't sure that the "Federal financial assistance" aspect of Title IX is applicable here.  Even if it is, it probably wouldn't be much of a problem for USSF to forego any federal funding, thus being able to tell the women to go fuck themselves.  Even if they get some of what they want from their federation, while the USWNT would be improving its own situation, it would seem a bellwether, but none of this would necessarily apply to other nations.

FIFA takes a big chance by alienating the US Women.  FIFA has gained much from the US market, even as it has barely tapped the well.  It is not the wisest thing to do anything that could jeopardize that income stream.  Is FIFA going to come through for all federations?  The answer is, not until it figures out how to make itself look like a superhero for doing so.

As it is, Ada Hegerberg, a Norwegian considered the best female footballer, has declined to play in this World Cup.  Her reasons are not entirely clear, but it is evident that she is sick and tired of the way FIFA and the national federations treat the women's game.  Even if she is the best player, she is just one woman, and the competition will shrug it off.

If the USWNT, whether as champions or not, were to boycott the next World Cup (to take place, presumably, in Australia), it would make a dent.  If the US boycotts AND whoever wins this year (France?) boycotts the next WWC, then it would be a sham.  If you lose the American woman as a consumer, the women's game is in trouble, and it's going to do no favors to the men.

Y'all muthafuckas didn't think I was going to do predictions, did you?

YNWA Six

This may be seen as crowing for winning the European Cup.  Bokolis has previously diminished the significance of winning the made-for-TV leagues.  Still, we won it and they didn't.  All things equal, though, Bokolis would've preferred the League.  Let's see where it goes.

At some point during Liverpool's second match of the EPL season, Bokolis had seen enough to declare that this was the best Liverpool side I had ever seen.  I had cooked up a scenario where they would amass 92 points and would be in with a shout for the League, but likely falling short.

The reassessment after round 22 yielded a projected total of 96 points.  Mind you, this was after Manchester City were on the right side of the luck of two posts and a GDS- 11 millimeters- to take a 2-1 decision against Liverpool.

As City could claim a maximum of 101 at that point, six dropped points in this scenario would be enough.  As City was having trouble with away fixtures, while Liverpool had taken all 45 available points against non-top 6 sides, Bokolis doubted that City could take maximum points at the middling quartet of Bournemouth, Brighton, Burnley and Palace.

Before City ever got to any of those places, they lost at Newcastle, three of the six points Bokolis was looking for.  I had taken my hand out of my pocket to reach for the trophy.  City ran the table from there, 14 wins from 14 matches.  Even though Liverpool bettered my outlook by one point, they were not afforded the necessary room for error.  The staggered matchdays gave the effect of head-bobs down the stretch of a horse race.

City got the ball 25.9 millimeters over the line at Burnley and, against Leicester, Vincent Kompany, after both he and David Silva committed fouls that could've resulted in red cards- Silva more so than Kompany- rifled in a 30-yarder, one of those shots that defenders dream about, one they usually put into the stands.

Just as he punted league position last season for the sake of the Champions League- Liverpool could've finished second but, aside from a few quid and bragging rights among the simple, second doesn't get you anything more than fourth- Klopp concentrated on the league while trying to get away with doing the minimum in the Champions League group stage.  The gambit got them to last season's final, where they fell victim to the dirty rat cunt motherfucker Sergio Ramos bulldogging Mohammed Salah's shoulder into the turf with no VAR, no recourse, and, oh yeah, two howlers from their keeper.  

To start this season, Klopp did the opposite, favoring the league.  He was trying to incorporate Naby Keita and Fabinho into the squad, but each took a while to get accustomed to the tempo of the squad.  Keita definitely trying to do too much out there, his speed and skill helping and hurting at the same time.

He also often started Milner and Henderson together.  This was often counterproductive, as they do enough of the same things that each would have to find other things to do on the pitch, which necessarily weakens their effectiveness.  They were more effective on the pitch at the same time when one of them, typically, Milner, came on as a sub, when there would be a defined duty for the substitute.

Liverpool just about slid by in the group stage, sealed by a 1-0 win at home against Napoli, when a ball that should've gone anywhere else fell lovingly to the upgraded goalkeeper, Alisson.  The victory was part of an eight wins in eight December that had them top of the table.

One of the things Bokolis appreciates about Jurgen Klopp is that he consistently learns from mistakes and improves the process, and, by extension, the team.  This season's mistake was where, in three (almost) successive matches, Klopp employed what Bokolis would call his 0-0 lineup.  To digress, elaborate and, possibly, explain myself:

Klopp mostly fields a 4-3-3 formation.  In a 4-3-3, not only are you always supposed to be attacking, the idea is to get the ball to your attackers as quickly as possible, leaving the opposition defenders without midfield support.  A 4-3-3 is meant to create imbalance, and it presumes that the side creating the imbalance would be in better position to deal with it than the more passive opponent.

Of course, the side creating the imbalance is itself imbalanced.  If you try to play defensively in a 4-3-3, you take your attackers out of the game.  You will either disconnect them because the midfielders will be too busy supporting the defense, or you will retreat to what will function as a 4-5-1 with two players playing out of position.

A 4-2-3-1 would be a better option for a more defensive setup, and it is Klopp's preferred formation.  However, neither of Salah or Mané like to play up top, and neither of them can pass worth spit.  Firmino can pass, but he is better at passing to midfielders than forwards.  And, he is certainly not fast or strong enough to be left to deal with two centre-halves focused (primarily) on him.  This is a bigger issue because Liverpool do not have a trequartista, capable of determining and exploiting the weak points of the opposition.  Henderson would do his best, and Keita is capable, but Keita took most of the season to find the right tempo, and was injured soon after he found it.  Ox could do it, but was still on his way back after tearing up his knee.

In Bokolis' 4-2-3-1, the danger is always going to be that the wingers do too much backtracking and run themselves into the ground before they can impact the attack.  The idea is that they funnel the opposition towards the holding midfielders. who would then combine with the relevant defender to destroy the buildup and have the wingers as a handy outlet after possession is gained.

This would work better with, say, Milner and Shaqiri as the wingers.  But, this only happens with Salah and Mané subbed out, and Klopp is not about to do that.  Except for protecting a late lead, for a few minutes, this formation is not viable for Liverpool.

The 4-3-3 typically involves a narrower midfield, and leaves the dirty work on the wing to the fullbacks.  While there is always room to operate on the flanks, that's where they want it.  The true way to carve up a 4-3-3 is diagonally through the middle of the park.

Because of the lack of depth at fullback, Klopp would often have to use Milner as a fullback when one of his regulars was hurt, as he had probably seen enough in his first day as coach to avoid Alberto Moreno at all costs.

Milner is Bokolis' kind of player- the proverbial man's man and pro's pro.  I have liked Milner since he was on City, even while Yaya Toure got all the praise.  From back then, I used to say that, for 60% of the time, Milner is as good a midfielder as anyone in England.  Once he played more than that, the diminishing returns would kick in and Milner would reach the cracking point and become somewhat less effective.  If Liverpool have to burn Milner at fullback, not only are they missing him in midfield, but he's that much closer to cracking.  It should've been known to them, as we saw it late last season.

What's worse, the demands placed on the fullbacks in a 4-3-3 make it a far more demanding position for Milner.  Thanks to the all-around mastery of Virgil van Dijk, Robinson and Alexander-Arnold got into minimal trouble from constantly bombing forward.  While Milner is still in top shape, he is not as fast as either regular fullback, and had a bear of a time dealing with fast wingers when filling in for them.  It was his experience- he knows when to hit, when to foul, when to take a yellow card, and when to win the ball- that allowed him to be effective.



Faced with these imperfect scenarios, Klopp would compromise and field a 4-3-3 with three defensively-minded midfielders, which Bokolis would tell my friends- before the game- was his 0-0 lineup.  This involved Henderson, Wijnaldum and Fabinho in midfield.  While not afraid to get forward, Fabinho is a decidedly defensively minded midfielder.  Once he found the pace of the team, he became a fixture, as he has a captain's level of understanding.  Wijnaldum, on Liverpool anyway, is a worker bee who is comfortable and can contribute in attack, but he does not himself create in attack.  Of the three, Henderson is easily the most capable of creating in attack and can score himself.  That said, his most visible contributions are more often when he is strong on the man with ball, turning over possession.

Klopp fielded these three in matches against Bayern Munich (2/19), at manchester united (2/24) and at Everton (3/3).  Granted, in the Bayern match, it was the first leg and Fabinho was at centre-half because Virgil van Dijk was out, so Klopp felt he had to favor his defense.  At manchester united, who were reaching the end of an extended new coach honeymoon, he had to put Milner at left back because Trent Alexander-Arnold was out, so he again fielded a midfield that favored his defense.

Both of those matches ended 0-0, with Liverpool looking punchless.  For the intervening match against Watford (2/27), Klopp came to his senses, and was rewarded accordingly.

Therefore, the most egregious mistake was fielding the 0-0 lineup of Fabinho, Wijnaldum and Henderson in midfield against Everton, despite having seen what it got him against Bayern and against united, despite having struggled for goals in the reverse fixture against Everton while still fumbling around with formation and rotation, despite fielding the strongest back line.

As with united and Bayern, Liverpool were listless against Everton.

It turned out that this would be the tipping point, as both Liverpool and City won all of their remaining matches.  Bokolis would like to tell you that this lineup was part of Klopp managing to City dropping points somewhere, like he did in the group stage.  But, it took Jordan Henderson complaining to Klopp about playing so far back to get the side back to an attacking setup.

We didn't get the League, but the Champions League was on.  The 3-0 loss in Barcelona was bitter because this isn't the Xavi, Iniesta, vamos a la fiesta vintage.  This is diving cunt Messi, (insert offense here) cunt Suarez, doesn't-fit-the-setup Coutinho, with Busquets and Pique wondering where all the cowboys have gone, kind of like the Yankees post-2001.

The striking thing about watching Barcelona at home is that they get to every loose/second ball.  When Bokolis was playing, I found this quality indicative of a side playing harder and/or smarter.  With Barcelona, it is also a function of being on the right side of refereeing decisions.  Their fans have no small part in this, as they have perfected the tactic of whingeing for calls.  They seem to anticipate when contact will occur (and their player will fall), so they are hollering before the referee has had a chance to process what he's seen.  The hollering then plays a larger role in the referee's decision-making.

While the fans are yelling, Messi and company roll around and wave invisible cards.  Barcelona commit the same (or worse) fouls, but don't get called for them at home.  Lest it seem that this is Bokolis' bitterness talking, it was even worse when Neymar was there, with both the diving/embellishing and the uncalled fouling.

It is easy, then, to draw the inference for why their play away from home in the Champions League has been god-awful these last two or three seasons; they don't get these calls.  In addition to not having the audacity to dive and/or embellish as much as they do at home, the opposing fans will also shout down their more legitimate claims.

Whether the analysis is sound or not, there was bitterness at the 3-0, but not despair.  Bokolis had these impressions of Barcelona before putting them here.  If Roma rolled them over last season, why couldn't Liverpool?  I can't say that I knew Liverpool would turn the tie around; I thought they'd likely get two goals at Anfield, that they might get a third in regulation, but I wasn't so sure that they'd also keep a clean sheet.  What we got was more than we could ask for.

If Liverpool had won the League, Bokolis wouldn't have cared about the Champions League.  Winning the League is chiefly about not having to hear the nonsense.  Without the League, the European Cup then became about Klopp no longer hearing the nonsense.  Because it was Spurs, there was no way we could lose, and no way we could live it down if we lost to the spuds.  Most of the people with whom I've become friendly through football are Arsenal supporters; I could not let them down.  As I told my friends, I only want the result, not the game.  Just give me the 3-1.

Accordingly, Bokolis watched the game with my buddy in a (half-empty) place where they know nothing about football.  While I might have yelled at home, I'm not much for screaming, and I didn't want to be in a place full of screaming Liverpool fans and I REALLY don't want to be around them if we lose.

Apparently, Klopp was also not concerned about the quality of the match, as he again fielded his 0-0 lineup.  Klopp was boxed in, as he didn't have Nabi Keita, had to save Milner for later, and he wouldn't dare trot out Ox or Shaqiri.  Ugh- he knows to let Henderson have a more advanced role, but I don't know...

This time Klopp and Liverpool lucked out by winning a penalty 26 seconds in.  Bolokis saw Mané check up after running down Henderson's pass over the top and thought, bah, you should've just shot first time this early.  The movement is over now, everyone knows you can't pass for sh...handball!?!  Penalty!

Spurs fans are insufferable, including one acquaintance who said he would go to his grave knowing that wasn't a penalty.  Remember how Bokolis said Mané was a terrible passer- he was apparently trying to float a ball into the space behind Sissoko, where Henderson was making a run and where he would've had a clear lane to one-time the soft pass from the top of the box.  Mané hit Sissoko in the chest with the pass, which deflected onto his raised arm.  It's a very unfortunate penalty, as even a perfect ball had little chance of leading to a goal-scoring opportunity, but you cannot have your hand up like you are hailing a cab, especially when you are stationary.  But, hey, delude yourself all you want.

Beyond saying that it wasn't the best-taken penalty, no one further analyzed it.  No one said a thing about Lloris basically shying away from the shot by pulling his hands away from where the ball was going.  Because Bokolis didn't want the bad energy, I also kept quiet about it.

The 0-0 lineup looks like a better idea when you basically start the match leading 1-0.  When a physically limited Harry Kane talks his way into the lineup, and a talent-limited Son Heung-min is favored over anyone, you'll generally be fine with one goal.  Son isn't horrible, but his form is so inconsistent that he is a wild card.  If you leave him alone for long enough, he might just get one past you.  Kane was nowhere, as much because his teammates couldn't get him the ball as because of his apparent lack of match fitness.  For all his time on the ball, the best Son could muster on this day was a knuckling 25-yard drive that forced a parry out of Alisson.

Spurs fans further deluded themselves in thinking that they were in the ascendency because the dominated possession.  They were allowed to hold the ball because they couldn't do much with it.  They did eventually threaten, but any anxiety was because Liverpool didn't look terribly interested in getting a second.

They got the Derek Jeter fist pump upon Salah's take, and a standing double fist-shake on Origi's late clincher.  No yelling.

Alisson- worth every penny.  van Dijk- worth every penny

YNWA