To Own or Not To Own

The Dispossessed, by Ursula K. Le Guin

        Every so often I read a novel that affects me so deeply, both emotionally and intellectually, that I think about it for months or even years after finishing it. The Dispossessed by Ursula K. Le Guin is the most recent novel that has burned itself indelibly into my mind. This could very well be the best novel I have ever read, and I implore you all to go out and buy it immediately.  It really is that good.

            

           The Dispossessed is something of a bildungsroman about a physicist named Shevek who lives on a world of self-exiled anarchists called Anarres. In years past, followers of the anarchist prophet  Odo managed to escape the beautiful yet materialistic world of Urras, founding a new and revolutionary society on Urras' moon. Shevek, a man who is equal parts idealistic, brilliant, and naive,  has developed a new theory of space-time that will allow humans to build faster-than-light starships, but his world has neither the resources nor the desire to do anything about it. Driven by his conviction that such a discovery should be shared, Shevek decides to travel to Urras, a world that has become a byword for greed and oppression on Anarres, but a world that offers his only hope of sharing his theory with people who can use it.

            

           A novel as complex as The Dispossessed explores dozens of themes, ideas, and emotions. Rather than treat them all superficially, I want to focus on two of the book's prominent topics: the idea of possessions, and the concept of walls and isolation.  Le Guin skillfully weaves these two themes into all aspects of her story, though it is with Shevek himself that their portrayal is most poignantly felt.

            

          Every person on Anarres is, technically, an exile.  While their own histories recount their glorious revolution and flight from the hedonistic world of Urras, it becomes clear later in the book that the Odonians were essentially given ships and passage to Anarres by the Urrasti ruling class in order to put an end to their constant rabble-rousing and disruption.  Though most take pleasure in their new, incredibly free, world, the Anarresti have been forced to build a society completely lacking in the kind of historical and cultural roots that people can hold on to as part of their collective identities.  The mutual anarchism they profess only works when all society's members interact and cooperate as a group, but the total freedom from laws and prescriptive (or proscriptive) rules means that each and every man and woman on Anarres is subject, ultimately, to their own conscience.  The loneliness and personal responsibility characteristic of exiled individuals is here expressed by an entire civilization that must work together to survive, but on an entire voluntary basis.  Despite its collective nature, Anarresti society is one built on subtle walls that separate individuals, ideas, and places from one another.

           

          Nowhere are these walls more apparent than around the single spaceport that links Urras and Anarres.  Le Guin begins the book by describing this wall in what could be my favourite opening to any sci-fi novel.  I'm going to quote it at length since I cannot possibly paraphrase it in a way that does and justice to Le Guin's prose:

"There was a wall. It did not look important. It was built of uncut rocks roughly mortared. An adult could look right over it, and even a child could climb it. Where it crossed the roadway, instead of having a gate it degenerated into mere geometry, a line, an idea of boundary. But the idea was real. It was important. For seven generations there had been nothing in the world more important than that wall.

Like all walls it was ambiguous, two-faced. What was inside it and what was outside it depended on which side you were on.

Looked at from one side, the wall enclosed a barren sixty-acre field called the Port of Anarres...Looked at from the other side, the wall enclosed Anarres: the whole planet inside it, a great prison camp, cut off from other worlds and other men, in quarantine."

             

          Shevek constantly encounters these subtle, yet very real, walls as he pursues his studies in theoretical physics.  Unfortunately, he finds the most impenetrable wall at the one place that he desperately needs total freedom: the university in Abennay, Anarres' biggest city.  Rather than nurture his obvious brilliance, the university bureaucracy, led by the inferior physicist Sabul, slowly and subtly ostracizes Shevek, eventually leading to his alienation from the world he loves, and to his flight to Urras.  Le Guin skilfully reveals the barriers that we build between one another while keeping her characters blind to them.  All Shevek understands is that he has become an exile within his exiled society, alienated from the castaways.  So, he decides to cross the low stone wall at the spaceport and leave the home where he no longer belongs.

            

           The incident at the university also brings into focus the theme of possessions, and our servitude to them, that forms one of the major bases of Urrasti/Anarresti difference.  Not only do the Anarresti not own things, but a disdain for ownership is one of their most important core beliefs.  Their economy is completely moneyless, people are assigned homes and jobs for short periods of time, names are recycled after a person's death, and even the language they speak has no word denoting ownership (rather than say "my hand" or "my mother" an Anarresti would say "the hand" or "the mother").  The notion that owning goods eventually leads to the goods owning you is considered proverbial and uncontroversial to the Anarresti.  While this may appear to be an overdone cliché to modern readers, its basic truth cannot be justifiably denied.  The pursuit and protection of our possessions severely limits our freedom of action in a multitude of ways, some mundane, some significant.  This limiting of personal freedom is abhorrent to the Anarresti, and they go out of their way to avoid it at all costs.

             

          The societal urge to do away with material possessions, however, leaves the Anarresti completely blind to a whole other class of goods that I'd like to call "metaphorical possessions."  Metaphorical possessions are not moveable goods or real estate, but our "ownership" of them places substantial limits to our freedom in the same sort of ways as physical goods.  The kind of things I classify under this category are abilities or circumstances that others could covet or feel jealous of, and which we would feel proud or protective of.  Examples include inherent abilities, social status, job positions, friends, families, and spouses, or anything else we consider to be "ours." While the Anarresti have successfully done away with materialism, their society suffers from this cultural blind spot.  They cannot, and do not, perceive the inherent coercive nature of their metaphorical possessions.  This is why Shevek suffers so much at the hands of Sabul at the university.  He fails to grasp the fact that Sabul is jealous of his intellect and protective of his own job.  This is not surprising given Shevek's very Odonian notion of ownership; he believes quite strongly that "you have nothing. You possess nothing. You own nothing. You are free. All you have is what you are, and what you give," and it is his devotion to this revolutionary ideal that prevents him from seeing through the wall of ideology and into his neighbours' hearts.

             

          Interestingly enough, Shevek's major conflict is centred around a possession that, depending on the society in which it exists, can be considered both material or metaphorical: his new theory of Simultaneity and Sequency that will make possible faster-than-light travel.  On Anarres Shevek makes major life choices based on the desire to share this theory with humanity as a whole.  Owning it all to himself  makes Shevek noticeably uncomfortable, but he constantly encounters walls that prevent him from sharing this gift with his people.  When he goes to Urras he comes to realize that even his intellectual production will be treated as a proprietary good by whomever he reveals it to, and will benefit only one nation or political group, forcing him to again reappraise his goals and motives.  At every step of the way his actions are both limited and determined by his possession of this theory, a situation that poignantly reveals the barriers and obstacles presented by any incomplete and ideologically-based conception of ownership.  In the end, Shevek does manage to free himself from his own self-made chains by giving his theory to humanity in general, allowing him to return home as a perfectly free Anarresti.  As the Anarresti are fond of saying, "a true journey is return."

            
          I don't think this little bit of discussion can do justice to Le Guin's supremely nuanced and compelling depiction of an "ambiguous utopia."  In fact, I've completely left out all the aspects that make it so emotionally satisfying as well.  It's so good that it has finally surpassed Dune as my favourite sci-fi novel.  For any of you who have heard me talk about sci-fi, you'll know that's a big deal.  Anyways, I hope I have inspired at least some of you to go read it.  It will be well worth your time, I promise.  And anyone who has read it, please let me know your thoughts.  Don't let some symbolic wall stand in your way.

Old Posts Give me Motivation

I want to get going on this thing again, but I feel like nothing I write is worth posting. In order to motivate me to get off my ass and start thinking again, I've decided to repost something from a few years ago. Hopefully seeing it here will shame me into adding something new. So, here goes:  

Soccer and North American Misunderstandings Wednesday, October 6, 2010. The World Cup ended almost three months ago. The final witnessed arguably the best team in the world putting on a master class in possession football that frustrated their opponents to the point of violence. The game’s only goal was a technically perfect strike by one of the most intelligent and tactically-minded players on the pitch. With the lottery of penalty kicks only moments away, Andres Iniesta floated behind the Dutch defenders and suddenly found himself with yards of open space. Cesc Fabregas pulled away with the ball and found Iniesta with a quick pass that left four defenders scrambling to catch the tiny Spaniard, who showed tremendous mental strength. Rather than allow himself to be awed by the occasion or intimidated by the attentions of half the Dutch team, Iniesta calmly controlled the ball and put away the most important goal of his life. You can watch it here.

At least, that is how I remember the World Cup’s final match. For a number of North Americans the final did nothing but reaffirm the reasons they dislike soccer in the first place. I was shocked to discover that many of my friends’ experiences of the match were vastly different from my own. Apparently, they saw a long and uneventful game that was plagued by diving, cheating, and play-acting. Iniesta, rather than being feted as a genius, was derided as the worst of a bad lot, and despised as a cheat, a con-man, a fraudster. Listening to our differing accounts, one would be forgiven for assuming that my friends and I had watched two different games. In a way, they would be right. My friends and I did see wildly different World Cup finals, and I’d like to try and examine why. Actually, that may not be entirely true. I probably will not examine this phenomenon in any sort of critical manner. My reluctance to do so is based on the very simple explanation I have to offer. I think we saw different matches because we are steeped in vastly dissimilar sporting cultures that owe allegiance to entirely irreconcilable sets of values. The banality of that explanation leaves little to examine. Instead, I think I would like to emphasize some of the various aspects of the World Cup that engendered particularly jarring instances of culture shock, both for me and for my friends who watch North American sports. What I want to do is go through some of these topics and give you my evaluation of our disparate value systems. Hopefully this will enlighten my friends as to why we cannot see eye-to-eye on these issues, and maybe help them to understand the game that the majority of the world feels so passionate about.

Diving/Cheating/Violence: The most common criticism I hear from my football and hockey watching friends is that soccer cannot be taken seriously as long as players fall around on the field pretending to be hurt. Diving, to them, is not only a serious moral offense, but also undermines the very integrity of the sport. I would like to defend the persistence of diving in soccer by highlighting the sheer silliness of the moral high ground taken by North American sporting culture. Whenever I’m confronted by the diving=cheating argument, I always stop to ask exactly what it is a professional athlete is being paid to do. The answer seems simple, right? They’re paid to play a sport that both we as fans, and they as players, love, so that we may be entertained. But this answer is slightly deficient. What athletes are really being paid to do is WIN. Organized sports are specifically designed to be a competition with clear winners and losers. This has significant consequences for the economics of sport. People want their team to win and hate being on the losing side. Teams that do well attract fans, bringing in more money with which the team can purchase or pay better talent, hopefully leading to further victories and the perpetuation of the cycle. Losing teams often see their finances dwindle as fans become apathetic or disillusioned. Winning, then, is arguably the goal of any sports team. These teams pay their players not to play a game, but to win a game. All other concerns are secondary, as could be expected from any company competing for its very survival. Diving is an activity meant specifically to achieve victory under difficult circumstances. In effect, a player that dives is doing nothing more than fulfilling the obligations of his contract. Yes, it’s against the rules, and it’s also probably morally questionable, but so are a number of other activities engaged in by professional athletes in North America that gain no similar notoriety.

Fouling another player is illegal in basketball, tripping is illegal in hockey, and holding a player’s helmet is illegal in football. All these activities are attempts to gain an advantage that are against the rules of the game. Each of them are equally morally questionable (as they’re all cheating), and each is punished if the offender is caught. Diving in soccer is no different from any of these rules violations, except in its unfamiliarity to North American audiences (note, I will not discuss the numerous times that basketball and hockey players dive, though it happens a lot more than fans of these sports would like to admit). Simulation, to give it its official name, is thus no more a strike against soccer than tripping is a strike against hockey. Furthermore, though I’ll get into this more another time, questioning the moral standing of divers is downright ridiculous. We don’t pay athletes to teach us moral lessons, we pay them to win. Apparently people are still confused about this point.

A second, and probably more fruitful way to defend diving is to equate it with fighting in hockey. This may sound silly at first, but both serve, or have served, the exact same purpose: protecting star players from injury. What many casual viewers of hockey don’t seem to realize is that fighting plays an integral role in the game. Most players understand that taking out the opposing team’s star player is a great way to increase your chance of winning. Additionally, it is often the case that any kind of penalty would be seen as worth the effort if a particularly good player could be injured or intimidated to the point of ineffectiveness. To combat this, hockey teams began to designate fighters to enforce a code of honour on opposing players. Take one too many liberties with a star player and you’d find yourself getting punched out by some goon. Until recently, this served to keep many of the rowdier players in check, and protect stars such as Wayne Gretzky and Mario Lemieux. Unfortunately, stricter rules against fighting have resulted in a greater number of injuries to star players, as the old codes no longer hold. But I digress. My point is that diving in soccer is also a means of protecting players from injury. Let me explain by using the World Cup final as a case study.

One team (Spain) uses its superior ball handling and passing skills to retain possession of the ball for extended periods of time. Alternately, a star player often uses his skills to run past or dodge around opponents, making them look inept or silly. The other team (The Netherlands) gets frustrated, tired, or both, resulting in a large number of violent, dangerous, or intentionally mistimed tackles (Witness Nigel de Jong’s kick on Xabi Alonso during the first half).  If such play, which is equally as illegal and morally abhorrent as diving, goes unpunished by the referee, then the finesse team has to take matters into their own hands. They do this by emphasizing the effects of any subsequent tackles in order to get the referee’s attention and force him to act in their defense. This is also why star players tend to dive more than others; they receive a disproportional amount of mistimed challenges, and are far more likely to be attacked out of frustration as they dribble around an opponent. Diving, in this case, acts exactly as fighting does in hockey. It helps protect players from violent play and potentially career-ending injuries. The moral argument should even come down on the side of diving in this instance. A simulated fall is far less morally abhorrent than a karate-style kick to a star player’s chest.

So, I argue that diving is a legitimate strategy aimed at protecting players from injury, and not just some silly affectation that seems to make sense to people everywhere but here. Hopefully this discussion has led you to question any notions you may have had about diving in soccer and its actual role in the game. Until next time, Forza Juventus per sempre!

Quarter-Finals Results

Soccer is a wonderful thing. Even when you think you have it figured out, the game is always ready to surprise you. Two of the Quarter-Final results did just that. My score is now 7 right and 5 wrong. Still not much better than a coin toss, and probably worse than a monkey with a dart board.

Inter breezed past CSKA Moscow with some efficient, if not spectacular performances. 1-nil at home and then away are not great results, but the Russians were no pushovers. Jose Mourinho can be happy that his side managed to NOT CHOKE for the first time I can remember. This means that Inter will meet Barcelona in the semis; a match that I am confident will provide the tournament’s eventual winner.

Barcelona took Arsenal apart, as expected, on the back of Lionel Messi’s sublime performance. If there is any debate about who Maradonna’s successor really is, it can now be put to rest. Messi’s four goals against Arsenal (including a first half hat-trick) provided further proof that this is the best player in the world. Let’s just hope that he shows up in South Africa this summer.

Lyon managed to get past Bordeaux on the back of a convincing 3-1 victory at home. This one really disappointed me. I was betting on Bordeaux making it all the way to the finals. Unfortunately for me, Lyon was just too organized in the second leg to let their Ligue-1 rivals make up the deficit. I don’t think anyone expected Lyon to go this far, so I don’t feel too bad about picking them to be out by now.

The most surprising outcome was Bayern Munich beating Manchester United on away goals. The Bavarians have surprised me every round this year, and I think I’m finished with betting against them. I will say, however, that I felt that Wayne Rooney would be the difference, and I was proved right. I have no doubt that the injury ruling him out of the second leg was the turning point here. Congratulations Bayern, you really stunned the world here.

So, for the first time in quite a while, there is not a single English team in the Semi-Finals. However, I don’t feel, as some do, that this presages a long term drop in quality of the Premiership. Most of Europe’s money and top players still reside in England, and the league’s internal parity is getting to be quite good. I think this year’s results reflect success on Platini’s part. His new policies aimed at leveling out the game at the top levels seems to be working. Hopefully this trend will continue. Nobody wants to see a final with two teams from the same country ever again; all three of them I’ve seen have sucked.

Alright, I will return with Semi-Final predictions. Hopefully they will be more fantastic than my last batch. Ciao.

Sci-Fi Discussions Part 1: Genre Definition

Hi Blog world. I put this thing up and then started to ignore it. I need to find a way to discipline myself into writing on a fairly regular basis. So, I’m going to try writing on the subject about which I do the most thinking: science fiction. For my first installment, I’m going to talk about defining the genre. Later on I’ll probably go into the literature a bit more, and deal with some of the more interesting ideas and issues it raises. Hopefully.

How do we start to define a literature as rich and varied as science fiction? There is no easy answer to this question. Longtime readers usually have the ability to tell you if something is sci-fi once they’ve read it, but this hardly seems sufficient. Neither does the conception that specific story elements necessarily define the genre. Not all sci-fi is about aliens, ray guns, and robots. Equally useless is the idea that science fiction can be defined as a genre that predicts future technologies or that it relies for its definition on some sort of technological or scientific expertise on the part of the author. This is just a list of definition I have heard in conversations, and is by no means exhaustive. However, I think it is representative of many peoples’ notions concerning the genre as a whole. So, people have ideas that I think are wrong; what about a definition already?

I must admit to you right now that I don’t think I have a very clear definition of science fiction, but I do have a few ideas that may help us think about what to include in the genre and what to exclude. The first is a pragmatic one. I forget which sci-fi author it was, but one of them said, “Science fiction is whatever you point to and say ‘That’s science fiction.’” Though such an inclusive answer may not be satisfying, it certainly has merit. Readers of the genre, as I mentioned above, have an intuitive notion of what belongs and what doesn’t. While such individual perceptions may be extremely diverse, I think it’s possible to use the science fiction community’s intuitions to achieve some sort of consensus. If the Hugo or Nebula awards consider a book, it’s obviously sci-fi, right? Admittedly, the readers and authors have been conditioned by previous readers and authors to think that certain types of stories belong, and certain types don’t. Still, I think that this inclusive and intuitive approach is a good starting point because it is based on the self-perceptions of a literary community that has been around for quite some time. If they can’t tell us what sci-fi is, who can?

Another useful idea is that of the novum. Unfortunately, I forgot which literary scholar coined this term. I will try to find out though. A novum is, as the name suggests, something new. According to this idea, science fiction can be defined by its use of technologies, creatures, social problems, political situations etc. that do not now exist. Add an alien, and you have sci-fi. Talking robots? Yup, that’s in. Faster than light space travel? Ok, we’ve got sci-fi. You get the picture. While this idea helps science fiction define itself against literary fiction, it fails completely in differentiating sci-fi from fantasy and other forms of speculative fiction. However, combine the novum with the above-mentioned pragmatic approach, and I think we are starting to develop a decent definition.

An additional idea, one similar to the novum, is that of cognitive estrangement. Again, I can’t remember whose idea this is, and so I can’t reference his work. What an awful historian I am. Cognitive estrangement is the process in which you come to understand that the story you are reading cannot, or is not meant to, take place in the real world that you inhabit. I find this a more useful notion than that of the novum because it rules out some of the stranger pieces of literary fiction, like Fight Club, for example. It also allows us to leave historical fiction out, while still including stories about alternative histories. While the events depicted in historical fiction most likely never occurred, the setting is clearly meant to be well within the real world. Cognitive estrangement does quite a bit to sharpen our definition of science fiction in opposition to other literatures. Its weakness, however, still lies in the fact that it can also be used to define fantasy. So, let’s deal with that now.

The line between fantasy and science fiction seems always to have been permeable. Even longtime readers of both genres have a hard time placing some stories within one or the other category. This surely has something to do with the silliness involved in defining genres at all (Yes, I said it. This whole post is kinda silly). It also has to do with the shared history of the two genres. Both readers and writers flip back and forth all the time and certain novels (such as American Gods) can end up in either section at bookstores. Some people just count the two together and call it a day. I, however, want to make a distinction.

I propose that the difference between science fiction and fantasy is that sci-fi tends to attempt to explain its novums (nova? novae?) with science that is at least plausible given what we know at the time of writing, while fantasy tends to accept its novums at face value without attempting to justify them. Faster than light travel aside, I think this definition holds up in a great number of cases. I understand that it is also just plain wrong in many cases as well. It does, though, allow us to justify the word ‘science’ without resort to reliance on technological storylines, and so I will continue to use it.

In the end, what we have is still an undefined genre. We seem to be left with a definition like: “literature that’s got weird stuff in it, but it’s kinda explained, and the fans know what it is.” If you think that means I’ve wasted your time, then you should have stopped reading a few paragraphs ago. I hope, though, that this discussion adds something to somebody’s conception of what exactly constitutes science fiction. Just don’t hate on my lack of solid conclusions.

Next time I will be discussing a more reflections about the genre by some of its authors, and maybe some other stuff. Thanks for reading. Ciao.

Champions League Quarter Finals

My current tally for the knockout rounds is 5 right and 3 wrong. Hopefully I can improve on that for the Quarter Finals. I can’t imagine it will be all that hard, given the draw, but the wonderful thing about soccer is that anything can happen.

Inter vs CSKA Moscow. Prediction: Inter. Everything I said about Mourinho being the best coach in the world is still true. Add that to an excellent team that just dominated Chelsea in the last round, and you see why Inter will be gliding through to the semi-finals. Don’t get me wrong, I dislike Inter with all the intensity of a good Juve fan, but they’re not going to be stopped by this overachieving Russian side.

Barcelona vs Arsenal. Prediction: Barcelona. I can’t wait to watch this rematch of the 2006 Champions’ League final. Unfortunately for Arsenal, however, the results will most likely be exactly the same. Sure, Jens Lehman isn’t going to get a red card for being a psychopath, leaving his team a man down for the majority of the game. And sure, Thierry Henry is probably not going to score against his former teammates. Still, Barca is too much for Wenger’s boys to handle. It will be a great match, but Arsenal will be sent packing.

Bayern Munich vs Manchester United. Prediction: Man U. Just like the Arsenal-Barca match, this one will be exciting. However, only one team has Wayne Rooney. United may struggle to win in Bavaria, but I have no doubt that they will cruise to victory at Old Trafford. Sorry Bayern, your time is up.

Lyon vs Bordeaux. Prediction: Bordeaux. AT first I was angry when I saw this pairing. Two teams from the same country meeting before the semi-finals seems wrong to me. Then I realized that this means a French team is guaranteed to make it to the last four, something that has not happened for many years, and I was relieved. While these two teams have proven themselves in France, neither has a great record on the European stage. I am going to choose Bordeaux for two reasons. First, they knocked Juventus out of the group stage. If the team that beat us wins the Cup, then I won’t feel too bad. Second, Bordeaux will have a fully recovered French Player of the Year (Yoann Gourcuff) by the time this match begins, and I think that will tip the balance between these two domestic rivals.

Alright, let’s hope I do better than 50% this time. Ciao.

Round of 16 Results

After watching the Round of 16, I feel pretty good about the selections I made. I successfully predicted 5 of the 8 matches. Of the 3 I got wrong, I think I was totally justified with two of them. Only with Arsenal should I have known better. In any case, let’s review the second-leg games and the eventual winners.

Bordeaux beat Olympiacos in a game that was far more difficult than it needed to be. They let their guard down in the second half and were treated to a very tense twenty or so minutes in which Olympiacos looked capable of achieving an unlikely upset. However, the Greek side’s poor goalkeeping and defending finally allowed Chamakh the space and time he needed to put in a brilliant header. Unfortunately for Bordeaux, this match revealed just how reliant they are on Gourcuff. While he is clearly the best player in France, he is still coming off an injury, and is not at peak fitness. His goal from a set-piece in the first half, and the intermittent flashes of brilliance he displayed aside, he looked out of shape for long portions of the match. If Bordeaux want to get any farther in this tournament they will have to take some of the pressure off of Gourcuff and give him time to work his magic. In all, I wasn’t surprised to get this one right.

Barcelona beat the daylights out of Stuttgart, as I predicted, but there is little for me to say. Lionel Messi is one of the most exciting strikers in the world, and Barca’s attacking display was just too much for the Germans to handle. This one was never really in doubt.

I am glad that CSKA Moscow managed to squeak past Sevilla in Spain. Russian football has been improving every season for three or four years now, and it’s about time a Russian team did well in the Champions’ League. That being said, this one was close, and really could have gone either way.

Inter finally managed to defeat English opposition in the most anticipated matchup of this round. Now, I think I need to justify choosing Inter to go through, despite their habit of choking in this competition. The difference between Chelsea and Inter can be summed up in two words: Jose Mourinho. Mourinho has given this team the psychological edge that they have been lacking since the late 1960s. He can convince his players that they are the best in the world, and they usually justify his praise with excellent performances. Just listen to his post-game interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K93ZcpbE7lo. Also, full marks for the Chelsea fans for chanting his name before the match. I think they know they lost someone ‘special.’

Man U beat Milan, which is no surprise to anyone who has seen both these teams play this season. Milan are both too slow, and too old to continue to compete at the highest level. They need a full makeover next season. Keep Pato, Pirlo, and Abbiati, and lose everyone else. Meanwhile, Wayne Rooney is having the season of his life. With more space up front now that Ronaldo has left, Rooney is really coming into his own. All the potential we saw in him during the 2004 Euro Cup is finally asserting itself. England’s opponents at the World Cup this June had better keep an eye on him, as he just may help break the cycle of English disappointment.

Ok, now for the three matchups I got wrong. Bayern Munich beat Fiorentina on away goals. I think the away goals rule is ridiculous, and so I don’t feel bad about getting this one wrong. Lyon managed to beat Real Madrid, proving once again that the Galacticos strategy is destined to failure. For this macth, I saw two teams that never make it past the Round of 16 regardless of their domestic form, and picked the team with the better players. Again, I don’t feel bad about picking the losers here.

The Arsenal match, however, was my big mistake. Arsenal always wins when I pick their opponents. Last year’s victory over a superior Roma side in penalties exemplifies this fact. This year, however, I should have known better. They outplayed Porto during both legs, and only lost the first due to some terrible refereeing (by the ref who missed the Henry hand-ball against Ireland). Congrats Arsenal, you proved me wrong again. I can’t shake the feeling that somewhere Nick Hornby is saying “I told you so.”

That’s it for the Round of 16. Tune in next time when I make my picks for the quarter finals. Don’t worry, this time I’ll get them all right.

Champions League Round of 16

I wrote this before the games started and posted it on Facebook. I wanted to post it here as well so that I have a very public record of the mistakes I made in predicting these matches.

Every year when the knockout rounds of the Champions League begin I somehow make my predictions public. Usually this enables people to make fun of my idiocy, but sometimes my clairvoyance allows me to gloat. Hopefully, this year’s picks will lead to the second option.

Olympique Lyonnais vs Real Madrid: This one seems pretty easy. Despite winning the French Ligue 1 seven years in a row, Lyon always struggled in European competition. This year they are not even close to the top of the standings, a situation that does not bode well for their Champions League chances. Real Madrid, after some early season struggles, have proved themselves to be serious contenders. Of course, any team that owns Kaka, Ronaldo, and Benzema had better be competitive. The only difficulty I can foresee is Madrid’s tendency to choke when the pressure is on. This stems from their Galacticos strategy. Buying a team rather than developing one often leaves you with a disjointed group of great players, rather than a coherent side. Squads like this often have problems working together under tough circumstances. However, in this case I doubt they will have too many problems. Prediction: Real Madrid.

AC Milan vs Manchester United: This matchup may be one of the most exciting of the year. Regardless of current form, these two teams always provide spectacular attacking displays and tightly contested games. Milan has the advantage considering past meetings (I think) but I’m not sure they have what it takes to repeat their performance of a few years back when they hammered United on the way to the Champions League title. Ronaldinho has not provided the same creativity and attacking flair that Milan had with Kaka, and Pato’s goal-scoring antics in the Serie A have not been repeated in European competition. United, on the other hand, seem to be on a roll, especially after beating the daylights out of Arsenal in London on Sunday. In addition, Nemnja Vidic, Rio Ferdinand, and youngster Johnny Evans are looking unbeatable in defense. Prediction: Manchester United.

FC Porto vs Arsenal: This one is hard for me to call since I haven’t seen very much of either of these two teams this season. Based on the group stage performances, I would have to go with Porto, who finished very close to Chelsea, while Arsenal struggled to win the easiest group. However, given their domestic form, I would have to choose Arsenal, who are inching closer towards Manchester United and Chelsea at the top of the table. History favours Porto, since they won this tournament before, while Arsenal has only ever lost in the finals. Also, every year a Portuguese team makes a surprise run at the title, and Porto has to be that team since they are the only squad from Portugal left. They are well organized, can score goals, and, significantly, I like them better. Prediction: FC Porto.

Bayern Munich vs Fiorentina: This may turn out to be a rather close tie. Bayern has regained their position at the top of the Bundesliga, and they got through the group stage in an incredibly devastating (for me) 4-1 victory away at Juventus. They also beat Fiorentina in the UEFA cup the last time these two teams met. As long as Frank Ribery stays fit, Bayern will be hard to stop. On the other hand, Fiorentina’s performances in the group stage were excellent, particularly their defeat of Liverpool, perennial English favourites. Fiorentina has one of the best coaches in the world in Cesare Prandelli, and one of the best forwards in Europe in Alberto Gilardino. In fact, Gilardino single-handedly pulled Italy through a tough World Cup qualifying campaign with his last minute goals, including a 12-minute hat-trick at home to Cyprus. I see this not as Fiorentina vs Bayern, but Gilardino vs Ribery. Prediction: Fiorentina.

Stuttgart vs Barcelona: This may be the easiest to call, so I won’t analyze it very much. Stuttgart have been performing above expectations, but Barcelona are just too good. Lionel Messi is probably the best player in the world right now, and I can’t see him failing to prove it against the Germans. Barring a huge upset, there is no contest here. Prediction: Barcelona.

Olympiacos vs Girondins de Bordeaux: This is another one that is easy to call. Olympiacos just don’t have the talent to compete with this Bordeaux side. They are leading Ligue 1 by a decent margin and easily topped a group containing Juventus and Bayern Munich. Yoann Gourcuff is looking like the best player in France right now, and he has scored a few goals that are already classics. Like I said, there is no contest here. Prediction: Bordeaux.

CSKA Moscow vs Sevilla: To me this is a toss-up. I haven’t really seen either team play more than one game this season, and there wasn’t much to separate them. CSKA did, however, give Manchester United a run for their money. I think I’m going to go with my heart here and pick the former Red Army team. Prediction: CSKA Moscow.

Internazionale vs Chelsea: If I don’t get to see this game, I am going down to the local television stations and starting a fight with whoever buys their soccer matches. Seriously. I don’t know what the most exciting aspect to look forward to is. Jose Mourinho going up against his old team? Jose vs Ancelotti (come on, Mourinho called him a “spineless animal, like a jellyfish”)? The 1st place Italian team facing off against their English counterparts? Drogba vs Eto’o? Essien vs Muntari? How will the Chelsea morale be after John Terry was discovered sleeping with a teammate’s wife? Will Mario Balotelli fight anyone for taking a dive? There are just too many storylines here to miss. Alright, I know I haven’t compared the teams, but I’m going to pick anyways. Just make sure you watch this one. Prediction: Inter.

Right, I will report back after the round of 16 with the results, and my pick for the quarter finals. I hope I fare better than last year when I chose the teams I liked rather than the ones I thought would win. Why do I always like the underdog?