Or: Damn you, Pippo Inzaghi

Ok, let's get the bitterness out of the way right off the top:

• Milan's first goal was deflected in off Inzaghi's arm. In other words, handball. In other words, it should never have counted.
• The ref blew his whistle to end the game before stoppage time was up. So much for that little announcement, "There will be a minimum of three minutes' extra time." Or the fact that there'd been a substitution in stoppage time, which should have been even more time added on.
• And that was just the final straw in a game that featured some rather biased refereeing. How many 50/50 decisions went against Liverpool? (If I was really bitter, I would wonder how much Berlusconi paid the ref. But I'm not that bitter. Quite.)

I'm not really disappointed in the team, but I'm disappointed for them. I thought they did well to get as far as they did, and they were the better team for most of the match. They shut down Milan's midfield quite effectively -- which was the key to their game plan -- and they created way more chances on goal. The problem, as it's been so often this season, was that they couldn't convert any of those chances.

Rafa went with a 4-5-1 formation, which I didn't predict but I actually preferred. With the right players, it can actually be a much more attacking set-up than 4-4-2. But it depends a lot on having quality wingers. Liverpool had...Jermaine Pennant and Bolo Zenden. Yeah. They both worked hard, but Zenden doesn't have the legs to be a true winger, and Pennant, although he was helped out by Jankulovski having a nightmare of a game, needs to do some serious work on his crossing (seriously, please sit him down with a David Beckham highlight reel so that he can learn to put a dangerous ball into the box rather than hanging it up every time).

The other thing is you need somebody who's effective as a lone striker. Whereas in this game, on one side, we had Alessandro Nesta, reminding us that the list of hotshot Italian centre-halves does not begin and end with Fabio Cannavaro, and Paolo Maldini, who I've concluded is some kind of ageless creature who feeds on the blood of virgins (insert Kaka joke here). On the other, we had Dirk Kuyt. That's not even close. Again, he worked hard -- and even scored a late consolation -- but that's not enough over 90 minutes. Liverpool could badly use a top-class finisher, and they've been struggling to fill that role ever since Michael Owen left.

Normally Steven Gerrard is the player you expect to pop up with the game-winning goals, and he had a few decent chances yesterday -- particularly that one where he was in alone on Dida and didn't place the ball quite right to squeeze it past the keeper, which I'm sure he'll be kicking himself over for months. It just wasn't happening.

Whereas Milan, who only had a handful of shots, got a couple of lucky breaks and made the most of them. Their first goal was from a free kick in a dangerous position, but I'm confident that Pepe Reina would have saved it if not for the deflection. The second came late in the game, with Liverpool throwing everybody forward for an equalizer, as Kaka, freed up by Javier Mascherano being subbed off, slipped the ball through the Liverpool defence to Inzaghi -- who was onside for possibly the first time in his entire life -- to kill the game off. (oh, that, and a nice display of time-wasting after he took a ball to the stomach. Suck it up, you rat-faced little bastard.)

I've seen some post-game criticism of Rafa's tactics, but I think he got it right, for the most part. Playing five across midfield meant that they were able to close Milan down quickly and not give them time to play, while also freeing up Gerrard, although he couldn't reproduce his Istanbul heroics this time around. Rafa probably could have made his substitutions a bit earlier (and I'm still confused by Arbeloa on for Finnan, frankly), but overall he did the best he could with somewhat limited resources -- i.e., Bolo Zenden. I thought Harry Kewell looked like a better option when he came on, but starting him would have been a big gamble. The result just highlights the areas they have to invest in over the summer.

I would dearly love to ignore all the hoo-ha about this game being a rematch of the 2005 final, but let's be realistic. Even leaving aside the hype, both teams are unquestionably going to be influenced by the result that night, with both sides hoping to learn from their mistakes then.

So I'll say the same things now as everyone did two years ago: I expect it to be a cagey, low-scoring game, with both teams being very cautious. That all goes out the window if Milan score in the first two minutes again, but Liverpool's defence looks stronger this year, simply by virtue of the fact that it no longer includes Djimi Traore. (I kid, but actually I'm not sure who Liverpool should be starting at left-back; probably Jon Arne Riise, although that depends on whether they've got anyone else fit to play on the left of midfield.) And Milan's strike force looks weaker, after the departures of Crespo and Shevchenko.

Key matchups

• Pippo Inzaghi vs. the Liverpool back line: Carlo Ancelotti's biggest selection dilemma is probably whether to pick Inzaghi or Alberto Gilardino to start up front. I'm leaning towards Inzaghi, because he's got more experience and is a better finisher than Gila. But the Liverpool offside trap is a thing of beauty and a joy forever, and I want to Jamie Carragher swatting Pippo around like a fly.
• Kaka vs. Mascherano: You can't neglect the rest of their midfield, but containing Kaka is obviously vital if you want to contain Milan. United didn't have the resources to do this -- in fact, they didn't even try, if you believe Sir Alex's claim that they decided not to man-mark him -- and it cost them dearly. Liverpool won't make the same mistake, and in Javier Mascherano they have the right man for the job. In 2005, bringing on Didi Hamann at halftime to anchor the midfield completely changed the game for Liverpool, and Mascherano, with the experience of playing against Kaka for Argentina, will be expected to do the same here.
• Gerrard vs. Gattuso: Captain Fantastic vs. the man he's referred to as a kitten. Both players are the heart of their team and will run themselves into the ground to win, although they play a very different style. Gattuso is a terrier, snapping at the ankles of opponents, while Gerrard is...well, Animal from the Muppets is still the best analogy I've managed to come up with. Plus the ability to score 30-yard screamers and send commentators into hysterics. RAAAAAAAAAAR.
• Alonso vs. Pirlo: Both deep-lying playmakers, so they probably won't spend a lot of the game going up against each other directly. But in both cases, their ability to find space and pick out a teammate with a pass is vital to how their team performs. Alonso has been dropped for a few games recently, including the second leg of the semi-final, but I expect him to be back against Milan, where retaining possession is more crucial than it was against Chelsea.
• Liverpool's toothless strikers vs. Milan's ageless defence: I really have no idea who's going to start up front for Liverpool, or whether they'll be able to unlock the Italians' defence. Let's face it, Paolo Maldini is hardly going to be panicked by the sight of Peter Crouch, no matter how discombobulating his robot dance may be. I kind of lean towards starting Dirk Kuyt, who may not have much pace but always works hard and may be able to wear them out. Crouch is probably their best finisher, though -- and in that department, they're no worse off than they were in 2005, with Baros and Cisse playing like headless chickens in front of goal.
• Reina vs. Dida: Pepe Reina has had some shaky moments for Liverpool, particularly earlier in the year, but compared to Dida, he's a model of consistency. He's become much more confident and dependable over the course of the season, and if the game comes down to penalties again, having Reina between the posts will be a massive advantage for Liverpool, after his performances in the semi-final and in the FA Cup final last year.

Injury news
Harry Kewell has apparently recovered from his long-standing injury problems just in time for Liverpool, so he may get the chance to limp off before halftime in yet another cup final. (It's okay, Harry, I still like you, especially now that you've chopped off that idiotic ponytail.) Bolo Zenden is a doubt, having knacked his ankle in training, which is probably bad news for Rafa but good news as far as I'm concerned.

For Milan, Paolo Maldini and his 138-year-old knees are expected to be fit enough to partner Alessandro Nesta in the centre of defence, although I suspect that he may not be able to last the full 90 minutes. Milan rested their entire first team for their Serie A game this weekend, so they should be fresh, but then Liverpool have essentially been resting for the past three weeks, judging by their performances against Fulham et al.

Team predictions
Attempting to predict Rafa's lineups is always a crapshot, but nevertheless...

• Milan: Dida; Oddo, Nesta, Maldini, Jankulovski; Pirlo, Gattuso; Ambrosini, Kaka, Seedorf; Inzaghi
• Liverpool: Reina; Finnan, Carragher, Agger, Arbeloa; Gerrard, Alonso, Mascherano, Riise; Crouch, Kuyt

I'm not even going to try to predict the outcome, and I'm trying not to be either too pessimistic or too optimistic here. That game in Istanbul is what made me fall in love with the team in the first place -- not really the fact that they won, but more the way that they won it. Liverpool never seem to do things the easy way, and I expect Athens to be another emotional rollercoaster.

Well. That kind of sucked. And I'm not just saying that because my team lost. But the game seemed kind of anti-climactic, with both teams seeing it as nothing more than a consolation prize. And it was roughly one-tenth as exciting as last year's final between Liverpool and West Ham.

I've seen various comments blaming the pitch at Wembley for the dullness of the game, and it may have been a factor, but I think the real problem is that Sir Alex got his tactics wrong. United lined up in a 4-5-1 to match Chelsea's formation -- which means that they essentially played right into the opposition's hands. Trying to out-Chelsea Chelsea is hardly ever a good idea; Liverpool can do it, yes, but United aren't designed that way.

Plus, using Wayne Rooney as the lone striker nullified one of their biggest assets. Rooney's at his best not when he's playing with his back to goal but when he has some room to run at the defence and get up a head of steam. He made a few surging runs where you could see the potential, but generally he didn't have enough support from the rest of the team, and although he worked hard, he inevitably got frustrated.

As for the supposed Player of the Year...Ronaldo wasn't terrible, but he didn't have a great game either. Paulo Ferreira, who was covering him most of the time, did play reasonably well, but Ronaldo still ought to have been able to do more against him. I think this is what Ronaldo needs to add to his game next season: learning how to cope when the defenders are trying to stifle him, and to step up in the really big games. Although he's been absolutely brilliant in some matches, he hasn't been consistent enough when it counts. But I think he's a smart enough player -- and Sir Alex is a smart enough manager -- that he'll figure it out, just like this season he figured out how much more effective he could be if he stayed on his feet.

There weren't that many notable incidents in the game, but the big one, of course, was that play where Giggs forced the ball -- and Petr Cech -- into the net. And I hate to admit it, but I think the referee got it right. First things first, the ball was definitely over the line. But it was only over the line because of the way Giggs slid into Cech. I suppose then maybe it should've been a free kick for Chelsea, but it wasn't an intentional foul. Now, United are claiming they should have had a penalty, for Essien tackling Giggs from behind. But I've watched the replay a few times now, and I'm not sure there was enough contact to give a penalty. I do think it put Giggs off, though, just enough that he scuffed his shot -- if he'd connected cleanly, then it almost certainly would have been a goal.

I'd predicted before the game that it would probably go to penalties, and I was almost right. Drogba finally broke the stalemate for Chelsea five minutes from the end of extra time, playing a neat one-two with Lampard -- quite possibly the first useful thing Lampard had done in 120 minutes of football, if you exclude smashing a free kick into the wall and looking huffy -- and then clipping the ball over Van der Sar (who arguably could have done better in coming out to close him down). If anybody was going to score for Chelsea, you just knew it was going to be Drogba; he lifted them yet again here, just as he's done all year.

So. A disappointing way to end the season for United, but I still think I'd take the Premiership title over the two cups.

I should be more excited about this game. But with United and Chelsea knocked out of the Champions League and the last game between them turning out to be meaningless, it's hard to remember that they are still fighting for something. The quadruple and the treble are out of reach, but both teams will be trying for the double and -- perhaps more importantly -- hoping to deny the other the same. (Although Chelsea's would only be a measly little cup double anyway.) With that background, I expect it to be a nasty, chippy sort of grudge match that eventually gets decided on penalties.

Injury news
Gary Neville's ongoing ankle problem means he won't be able to lead the team out on Saturday. Louis Saha is also out with a knee injury (and rumour has it that Alex Ferguson is not best pleased about him being injured yet again). Rio Ferdinand and Nemanja Vidic should be back in the lineup after having been rested in the past couple of games.

For Chelsea, Richardo Carvalho, Andriy Shevchenko, Michael Ballack and his bone chip in a jar are all definitely out. Ashley Cole, Arjen Robben and Jon Obi Mikel are doubtful as well. The number of injuries means that Jose Mourinho has half-threatened to use Hilario as a substitute striker, although it's more likely that he'll name one of the young players like Ben Sahar on the bench.

Tactics:
Most of United's lineup picks itself. I expect Patrice Evra to come back into the team at left-back in place of the erratic Gabriel Heinze, and Wes Brown to get the nod at right-back ahead of John O'Shea. The question is how Sir Alex decides to arrange his attackers -- whether he'll start Alan Smith up front or use Wayne Rooney as a lone striker. I'd prefer to see the former, but as part of a standard 4-4-2, rather than the 4-2-3-1 they've used recently. That means playing Ryan Giggs wide on the left, not tucked in behind the strikers -- for the simple reason that Chelsea tend to be stronger through the middle, so I think it makes sense to use the wings as much as possible.

Jose Mourinho's squad is harder to predict, both because of their injury problems and because, well, it's Mourinho. He'd probably name Gullit the Yorkie among the substitutes if he could. Anyway, the absence of Carvalho is the biggest blow to Chelsea because it weakens both their defence and their midfield, with Michael Essien probably dropping back to partner John Terry at centre-half. That leaves a spot in midfield for Makelele, and I expect Mikel to start too -- he's claimed that he'll be fit -- although he could be substituted early for Robben or Wright-Phillips. The injuries to Ballack and Shevchenko aren't such a big deal (except to Roman Abramovich), as it gives them a reason to revert back to last year's 4-3-3 formation.

Team predictions:
Manchester United: Van der Sar; Brown, Ferdinand, Vidic, Evra; Ronaldo, Scholes, Carrick, Giggs; Rooney, Smith. Subs: Kuszczak, Heinze, O'Shea, Fletcher, Solskjaer.

Chelsea: Cech; Ferreira, Essien, Terry, Bridge; Makelele, Mikel, Lampard, J. Cole*; Drogba, Kalou. Subs: Cudicini, Boulahrouz, A. Cole, Wright-Phillips, Robben.

*I've put Joe Cole in the lineup even though I don't see him on the squad list on the BBC website. I assume that's just an oversight, but if he doesn't start, it'll probably be SWP.

Now that Glenn Roeder has stepped down and Sam Allardyce is conveniently also out of a job, there's been a lot of speculation linking Allardyce with St. James's Park. I don't much like Allardyce or the team he put together at Bolton, but I think that he could be good for the club -- and they'd be good for him, too.

It's no secret that Big Sam has been aiming for a bigger job than the one he had. But he didn't get the England job, and he wasn't likely to make the jump from Bolton to one of the top four teams anytime soon. Newcastle may be below Bolton in the league table right now, but nevertheless it's a natural progression. They still think of themselves as a "big club," and with their resources and fan support, they should be challenging for the European places every year.

And that's no less than their fans expect, which raises the question of how Allardyce will cope with 50,000 Geordies analyzing his every decision. He's going to be under a lot more scrutiny than he ever was at the Reebok -- and he doesn't strike me as the sort of person who likes being second-guessed. But if he doesn't let that bother him, and he can bring out the club's potential, then it would be an excellent opportunity for him to enhance his reputation.

Part of that reputation, at the moment, is tied to Bolton's image as a long-ball club. And I think that Newcastle fans want their team to entertain a bit (and not just the sadistic, "how will they fuck it up this time?" kind of entertainment) rather than just to grind out wins. So would Allardyce impose the same tactics that he did at Bolton, or would he adapt to the new situation? (Right now I'm trying to picture wee Michael Owen fighting to win headers against some giant centre-half, and laughing a lot.)

I think it would also be interesting to see how the club takes to Allardyce's Prozone-and-psychologists approach to management. He's been doing a good job of coaxing performances out of some aging legs at Bolton; applying the same methods at Newcastle couldn't hurt, what with their apparently chronic injury problems.

Of course, there are a few other names being linked with the Newcastle job, most notably Gerard Houllier and Sven-Goran Eriksson. The biggest issue for any manager, though, is probably whether or not he can persuade Michael Owen to hang around for next season, rather than using the escape clause in his contract and running to a Champions League team as fast as his little legs can take him.

That was the chant from the Toronto FC fans at their home opener on Saturday.

Unfortunately, it didn't work, as the only goal came from Eddie Johnson for the Kansas City Wizards. Toronto are still waiting to find the net for the first time this season. Johnson, meanwhile, made the mistake of celebrating in front of one of the rowdier bunches of Toronto fans (although, to be fair, I don't think there were any Kansas City supporters in the stadium). Whereupon they threw beer on him. Canadian fans = all class.

Toronto had looked like the better team for the first hour or so, but they weren't able to capitalize on any of their chances. The midfielders in particular worked hard but the final ball to the strikers was just horrible. I don't think I saw them put in a decent cross in the entire 90 minutes -- and this is especially useless if you're playing with Danny "bad touch for a big man" Dichio up front. It left Alecko Eskandarian -- who I think has been one of their better players so far -- foraging for scraps. At the back, the defence had some gaping holes, but they were able to cover reasonably well until the last quarter of the game, when their usual problem of lack of stamina caught up with them and they let Kansas City through.

Despite the result, it was Toronto's best game so far -- when you've been giving up three or four every time, a one-goal loss doesn't look so bad. And the experience of being at the game was fantastic. It was supposedly a sell-out crowd; I did see some empty seats in the stands across from us, but then again, maybe they were all just stuck waiting in line somewhere. (There were massive lineups for everything, with the fortuitous exception of the women's washrooms.) The crowd support was great: they kept up the noise level all game, and the stands were a sea of red. The club made a smart decision by giving out TFC scarves to season ticketholders along with their tickets to the first game -- so that's three-quarters of the crowd right there. Plus the vast majority of people were wearing red jerseys. Although not all of those were Toronto jerseys -- I saw a lot of Man United, Liverpool, England, Arsenal, as well as a smattering of random teams like Celtic and Inter.

The stadium set-up looks good, too. Our seats were near the 18-yard box and pretty high up, but it still felt like we were right on top of things. It seems like you'd have a good view of the action from just about anywhere in the stadium -- plus a cool view of downtown Toronto and Lake Ontario. The only drawback was that the seats feel kind of chintzy and the stands a bit rickety -- on the other hand, those metal bleachers make plenty of noise when you've got 20,000 people stomping on them. Also, somebody has to teach the stadium announcer how to do the pre-game lineup properly. But that's just a quibble. Overall, the team's prospects look good.

If only they could learn how to score.

Both teams have it all to play for at the San Siro, after a whirlwind first leg.

Milan lined up as expected, although with the terminally ineffective Gilardino instead of Inzaghi at the top of the Christmas tree. United were in the predicted 4-2-3-1, but with Wayne Rooney leading the line in place of Alan Smith. With Patrice Evra fit to start, Darren Fletcher moved into midfield, as the Gattuso to Michael Carrick's Pirlo. (I know, that sounds like a ridiculous comparison. And it's true that Carrick faded in and out of the game, but Fletcher -- although he didn't manage to stifle Kaka -- played his little cotton socks off, bless him.)

United got off to a good start, imposing lots of pressure on Milan -- and actually putting in some decent corners, something that shouldn't be notable but is. And it paid off with an early goal as Dida flapped at Cristiano Ronaldo's header from Giggs' corner, but managed only to push it into his own net. The first 15 minutes or so were all United, but Milan worked themselves into the game. United still looked dangerous when they got the chance to attack with speed, but Milan weren't panicking, just patiently shutting them down.

Milan's equalizer came from Kaka, who got away from Carrick; the defenders didn't close him down quickly enough, and he finished with a perfectly placed shot past Van der Sar. Fifteen minutes later it was Kaka again, controlling the ball well to slip past the defenders into the box. But United looked like the Keystone Kops out there -- Heinze was trying to catch Kaka, Evra came over to cover but body-checked his own player out of the way instead, leaving Kaka with a clear shot on goal.

Kaka easily won the battle of the young superstars between him and Ronaldo -- who was eager to run at the Milan defence and show off his tricks, but not so eager to actually pass the damned ball before two or three players closed him down and took it away. Wayne Rooney, though, made a case for himself with two beautifully taken goals that gave United the lead.

Milan had lost Paolo Maldini at halftime, but were still looking much the better side. Then, probably more detrimental, Gattuso went off injured not long afterwards, and that let United back into the game. Just when I was starting to think they should substitute Paul Scholes -- because he wasn't doing much other than lunging at people and practically begging to be booked -- he flipped the ball up over the Milan defence for Rooney chest down and slot past Dida. Rooney's second goal came in stoppage time, as Giggs broke from the halfway line and played a through ball for him to run on to, and he hammered it past Dida at the near post. It was a great finish but once again some dodgy keeping from Dida, who had made a couple of excellent saves but gave him way too much space to aim at here.

That third goal gives United a lifeline for the second leg, but I think the tie is still too close to call. Although United have the lead, Milan have those two away goals, which means a 1-0 victory at the San Siro would be enough to send them through. But they'll regret not killing United off when they had the chance -- they may have thought it was all over at 2-1, but then they took their foot off the gas and paid for it.

The issue for United in Italy will be patching up their defence again. Evra was booked on Tuesday, so he'll miss the next leg. They've got to hope that Ferdinand and/or Neville is back fit by then, or else start Fletcher at right-back. (On the other hand, it's not all bad, because it gives them an excuse to move Heinze back to the left; I'm really not comfortable with him in the centre.) They also could use at least one goal to increase the pressure on Milan. And they absolutely have to figure out how to deal with Kaka, although I have no suggestions for that other than maybe attaching lead weights to his ankles.

As for Milan, I think they shouldn't rely too much on the Brazilian choirboy -- they need to find goals from their strikers too, though that's not likely with Gilardino faffing around up front. And they also need to remember that games last 90 mintes, not 45. You'd think they would have learned that in Istanbul, but apparently not.

The draw for this summer's Women's World Cup took place on Sunday in China. The top two teams from each group will go through to the quarter-finals. Here are the groups, with the teams' current world ranking in brackets:

Group A
Germany (2)
Japan (9)
England (12)
Argentina (32)

Germany are the reigning world and European champions. They're a talented and physically tough team who won all of their 8 games in qualifying, and I expect them to make it out of the group stage easily. Japan and England will probably be slugging it out for second place. Japan, whose best ever showing at the World Cup was the quarter-finals in 1995, had to beat Mexico in a playoff to qualify, after finishing behind Australia and Korea in Asia.

England also reached the quarter-finals in 1995, their only previous appearance in the tournament. The women's game has been growing in the country recently, though -- overcoming obstables like the FA banning women playing on league grounds from 1920 to 1971 (which kind of explains people like Mike Newell, eh?). They had a tough qualifying group that included France and the Netherlands, but they struggled through, and I think they could surprise people this year. The final team in the group, Argentina, upset Brazil to qualify in first place from CONMEBOL, but I don't think they've got the quality to carry them through a whole tournament.

Prediction: Germany and England

Group B
Nigeria (24)
USA (1)
Korea DPR (5)
Sweden (4)

I think this one is the group of death. Unlike the men's World Cup, though, the USA are far from being underdogs. They won the tournament in 1991 and again in 1999 (a slightly disappointing 3rd in 2003), and they've recently regained their #1 world ranking. Sweden came second the last time around, losing to Germany in the finals, and they're one of the powerhouses of women's soccer. Another strong team that scores lots of goals, they went undefeated in their qualifying campaign.

I'm a bit surprised to see the Koreans ranked so highly, especially since they haven't made it past the group stage before at the World Cup. But that ranking is probably helped by the performance of their U20 team, who beat China to win the inaugural world championship last year. Nigeria are perennial contenders at the World Cup but usually disappoint once they're there -- their best performance was making the quarter-finals in 1999. But they're also five-time African champions, and this could be the year that they step up on the world stage.

Prediction: USA and (ooh, this is a tough one) Korea

Group C
Norway (3)
Ghana (48)
Australia (14)
Canada (10)

I'll be cheering for Canada, obviously -- it makes a nice changes from the men's game, where the Canadians are nowhere. Canada put in a strong showing in 2003 and finished fourth. They'll be without some veterans like Charmaine Hooper this time around after a dispute with the CSA, but they're going to be living together for three months in a training cap to prepare for the tournament and I expect them to do well again. Norway are the big guns in this group, though. They won in 1995 but -- missing some key players -- went out in the quarters in 2003. They've since regrouped and finished first among the European qualifiers.

Despite their lower international ranking, Australia actually finished ahead of Korea and Japan in their first attempt at qualifying through the Asian federation. They've never made it out of their group before but will be hoping for a better showing this time. Ghana, like Canada, are usually overshadowed by their continental rivals (in this case, Nigeria) -- but, like the men's side, will still be a tough team to play, trying to make the quarter-finals for the first time.

Prediction: Norway and Canada

Group D
China PR (11)
New Zealand (23)
Brazil (8)
Denmark (6)

I'm kind of surprised China are ranked so low -- but my perception of the teams' relative strength is still kind of biased by the first tournament I followed, back in 1999. China have slipped in the past few years -- they were runners-up in 1999 but were eliminated in the quarters in 2003 -- although they regained their continental title in the 2006 Asian Cup. New Zealand are making their first appearance at the World Cup since 1991. They qualified easily this year, but from the understrength Oceania federation; I expect them to get their little kiwi butts kicked.

Brazil come into the tournament wanting to restore some pride after their unexpected loss to Argentina. Their best performance so far was finishing third in 1999, and they have a good chance this year too, with Marta, the FIFA Women's Player of the Year in 2006. Denmark are one of three Scandinavian teams to qualify, but they're probably the weakest of the bunch. Their qualifying campaign was kind of a nail-biter, and they've never made it past the quarter-finals before.

Prediction: China and Brazil

This was actually a more nerve-wracking game than the scoreline suggests -- mostly due to the gaping holes where the United defence used to be. With Neville, Vidic, Silvestre and O'Shea all injured, they started the game with a rejigged back line that included Patrice Evra at right-back. (You do see right-footed players at left-back quite often, but they're usually competent with either foot. Evra? Not so much.)

And then they lost Rio Ferdinand to a groin strain in the first half, which meant another reshuffle, with Evra moving to the left and Heinze in the middle (Why didn't he start there, you ask, and then move Wes Brown to right-back? Heinze does play centre-back for Argentina, after all. Well, yes, but it's on the left of a back three. And I don't think he's quite tall enough for a traditional centre-half.) Oh, and then we had Darren Fletcher at right-back. That's the sort of thing that makes me pine for John O'Shea -- although Fletcher did acquit himself reasonably well.

Having said all that, United got off to a good start with an early goal from Rooney, and were continuing to pile on the pressure. But then, to compound their problems at the back, Van der Sar got whacked in the face (part of the treatment involved getting what looked like tampons shoved up his nose) and was still looking a bit groggy when play restarted and Watford scored, with a quasi-bicycle kick from Hameur Bouazza. I have to wonder if Van der Sar might've saved it in other circumstances -- and he didn't have the best game again on Saturday -- but then again, with the way Kuszszszak has played recently, they were probably just as well off leaving Van der Sar in.

United recovered the lead almost immediately, with Rooney setting up Ronaldo. Rooney was United's best player, and he, Ronaldo and Alan Smith were combining well. Smith has surprised me, actually -- I didn't see him as the ideal choice to play as the lone striker, but he's been very good in the past couple matches. Although there were a few chances in this game where I thought he should have taken a shot instead of trying to set Rooney up for the hat-trick.

Watford started the second half much more strongly, keeping United pinned back for quite a while. The makeshift defence were having real trouble dealing with set pieces and clearing their lines, especially against a big, physical team like Watford -- every single one of their players apparently built like a built shithouse. But Rooney scored again for United to give them some breathing room, and there was even a goal for Kieran Richardson, coming on as a sub -- in both cases, Watford guilty of some shocking defending of their own, as they were giving United acres of space.

I guess it was a comfortable win in the end, but now I'm nervous about how United will do in the next few games, until they can get a few more players back from injury. Come back, John O'Pies! All is forgiven!

I've only watched Javier Mascherano play a few games for Liverpool so far, but I have to ask: What the hell is wrong with West Ham? How did they not realize what they had?

I remember when I first heard that he and Carlos Tevez were joining the Hammers, with everybody thinking it was too good to be true. The most obvious hitch was the supposedly dodgy transfer deal. And on top of that, if these guys were really so great, why would they want to go to a club like West Ham (who are not exactly part of the European elite)?

And for the first half of the season, our suspicions seemed to be proved right. The more details that came out about the terms of the deal, the worse it sounded; both players were having trouble breaking into the squad, and when they did get into the team, they weren't exactly setting the world on fire. West Ham went into a nosedive in the Premiership table, and signing the two Argentines seemed to have been the catalyst that made the team disintegrate.

Nevertheless, Rafa Benitez, still saw something in Mascherano and wanted to bring him to Liverpool. I thought it was idiotic, because not only had Mascherano flopped at West Ham, but Liverpool already had three good centre midfielders in Gerrard, Alonso and Sissoko, so I figured they didn't need him. Surely there were better players to spend their limited transfer funds on?

Rafa, however, is obviously a lot smarter than me (or Alan Pardew, or Alan Curbishley), because Mascherano has already proved his quality over the past month. He's been snapping into tackles all over the pitch, and he's a decent passer too -- so unlike Sissoko, he doesn't give the ball away immediately after he's won it. I think I like the combination of Mascherano and Alonso in the middle best so far -- Mascherano sitting deep and shielding the back line should let Xabi go forward and get involved in the attack more. But I'd also like to see how he'd work with Gerrard, because I think Mascherano would provide the defensive stability to balance him out. (Sissoko, although he's also good at breaking up attacks, tends to play too far up the pitch to be effective with Gerrard, I think.)

So he's slotted in well at Liverpool in a relatively short time. But why couldn't he do it at West Ham? I realize it takes a while to adjust to a new league, but it's hard to do that if you never even get to play.