Palemmo and the scirocco

Roma virtually faced both of those adversaries yesterday, and I'm not convinced yet that the latter didn't form the greatest challenge out of the two. The hellish rain did more than challenge the hair styles of the players, it also made the pitch nigh on unplayable.

Roma once again had a very relaxed attitude to the objective of maybe some day keeping a clean sheet, and by allowing Palermo to equalize in that two second window between Roma's 2-1 and half time Roma channeled those suffering from ADD everywhere. But I find myself unable to get too upset, a large part of my brain wants to throw the game out the window and nullify the result on account of the horrid conditions.

The claim that it rained on Palermo too, and they they played in the same conditions can only go so far before we scrutinize it and reveal it to be misleading. I'm not a follower of Roma that particularly likes it when coaches and players makes excuses, because they're often self serving and short sighted, but Ranieri does have a point when he says the weather affected Roma more, due to the style of the two teams. Vucinic suffered, as any player living off his pace would, Roma's passing grew erratic, and was more ill suited to grinding out the physical battles than was Palermo's largely physical (and not so much technical even on a perfect day) midfield.

Since Palermo hasn't been convincing (except help convince Zamparini that all coaches are lesser men than he, bringing us one step closer to the inevitable day when he will descend from his throne in the VIP stand and coach the club himself), combined with some questionable defending it's entirely possible to say that this was two points lost. I, however, think it's an acceptable point, given the circumstances, to take eastwards.

Who among us wouldn't have signed on for seven points in three games when Ranieri was hired? And if you wouldn't have, how impossible are your standards, given the condition of the club when he was hired?