Had a discussion earlier about a new England team that may not only deserve to play at international level but, if given a chance, could be moulded into a team for the future.
Not surprisingly, almost none of them had anything to do with the World Cup. Thought I'd share:
Hart
Richards Cahill Dawson Gibbs
Rodwell Huddlestone
Young Wilshere A. Johnson
Rooney
Bench: Loach, Gosling, Onouha, Lansbury, Cork, Walcott, Agbonlahor, Carroll
So there we are. Honestly, how much worse would it have done? At least this has shape, passion and creativity. Make me manager, and this is what you get.
Tuesday, 29 June 2010
Sunday, 27 June 2010
At World's End
Forget the disallowed goal. Nobody should give a shit.
Had Lampard's goal been given, we would have been no more likely to beat Germany today. A Germany team that, on paper, is definitely not as good as ours.
Today was the most embarassing example of old versus new that I have ever seen, and for a team from the world's best domestic league I can't for the life of me see why we play a formation that none of our best club sides would dream of.
Capello watches Chelsea, United and Arsenal 100 times a year, how can he not see that their systems provide the most effective football, home and abroad? If we'd have copied Germany's 4-2-3-1 we probably would have won, despite how badly we played.
I was optimistic about our system before the start of the tournament. We had won for fun playing it. But after twenty minutes of the USA game, I changed my mind. Fabio Capello didn't. Algeria was ten times worse and it became clear that, technically, we were massively inferior to other countries on the ball.
The only way to give the team a chance was to play them all in their best positions. That never happened. Instead the players got in a strop - attempted 40-yard shots and spectacular passes, and failed with it ninety percent of the time.
Capello's squad then has to be scrutinised, and in hindsight it looks conservative, backwards thinking and lacking imagination. Shaun Wright-Phillips is definitely a below-average winger at international level yet he was considered superior to players such as Johnson, Young and and Walcott, who had all had better seasons.
Emile Heskey has, for ten years now, been given a starting role for England on the premise that he brings the best out of the players around him. Bollocks. The manager is paid to get the best out of the players, the players are supposed to make an on-field contribution. The fact that we saw Heskey first as our number one striker, and second as a better substitute than Crouch, is nothing short of laughable.
This is a depressing conclusion, as three months ago it looked as though everything was perfect. Although the same could be said for Sven. Suddenly on the biggest occasion, the players lost belief, the manager lost ideas and we showed a complete inability to break down defences which, at club level, would be a walkover. Why does this always happen.
Is Capello a bad manager? No. Are England's players that bad? No. Can they work together? Not on that evidence. Unless a thorough tactical overhaul is carried out immediately, the FA's experimentation with foreign coaches is going to come to a very sharp end. And I can't say I hold out much hope.
Had Lampard's goal been given, we would have been no more likely to beat Germany today. A Germany team that, on paper, is definitely not as good as ours.
Today was the most embarassing example of old versus new that I have ever seen, and for a team from the world's best domestic league I can't for the life of me see why we play a formation that none of our best club sides would dream of.
Capello watches Chelsea, United and Arsenal 100 times a year, how can he not see that their systems provide the most effective football, home and abroad? If we'd have copied Germany's 4-2-3-1 we probably would have won, despite how badly we played.
I was optimistic about our system before the start of the tournament. We had won for fun playing it. But after twenty minutes of the USA game, I changed my mind. Fabio Capello didn't. Algeria was ten times worse and it became clear that, technically, we were massively inferior to other countries on the ball.
The only way to give the team a chance was to play them all in their best positions. That never happened. Instead the players got in a strop - attempted 40-yard shots and spectacular passes, and failed with it ninety percent of the time.
Capello's squad then has to be scrutinised, and in hindsight it looks conservative, backwards thinking and lacking imagination. Shaun Wright-Phillips is definitely a below-average winger at international level yet he was considered superior to players such as Johnson, Young and and Walcott, who had all had better seasons.
Emile Heskey has, for ten years now, been given a starting role for England on the premise that he brings the best out of the players around him. Bollocks. The manager is paid to get the best out of the players, the players are supposed to make an on-field contribution. The fact that we saw Heskey first as our number one striker, and second as a better substitute than Crouch, is nothing short of laughable.
This is a depressing conclusion, as three months ago it looked as though everything was perfect. Although the same could be said for Sven. Suddenly on the biggest occasion, the players lost belief, the manager lost ideas and we showed a complete inability to break down defences which, at club level, would be a walkover. Why does this always happen.
Is Capello a bad manager? No. Are England's players that bad? No. Can they work together? Not on that evidence. Unless a thorough tactical overhaul is carried out immediately, the FA's experimentation with foreign coaches is going to come to a very sharp end. And I can't say I hold out much hope.
Sunday, 20 June 2010
Ten discoveries of the World Cup
The World Cup group stages are over, already. We've had the hilarious (France), the shocking (Slovakia) and the frustrating (everyone else) but through the fog of negative tactics, missed open goals and bizarre sendings off - some players have emerged from obscurity to tickle many a scout's fancy. Here's my pick of ten guys I wouldn't say no to:
1. Cristian Riveros - Paraguay
Just signed for Sunderland from the Mexican league, and looks another shrewd signing from the man who brought Wilson Palacios and Antonio Valencia to the English league. Central to Paraguay's excellent midfield and doesn't mind a shot at goal either.
2. Jong Tae Sae - North Korea
The only North Korean to emerge from the World Cup with much credit, and this is despite breaking down in tears during their first national anthem. A pacey and powerful forward who, at 26, could still have his best years ahead of him.
3. Mesut Ozil - Germany
Going to be a star, it just depends who gets him first. Give him the ball and he will make something good happen. Not your typical German player, but then he is Turkish.
4. Anthony Annan - Ghana
At 23 he is in the Norweigan league and ought not to be. A midfield destroyer in the mould of Michael Essien - he was rejected by Paul Ince while at Blckburn. Which means he's brilliant.
5. Elijero Elia - Netherlands
The super sub of the tournament so far, with that much pace and that eye for goal who wouldn't want him?
6. Alexis Sanchez - Chile
At 21 he has already played over 30 times for his country. Can play anywhere across the forward line, full of tricks and I don't think he misplaced a pass in any of Chile's 3 games. Nobody with that much diversity should play for Udinese.
7. Simon Kjaer - Denmark
He's 21 and looks 35, which is a good skill for a centre-back. He can also nail a 70-yard pass, get forward and dominate defensively from set-pieces. Pretty much ticks all the boxes.
8. Winston Reid - New Zealand
Don't laugh, he looks alright. He's 21, enormous and pretty agile. He scored one of New Zealand's two goals and was part of a defence that only conceded two. Get him out of the Norweigan league and he could develop.
9. Marek Hamsik - Slovakia
The captain of the tournamen's most surprising team. Only 22, idolises Pavel Nedved and that shows in his play. Tormented Italy, even if at times it looked as though you or I could have done the same.
10. Keisuke Honda - Japan
Rubbish analogy but the press will start to make it so I may as well: The Japanese Ronaldo. That free-kick was fricking superb, no matter how badly Sorensen dealt with it. And that turn in the box to set up their third against Denmark was as good as we've seen this World Cup. Could end up the tournamen's top goalscorer at this rate.
1. Cristian Riveros - Paraguay
Just signed for Sunderland from the Mexican league, and looks another shrewd signing from the man who brought Wilson Palacios and Antonio Valencia to the English league. Central to Paraguay's excellent midfield and doesn't mind a shot at goal either.
2. Jong Tae Sae - North Korea
The only North Korean to emerge from the World Cup with much credit, and this is despite breaking down in tears during their first national anthem. A pacey and powerful forward who, at 26, could still have his best years ahead of him.
3. Mesut Ozil - Germany
Going to be a star, it just depends who gets him first. Give him the ball and he will make something good happen. Not your typical German player, but then he is Turkish.
4. Anthony Annan - Ghana
At 23 he is in the Norweigan league and ought not to be. A midfield destroyer in the mould of Michael Essien - he was rejected by Paul Ince while at Blckburn. Which means he's brilliant.
5. Elijero Elia - Netherlands
The super sub of the tournament so far, with that much pace and that eye for goal who wouldn't want him?
6. Alexis Sanchez - Chile
At 21 he has already played over 30 times for his country. Can play anywhere across the forward line, full of tricks and I don't think he misplaced a pass in any of Chile's 3 games. Nobody with that much diversity should play for Udinese.
7. Simon Kjaer - Denmark
He's 21 and looks 35, which is a good skill for a centre-back. He can also nail a 70-yard pass, get forward and dominate defensively from set-pieces. Pretty much ticks all the boxes.
8. Winston Reid - New Zealand
Don't laugh, he looks alright. He's 21, enormous and pretty agile. He scored one of New Zealand's two goals and was part of a defence that only conceded two. Get him out of the Norweigan league and he could develop.
9. Marek Hamsik - Slovakia
The captain of the tournamen's most surprising team. Only 22, idolises Pavel Nedved and that shows in his play. Tormented Italy, even if at times it looked as though you or I could have done the same.
10. Keisuke Honda - Japan
Rubbish analogy but the press will start to make it so I may as well: The Japanese Ronaldo. That free-kick was fricking superb, no matter how badly Sorensen dealt with it. And that turn in the box to set up their third against Denmark was as good as we've seen this World Cup. Could end up the tournamen's top goalscorer at this rate.
Thursday, 17 June 2010
A positive vu on the vuvu
The vuvuzela - everyone's new favourite word, has sparked up more debate than anything on the pitch so far at the World Cup. The two best players in the world, plus Patrice Evra, hate them, Danny Jordaan would prefer to hear singing, and the BBC have even contemplated blending out the noise for their televised games. What a bunch of moaning old ladies.
There are many reasons why an African World Cup is good, and first and foremost is that it allows the continent to make its own distinctive mark on the biggest sporting event it has ever held. The vuvuzela is a massive part of that, and for us Westerners to go over there and try to get the things banned is nothing short of patronising.
What makes people feel they have the right to complain? Is hearing a bunch of tired old chants, like we do at English grounds, honestly preferable? The argument is raised that the noise can damage hearing. This never stopped anyone going to watch Formula One or an Air Show, and being in a stadium of 90,000 people is not likely to be a quiet affair either way.
Take away the vuvuzela, and you're left with the bloody brass band playing 'When the Saints come marching in' - people will always make noise at football because that's the only way to make it exciting to be at the ground. Does nobody else think it's good to have literally a constant buzz throughout a game?
Since the second round of matches has started, the 2010 World Cup looks to have taken off, and we may still get a truly memorable tournament to talk about in years to come. There may not be much to say about the African football, but the African soundtrack gives proceedings a unique, joyful feel, one that will be missed when we go back to Bloomfield Road and "You're not singing any more." So put some earplugs in if you must, and try to enjoy yourselves.
There are many reasons why an African World Cup is good, and first and foremost is that it allows the continent to make its own distinctive mark on the biggest sporting event it has ever held. The vuvuzela is a massive part of that, and for us Westerners to go over there and try to get the things banned is nothing short of patronising.
What makes people feel they have the right to complain? Is hearing a bunch of tired old chants, like we do at English grounds, honestly preferable? The argument is raised that the noise can damage hearing. This never stopped anyone going to watch Formula One or an Air Show, and being in a stadium of 90,000 people is not likely to be a quiet affair either way.
Take away the vuvuzela, and you're left with the bloody brass band playing 'When the Saints come marching in' - people will always make noise at football because that's the only way to make it exciting to be at the ground. Does nobody else think it's good to have literally a constant buzz throughout a game?
Since the second round of matches has started, the 2010 World Cup looks to have taken off, and we may still get a truly memorable tournament to talk about in years to come. There may not be much to say about the African football, but the African soundtrack gives proceedings a unique, joyful feel, one that will be missed when we go back to Bloomfield Road and "You're not singing any more." So put some earplugs in if you must, and try to enjoy yourselves.
Friday, 11 June 2010
Why I've got my St George crossed this World Cup
As the world's best thing gets started, I'm going to come out and say it: England can win the World Cup. At the very least, we will do better than the last couple of times. Here's why:
1) We have the right personnel at the right time.
Accusations that England's squad is too old fail to remember than when we talk about player's hitting their 'peak', we mean when they are in their mid-to-late 20s. Nearly every member of the England squad is just so. Some have had better seasons than others, some arguably shouldn't be there based on current form but the point is this: all of them have been part of a team that has done almost nothing but win for the past two years, and they have that to fall back on when things get hairy.
2) We are in damn good physical shape.
Looking at the 23, it's one of the most physical sides at the tournament. Even the flair players like Lennon and Joe Cole are pretty built. If we can harness this to translate to power at set pieces, we stand a good chance of getting past the likes of France, Spain and Argentina, nimble sides who may tire quickly and can, quite frankly, get fouled into submission.
3) We have a stable team.
Debates around 4-4-2 versus 4-2-3-1 are all very well, but as previously mentioned, we have been constantly performing, and winning, by lining up with two strikers and a four man midfield. Under Sven, we fannied around with team selection every single game and experimented with formations during qualifiers. As Spain proved in Euro 2008, consistency and familiarity can win you tournaments. Even if you do have Capdevilla at left back.
With largely the same players included in every squad, we have established an understanding of a system that, ultimately, gives a great deal of freedom to our most creative players, Gerrard and Rooney. They scored 12 of our 32 goals in qualifying. Our collection of centre-forwards, by contrast, managed 8.
4) The Africans quite like us.
A lot of South Africans came from the UK. Of their own free will. Most count England as their second team. This must count for something.
1) We have the right personnel at the right time.
Accusations that England's squad is too old fail to remember than when we talk about player's hitting their 'peak', we mean when they are in their mid-to-late 20s. Nearly every member of the England squad is just so. Some have had better seasons than others, some arguably shouldn't be there based on current form but the point is this: all of them have been part of a team that has done almost nothing but win for the past two years, and they have that to fall back on when things get hairy.
2) We are in damn good physical shape.
Looking at the 23, it's one of the most physical sides at the tournament. Even the flair players like Lennon and Joe Cole are pretty built. If we can harness this to translate to power at set pieces, we stand a good chance of getting past the likes of France, Spain and Argentina, nimble sides who may tire quickly and can, quite frankly, get fouled into submission.
3) We have a stable team.
Debates around 4-4-2 versus 4-2-3-1 are all very well, but as previously mentioned, we have been constantly performing, and winning, by lining up with two strikers and a four man midfield. Under Sven, we fannied around with team selection every single game and experimented with formations during qualifiers. As Spain proved in Euro 2008, consistency and familiarity can win you tournaments. Even if you do have Capdevilla at left back.
With largely the same players included in every squad, we have established an understanding of a system that, ultimately, gives a great deal of freedom to our most creative players, Gerrard and Rooney. They scored 12 of our 32 goals in qualifying. Our collection of centre-forwards, by contrast, managed 8.
4) The Africans quite like us.
A lot of South Africans came from the UK. Of their own free will. Most count England as their second team. This must count for something.
Friday, 4 June 2010
Rio's injury a blessing in disguise
I love Rio Ferdinand. For what he did at West Ham, for playing football the way he does, for bringing us that wind-up show and introducing the phrase 'you got mirked'. But if, as rumours suggest, he is set to miss the World Cup, I for one am not going to despair of our chances.
For one, Rio has been almost 100% injured this season. Let's say 90% injured - he played 13 premier league games. During that time, he managed to get in a stupid amount of trouble by hitting Craig Fagan in the face. At international level he has been, at best, shaky. With back and knee problems come a loss of pace and agility, that's what we are seeing with Rio and that's what we will continue to see. His career is now on the decline.
Now - Ledley King has knees made of tin foil and Upson is totally fat, so to say that they offer an improvement on the situation would be wrong. But we do have Jamie Carragher - a man so desperate to prove himself as a centre-back at international level that he would throw his child in the way of an attacker if it would stop a goal. I never like to see someone come out of international retirement - it smacks of loose principles - and he isn't the player he used to be, but on this occasion, all things considered, he could represent the fighter we need to survive the rough patches.
Which brings me on to my second point. Is Rio a leader? Is he a captain? Is he the man to inspire the lads on the brink of extra time or is he more likely to photoshop Capello into a red van and call it postman pat?
Gerrard has shown he can inspire his team on the big occasion, and with no time to prepare for his captain's duties he is less likely to get freaked out and balls it up.
So it actually looks like I'm saying that the Scousers can save our World Cup. Which I hope is true. Would be nice to stop them moaning for a couple of weeks.
For one, Rio has been almost 100% injured this season. Let's say 90% injured - he played 13 premier league games. During that time, he managed to get in a stupid amount of trouble by hitting Craig Fagan in the face. At international level he has been, at best, shaky. With back and knee problems come a loss of pace and agility, that's what we are seeing with Rio and that's what we will continue to see. His career is now on the decline.
Now - Ledley King has knees made of tin foil and Upson is totally fat, so to say that they offer an improvement on the situation would be wrong. But we do have Jamie Carragher - a man so desperate to prove himself as a centre-back at international level that he would throw his child in the way of an attacker if it would stop a goal. I never like to see someone come out of international retirement - it smacks of loose principles - and he isn't the player he used to be, but on this occasion, all things considered, he could represent the fighter we need to survive the rough patches.
Which brings me on to my second point. Is Rio a leader? Is he a captain? Is he the man to inspire the lads on the brink of extra time or is he more likely to photoshop Capello into a red van and call it postman pat?
Gerrard has shown he can inspire his team on the big occasion, and with no time to prepare for his captain's duties he is less likely to get freaked out and balls it up.
So it actually looks like I'm saying that the Scousers can save our World Cup. Which I hope is true. Would be nice to stop them moaning for a couple of weeks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)