This article

I think in the England set-up, over the last few years, its correct to say that all the managers – Sven, Steve McClaren and now Fabio Capello – have had bigger options in the centre of midfield than in any other position.

Gareth Barry, Jenas, Hargreaves, Gerrard, Lampard, Carrick, David Bentley and Joe Cole. I would argue that the main options are in the centre of the field and not necessarly right or left midfielders. Other than David Bentley, England have to rely on David Beckham, Lennon or Shaun Wright Phillips. On the right it is mainly Joe Cole, though Gerard can play that position. As gifted a midfielder Carrick is, I don’t think he can sit deep and play a role similar to Spain’s Senna. Of all the available players Hargreaves is best suited to that role.

From Trevor Brooking, whom I’ve always admired so much as a player and who would I’m sure have made an excellent England manager, a very strange statement which seems oddly illogical.

“I thought there was a lot of quality football in Euro 2008 and the fact we didn’t qualify was almost a reality check. We don’t want to go from that to saying we need to be in the last four of the World Cup.” Why ever not?

If the Greeks with a team of virtual unknowns outside Hellas can so splendidly and surprisingly win the 2004 Euros. If the Danes can come virtually off the beaches at the last moment to replace Yugoslavia and win them in 1992. If Spain can in the 2008 qualifiers lose 3-2 in Belfast against Northern Ireland, why on earth should England not win in 2012, let alone reach the semi finals, or do as much in the ensuing World Cup?

Trevor knows as well as anyone that one of soccer’s supreme glories is its sheer unpredictability perhaps above all at international level. That England didn’t get to the 2008 finals was a reality check if at all on the supreme stupidity of appointing a disastrous manager such as Steve McClaren.

Defeat in Croatia where his absurd 3-5-2 tactics, quite alien to his players, led to defeat; let alone the awful error by Paul Robinson. Sticking to Robinson when the goalkeeper was so plainly going through a crisis of confidence. Belatedly blooding a successor in Scott Carson who, nervous and internationally inexperienced, gave away that awful goal against Croatia at Wembley.

Yet England beat Russia comfortably at Wembley, the Russians crashed ignominiously in Israel, leaving England with what seemed a free passage to the final, and the best they could then do against feeble Andorra was to sneak through 1-0. I’ve no idea whether England will even qualify for the next World Cup. After Fabio Capello’s bizarre beginning, his severe and troubling case of Beckhamitis, who can say? But to warn us at this remote stage that it would be wrong to say they’d need to be in the last four is simply illogical.

Who, for another example, would have put any money for Turkey to go as far as they did in the Euros; and with a severely weakened team, to give the Germans such a fight in the semi finals? Having got rid, but all too late, of the Wally with the Brolly, hoping that Beckham can at last be made to rest on whatever laurels he has left, a World Cup semi final need not be chimerical. Always assuming England can qualify.

Trevor Brooking, in a frank interview, admits that it is simply not realistic to expect England to reach the semi-finals of the next world-cup, considering that this is a team that failed to qualify for the last European Championships. I certainly agree with Brooking’s assessment of England’s lack of squad depth and his sense of realism. Similar messages of realism were sent out by Jürgen Klinsmann, the previous German manager, prior to the 2006 World-Cup. At the time Germany were knocked out of the group stages at Euro2004 and entered the World Cup after a string of bad results. Klinsmann then noted that his German side would be achieving if they managed to reach the quarter-finals.

That being said, I disagree with Trevor Brooking’s judgement of England, especially when basing it on their failure to qualify for the European Championships. We have to remember, unlike the England team that failed to qualify for the 1994 World Cup, this team can boast of players at the pinnacle of European club football. Returning to the 1990s, the England team then included the likes of Carlton Palmer, David Batty, Neil Webb and Andy Sinton, players at the margins of European football. This England team, due to the influx of players from abroad and the general improvement in the standard of the English premiership, can boast of players that play in top European clubs, a claim that could not be made about English clubs in the 90s, even with a supposed larger pool of English players to choose from. The English players that featured in the Champions League final were there on merit, otherwise they would not have been selected. To construe that these players, due to a string of poor England performances, are below par compared to their European counterparts is to send out a needless message of pessimism.

Once again Trevor Brooking was correct to identify England’s lack of squad depth, should two or three players be injured, yet similar observations could be made of other European teams. Italy did not perform to their optimum level in their Euro2008 quarter-final clash with Spain, due to the suspension of both Pirlo and Gatusso. Similarly Holland would be setback with injuries to Sneijder or Van der Vaart. France, at its peak, without Zidane were not the same team, as we saw in the 2002 World Cup. Further France won the 1998 World Cup without a world class out and out striker, mainly relying on Christophe Dugarry, a player who then plied his trade in the French first division. Apart from Spain, currently the best team in Europe, most teams cannot call on champions League standard players in every position. The modern game has become too cosmopolitan to allow international managers that luxury.

However there is a bridge that England need to cross, if they are to be more competitive and expect something more than a quarter-final elimination. They require a mental resolve, the ability of their players to be functional, adept, consistent and effective. This can come with group camaraderie, selection that emphasises the team and less pressure that can only come with a dose of realism, as identified by Trevor Brooking (without the pessimism).Spain’s win at the last European Championships, after years of similar failure, have highlighted the importance of all these key characteristics.

This finally leads me to Platini and his plans to introduce the 6+5 rule. Would it have a positive impact on national teams? Judging from the case of England, I don’t think it necessarily would. If players are chosen to fulfil a quota then the quality will be diluted, even if there is a surplus of talent to choose from. The English players that play for their clubs make it through a competitive system, with five to six of the England players of champions league standard. England could not always boast that quality in past teams. On the other hand, the influx of international players, and the relative cheaper costs of players from other leagues, entails the logic of a supply side economics. Managers will choose players for key positions based upon quality relative to affordability. The market for players is simply larger. That being the case there will be fewer English players filling key positions, if the cheaper costs and better quality, in the short term, are available from else where. The lack of quality English full backs, strikers and goal keepers are all symptoms of this reality.

If it is the performance of the England team that is of concern, then neither the 6+5 rule or even the current state of affairs can be considered in the interests of the England team.  The former for diluting the quality of the talent coming through and the latter to the detriment of developing a wide range of talent for different positions. The solution to the problem would probably be something akin to the top clubs collaborating between themselves, to ensure that the national team (in any given league) are well supplied with players for every position. This means the FA might intervene to ensure that clubs are fulfilling that obligation, even if it means regulations are drafted and then enforced.

But I do not believe the issue for Platini is solely with the state of national teams like England, where a strong club culture has negatively impacted on its prospects. Platini was more revealing when he stated:

They could be rich people coming to help English football and develop it, but they may just want to make money … I fear your clubs will lose identity. If it was in France, I would fight it.

Here he identifies the negative effects of the free flow of capital within the game, with billionaires buying up clubs and then selling them or hiking up ticket prices to accumulate profit. This has a knock on effect on the game as a whole — the fans, the tradition of clubs and the attitude and loyalty of players. If that is the case, then the introduction of the 6+5 rule will not solve the problem, as the problem is at the root of the modern game itself…

This entry was also posted @ Sportingo

Euro2008 may not be remembered for overall quality, but as a spectacle it was one of the best. For me the sticking point was how direct football has come to the fore as a strategy that is adept and workable with other styles of play. Germany, against Portugal, in what was considered by some as one of the best German displays since the 1990 world cup, displayed a ruthless edge in combining a direct style of play and passing, with well executed set pieces. They were able to break Portuguese play and did not retreat to their own half, chase the game and defend deep, as did England in previous match-ups with Portugal, or even Holland in their quarter-final clash with Russia.

Gone are the pure schools of football, Holland and Spain adapted strategies which were different to what maybe expected of them. The Dutch ditched the 4-3-3 formation and Spain changed their formations during the tournament, from two strikers to one, depending on the players available. Similarly, Lippi, who has returned as Italy coach, identifies Alex Ferguson’s Manchester United as a source of contemplation and emulation. He argues United do not play in a set way, nor do they pin players in positions, players move from defence to attack in lightening speed, only to for them to retreat back. That is the dynamic nature of the game today, which also requires incredible levels of fitness. If Italy are to adapt and succeed, then Italy should be more than ‘Catenaccio’.

While it is true Spain played possession football, with quick short passes, but that is not the entire story. As Sid Lowe of the Guardian notes,

It was Aragonés who used tiki-taka to protect a defence that appeared suspect (but which he had worked to improve), maintain possession and dominate games, but did not take it to its slow, directionless extreme, as displayed by Barcelona over the last two years. An extreme that simply does not suit Villa or Torres, the men providing the cutting edge. Aragonés recognised the need to be effective as well as aesthetic. He admitted that Spain had played Italy on the break and of Spain’s first six goals, five came from a direct break (even the occasional aimless punt), one from a set-play – the very antithesis of tiki-taka. Xavi’s goal against Russia in the semi-final was the first real tiki-taka moment. Even Torres’ goal in the final owed as much to pace, faith and physique as touch and class.

Spain do have their style of play and as a general ethos it remains. However it is not short passing football in its purest form. Whatever formation a manager plays, the players on the field are the ones that see an opening, whenever and however it comes. As Lippi noted, players need to be adept and they are the ones that can change their game when required.

If England are to learn from this tournament, then an intelligent, and not speculative ball from the back is still an effective strategy. Set pieces are still important as well. The difference is that England should also stamp their authority on a game, to press and break the play of the opposition. Yes, that requires England keeping possession — that is common sense, but that is not the whole story. If anything the German game against Portugal offers an ideal blueprint for Capello to consider, in a breathtaking first half Germany not only scored twice but also harried Portugal every time they regrouped for another move. Had it not been for poor defending, Germany could have won more comfortably. Do England have the players to do that? In the midfield they possibly do, but the fullbacks in such a scenario should have the ability to move up quickly, as there would be little space in the centre. The Germans, on the day, had those players, specifically on the left. I have always thought that there lies England’s weakness, they do not have natural attacking full backs. Micah Richards showed potential when selected for England, but he must develop his defensive game.

After Euro2008, we can say direct football is very much alive. Spain’s victory was not solely a victory for the passing game, but also a game that thrived on the gritty defensive midfielders (in the likes of Senna) and, ironically, that long pass from the back.

Once again, the German national team has advanced to the latter stages of a major international tournament. But what makes the team so successful? It could be because they are so average.

and,

The German side, in short, will hardly ever make you jump out of your seat — but it will only rarely disappoint. Its periods of success are brief, but so too are the lulls in between. In the last European championship tournament in 2004, the team didn’t make it out of its group. But in the 2002 World Cup, the team came in second and in 2006, it finished an impressive third.

Anyway, read the whole piece here…

Anyway, Spain look like the best team in the tournament and should they win against Germany, then some justice would be done. But never discount the Germans, one match they may seem out of it, only for them to bounce back (they are world beaters when it comes to resilience). I can see Spain losing, but not this time. After their penalty shoot-out victory against Italy, I think this team has the resolve to go on and win this tournament.

How about a little reality check? Over the past forty-eight hours I’ve heard Guus Hiddink’s Russia compared with everything from Brazil 1970 to Tiger Woods to the 1992 “Dream Team”. Steady on, people.

Russia were soundly beaten by Spain (yes, they hit the crossbar twice, but they also conceded four goals). They limped to a 1-0 win over Greece, arguably the worst team in the tournament.  They beat Sweden, a team who are also not particularly good and whose best player – Zlatan Ibrahimovic – had a knee the size of a watermelon.

Oh, you say, but they didn’t pummel a brilliant Holland side? Well, yes, Russia looked impressive. But it did finish 1-1 after 90 minutes. And Holland were actually far more pedestrian than the crew on the Oranje bandwagon would have us believe. Marco Van Basten’s crew were basically a counterattacking unit who were outshot by a poor Italy side (16-13) and an even poorer France side (18-13). In fact, had the referee given a penalty for Andre Ooijer’s fairly blatant handball against Les Bleus, the whole tournament could have taken a decidedly different spin. So let’s wait until tomorrow night to anoint Russia as the second coming, shall we?

I have recently been contemplating the words of Wenger, that international football is really not up to standard (club football is far superior, but certainly not fairer). Let me quote the man:

I’m not a big fan of international football because they destroyed it. Take Russia: once it was one country and now it’s 21. Yugoslavia was one and now is six. As a result the level has dropped. Then you add countries like Andorra, Faroe Islands and San Marino and suddenly three games out of four are of no interest. When you think of international football you think that it’s a level up but 99 percent of the time it’s a level down. That’s why I prefer club football

Watching the defensive displays in the tournament he does have a point. Then there is the tournament draw, where eventual champions could be crowned for playing, at most, a third of the teams in the tournament. For example, had this German team been drawn in Holland’s group, they would have not made it past the group stages. Also consider that teams are measured based upon a handful of matches, if luck (as is the case with Germany and Turkey) should conspire in your favour, you may well find your way through to the later stages. Imagine if a team like Manchester City were crowed champions of England after their good start last season. With the diluting of standards in international football and the absence of a league system to measure teams over a longer period, then we have to question if international football is indeed about standards or simply a mass frenzy for corporations and marketing.

The worse case scenario is that UEFA are contemplating tinkering with this European championships format, further expanding it to 24 teams. As with the world cup, this not only dilutes standards, but questions the whole purpose of tournaments as a suitable means for crowning the best teams. With more teams, a lucky draw could mean the eventual winners may only play a top ranked team till the final (as was the case with Germany in the 2002 world cup).

This leads to a final point, couldn’t the long and gruelling qualification campaigns, followed by a month long tournament, be replaced with a league system of international teams. Such a system would be vastly fairer in identifying the stronger teams and the eventual winners would at least have played a wider pool of stronger teams. Prior to 1980 only four teams competed the championships, after a play-off qualification. A similar system could be put in place, with the top four teams in a league system later qualifying to play each other for the trophy. Better still, the team that amasses the most points should deserve to be crowned outright (it also ensures the absence of penalties). Maybe this may not have the excitement of tournament football but it is a vastly more fairer system, where teams like Germany and Turkey would probably fall short over a longer string of matches. But as long as international football remains as it is, then in terms of football, in its purest form, international football does not have that much to offer.

One prediction I got right was Holland not winning Euro2008 and even predicting accurately how they would implode. However I thought it would be in the semis and not the quarter-final match against Russia. No one can ever discount the Hiddink factor, as with Germany, fortune seems to conspire with him (well not with Australia in the 2006 World Cup). Then there was my prediction that Spain, considering the relative average age of the squad, would not have the mental resolve to beat Italy (as is the history with these type of fixtures.) Again, Spain managed to win that match on penalties. This tells me that maybe, as widely tipped, this could be their year. Will they implode in the semis against Russia, as is typical with the nearly achievers like Holland and Portugal? Without doubt this match will be very different then their encounter in the group stages, and Hiddink will do his homework. It’s a very difficult one to call, but I think Spain will win this one, for the simple observation that unlike Holland they showed a solid defensive display against Italy and might be able to close down the attacking threat of the Russians (Holland’s defence was carved up by Russian play). Whatever they do, they will have to defend tight and keep their concentration, and maybe man mark Andrei Arshavin? Unlike the Dutch, they will have to prevent the Russians taking the initiative. Well that’s the observation of the Spain coach “We will have to play in a way which stops them playing and prevents them from counter attacking. We need to keep at them and give them less space.” We will see…

That leaves us with a potential final between Spain and Germany. I’ll leave that to a future post… 

Maybe one obstacle for Portugal in adapting their game plan (as Gary Neville noted after the match), is the absence of an out and out striker. A player like Klose, Van Nistelrooy or Torres, someone they can target with quick balls. In the last world cup they were toothless in the semi-finals against the French. Their main striker (Pauleta) was woeful at times (he was substituted by Scolari against France). On the other hand, in the match against Portugal, the Germans, as the Dutch, showed the potential of combining different styles of play – technique & passing coupled with quick direct football (often through counter attacks).

The future of the game? Any team that can improvise their game plan against the dictates of the game itself. Obviously this would require more intelligent footballers who would be able to think on their feet — when to attack, when to hold the ball and when to make that decisive move. North European direct football, dynamic total football or Brazilian/Portuguese flair/technique all have their advantages. I suppose its about keeping the strengths of a certain ethos alive but combining it and improvising with different styles, with good teams being able to change and switch styles when necessary. A recent example of this would be Manchester United last season, where they often played contrasting styles in the premiership and the champions league, changing the team line-up when necessary — the players best suited for any given system.

To quote Hans van Breukelen (Dutch goalkeeper of the 1988 European Championship winning team), when commenting on Van Basten’s tinkering with the age old 4-3-3 formation:

In our country we have a great reverence for 4-3-3, for the Ajax way of playing. But there are other systems and you have to be open-minded. Marco Van Basten thought a change of shape would better suit the players he has at his disposal. He had the courage to be flexible … It’s been wonderful watching us dismantle the Italians and the French. We’ve proved ourselves to be the complete team. Collectively we look strong, we have a vast array of individual attacking talent and are able to take the game to the opposition or hit very effectively on the break. Our combination play has been outstanding, we’re able to change rhythm quickly and at the back we’ve been pretty solid’

On a side note, when will German luck run out in major tournaments?! The third goal against Portugal should have been disallowed, it was a clear push by Ballack. England scored from similar situations in the 1998 world cup and Euro 2004, but both were disallowed. Then there was the legendary luck that got them through the 2002 world cup, where the draw and woeful refereeing decisions (remember the quarter finals against America?) got them to a final, only for them to be brushed aside by stronger opposition in the final (this not including the never ending wins by penalty shootouts). In Euro 2008 that tradition continues. I honestly think that this German team is not that special. Either way since 2006 the ‘Mannschaft’ has shown some improvement, considering the spiral decline from the late 90s all the way to 2006.

I find it interesting that German players, in contrast to the England players, do not always perform well for their clubs (e.g. Podolski and Klose) but seem to do well with the national team. I think Germany has always set the national team as a priority, while England (as Spain) have a stronger club culture, more considering the insanely long and energy sapping football season we get in England.