England’s midfield

This article notes the options England have in midfield, where they have an abundance of talent. In the words of Alex Ferguson:

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.

Brian Glanville on Trevor Brooking

I completely agree with Brian Glanvilles’ comments on Trevor Brooking’s recent assessment of England. Here’s what he had to say:

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 on England and Paltini’s 6+5 rule

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…

Being eclectic: Despite Spain’s win, direct football still matters

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.

Has Capello finally worked it out?

The post below was also posted at Sportingo.

I think he has. In an interview before the friendly with America he implied that he had finally worked out how to play England. In the recent two friendly matches he finally reverted England to a 4-4-2 formation and ditched playing Rooney as a lone striker. It’s taken some time, but after Sven and Mclaren, Capello has worked out that he can’t play England like other teams, they are almost moulded to play in a certain way and instead of ditching the tried and tested, why not just adapt and play to existing strengths. I remember in an interview, during the 2006 world cup, a Brazilian football journalist was asked about the key factor of Scolari’s success, compared to Sven. His response was that Scolari plays a system that best suits his team, depending on the players available, he later contrasted this with Sven’s approach. It’s also interesting to note that the BBC interviewed Beckenbauer before the 2006 world cup qualifier between England and Portugal. After observing the line-ups he quizzed why Sven had decided to play Rooney on his own, prophetically he noted that this might be a tactical error. But the team went out playing that same system — packing the midfield and playing Rooney alone, supposedly he would be supported, but he never was.

This all goes back to Capello. When Capello played both Switzerland and France with the same formation preferred by his predecessors, I just thought history is simply repeating itself. The weakness of playing England with that formation became apparent once again in the friendly against France. Thankfully Capello reverted back to the old 4-4-2. I have always thought the best way to play England is to adopt the German style of the 2006 world cup — quick and dynamic attacking football. It plays to the existing strengths of the England team, but nuances the tactics with intelligent and flowing football, with players switching positions and playing off each other. I think that is what Capello has finally realised is the best way forward, keep the tried and tested but cut out on all the faults of the past. As Rio Ferdinand stated in a recent interview, it’s not just ball retention but what we do with the ball. As I noted before during the 2006 world cup, putting aside common sense assumptions, England did keep possession in the world cup, but without purpose or penetration of opposition. That is the weakness I think Capello is trying to remedy, how can he get England to open up defences with intelligent and creative play, whilst not simply relying upon dead ball situations. I noted he was particularly pleased with England’s second goal against America (it came from a passing movement), as it was demonstration of how he wants England to play.

Mighty good of you Sven

Just a quick post. I really gained respect for Sven today. In terms of a manager, I still think him to be an average and negative manager, someone who learnt his trade in the Serie A (and that’s why I am weary about Fabio Capello taking the England job, but that’s another story) . In a Manchester City press conference he was asked by a journalist if he had any self-satisfaction about the current fortunes of the England team, which now puts his tenure him in a better light. He replied, and I believe him to be sincere on this, of course not. He in fact felt sorry for the team’s failure. I thought that was good of him, and it was not just a diplomatic reply.

I don’t know what to say about England, a lot has already been said in the press, some stuff I believe to be accurate, others to be over the top. I might do a longer post about it later, but just quickly, I honestly think it comes down to the basic fact that England don’t have any depth in their squad,  the starting eleven are a good team, and worthy of a quarter final and possibly a semi-final spot in major tournaments. With an astute manager, like Joachim Löw of Germany, maybe even further. But if injury should happen to befall England, then the team does suffer. So the talk of any possible English talent being drained out of the premier league because of the influx of players from abroad is partly true. There are other factors for England’s failure, obviously McLaren is tactically naieve to say the least, if not completely baffling. Then there is the fact that McLaren continously overlooked good players, especially strikers — Lita, Walcott and Agbonlahor. He also included players whom I thought should have never been chosen e.g. Lescott — who was exposed in both the Russia and Croatia matches.   That’s enough for now!