Cristiano Ronaldo, Gareth Bale, David Beckham, Roberto Carlos. All of these men have been considered 'dead-ball specialists'. We have seen many spectacular goals from each of these from free-kicks, and it has become an essential to have such a player in your team. Very much like in rugby or American football, kicking has become an ever-more important aspect to football. Over the past few years, goals from free kicks has been fairly stable in the Premier League, with several players renowned for their ability, but few outside those beginning to chip in. However, this season, free kicks have taken a much more important role, and we have seen many players who you would not consider 'dead ball specialists' score them.
Looking at statistics, we can see that during the 2011/2012 season, 29 direct free kicks were scored, with Sunderland scoring the most (5). After just 15 games of the 2013/14 season, the total of free kicks scored has reached a staggering 20. If free kicks continue to be scored at this rate, we will see over 40 goals from free kicks this season, setting an all-time Premier League record.
So who has been scoring all of these free kicks? Though they may be top of the table and have marksmen like Podolski and Ozil to take them, Arsenal are yet to contribute to the free kick goal tally. Aston Villa have two, and both have been scored by the same man. Leandro Bacuna, the relatively unknown midfielder before this season, with spectacular efforts against Manchester City and Cardiff City, made himself well known to the Villa fans, and Premier League viewers around the world. Cardiff and Crystal Palace, like Arsenal are yet to score from one, but a familiar name in Frank Lampard has registered for Chelsea. Everton also contribute two from a single player, and Leighton Baines scored them both in the same match! Turning the game on its head, his two brilliant set pieces ensured Everton would leave West Ham with all three points.
Fulham have struggled to score goals all season, so that they do not appear on the list is unsurprising. Hull also do not feature, but Liverpool certainly do. In Luis Suarez and Steven Gerrard they have an embarrassment of riches when it comes to free kicks, and the pair have not failed to deliver, with Gerrard scoring one against Hull, and Suarez contributing two, against Everton and in a four goal display against Norwich. Free-scoring Manchester City have been most prolific from dead balls, but not from the usual sources. Aleksandar Kolorov and David Silva are the club's recognised free kick takers, but Alvaro Negredo's goal against Swansea, and Yaya Toure's incredible haul of three, against Newcastle, Hull and Norwich, mean that Manuel Pellegrini may want to review his set piece takers! Manchester United have contributed with three, with Wayne Rooney scoring all, against Crystal Palace, Manchester City and West Bromwich Albion.
Newcastle, despite having an excellent taker in Yohan Cabaye, have failed to register a free kick yet this season, whilst Robert Snodgrass has added one for Norwich City. Southampton's resident specialist, Rickie Lambert has added another one for his collection, whilst Stoke have had efforts from Marko Arnautovic and Jermaine Pennant. Sunderland, despite their previous supremacy in this area, have also failed to score from a free kick this term. Swansea, West Brom and West Ham all have also failed to register, whilst Kyle Walker's recent effort against Manchester United is the only free kick from Spurs. Nevertheless, this is already nearly as many as the whole of 2011/2012, despite neither Gareth Bale nor Cristiano Ronaldo being in the league.
What could be causing this? If we were seeing players like Robin van Persie or Luis Suarez scoring more free-kicks, we could simply put it down to increasing player ability or speciality, but it is not. We are seeing a plethora of players scoring from free-kicks, many of whom have either never or infrequently scored from them before. Could it be to do with the ball? There have been complaints from goalkeepers in recent years that the balls move in the air far too much, making it impossible to track the path of the ball. However, has the ball changed so drastically over the past two years that it could account for the rapid increase in goals from direct free kicks? I think not. If we compare free kicks stats from now to those from the 1970's and 80's, then we could explain it that way, but two years is too little time.
However, another explanation may go some way to explaining it. Over the last decade, football has become less and less physical, with challenges often resulting in free kicks. Clubs have therefore cottoned on to the fact that dead balls are going to be of greater importance than ever before. As a result, further training has been done to improve the free kicks of a wide range of players. Whereas 10 years ago, perhaps only one or two specialist free kick takers would be used for dead balls, now any one of six or seven may be used. The correct accuracy and power will take time to perfect, so two years can make a massive difference in this time frame. This may not be the whole explanation, but I believe it goes some way to explaining the recent trend of free kick goals in the Premier League.
This season has been truly record-breaking in terms of free kicks, and to do it without some of the greatest free kick takers in the world is astonishing. However, such is the importance of free kicks in football, I feel this will slowly become the norm. It will be extremely interesting to see if this trend continues over the next few seasons, as this will determine whether it was a flash in the pan, or if we are seeing the hard work on the training ground come to fruition in the Premier League. This may be the Year of the Free-Kick, but it may also be the beginning of a free-kick dynasty.
Analysis of sporting events, talking points and controversies.
Sunday 8 December 2013
World Cup 2014 Draw: 1982 Revisited?
After a month's sabbatical (whilst I attempted to find my full-time career, which I am glad to say I have), I am back and writing! And what an event to restart my blogs with. Despite it feeling like a matter of nano-seconds since the extra-time volley from Andres Iniesta secured Spain's first World Cup success, Brazil 2014 is just around the corner. With the South American state being the undisputed mecca of world football (international at least), each of the 32 qualifiers will have been hoping for a kind draw to prolong their experience of the footballing carnival atmosphere. And on Friday (alongside rather muted claims of racism), the sides discovered their fates.
For England, after a hard-fought campaign, whose place in the finals were once again decided on just the final day against Poland, hopes of a kind draw were particularly strong. Going through a period widely described as a 'transition period' (I hate that phrase), after struggling in South Africa and in a seemingly simple qualifying group for Brazil, little is expected for the Three Lions this time around. At least in the minds of the sane anyway. In a BBC poll taken directly before the draw was made, a delusional 5.2% of people tipped England to win the World Cup. That made them 8th favourites! If we look at this positively, at least 95% of the British people can be considered sane. But to place England in the top quarter of teams is ridiculous. As we saw in the pair of friendlies last month, both Germany and Chile are better than us. I think we can also safely assume that we cannot be expected to compete with sides like Spain, Brazil, Argentina, and with rising sides like Uruguay, Columbia and Belgium all seeming to have far too much momentum for Roy Hodgson's men, 8th seems unlikely. Outside that list, European giants in Portugal, Italy, France and Holland. A kind draw was imperative.
And so onto the draw, and my predictions for each of the groups:
Group A: Brazil, Croatia, Mexico, Cameroon
One of my favourite groups. Competitive throughout, and though the hosts may have the advantage, the second spot is well and truly up for grabs. None of the three sides had particularly good qualifying campaigns, with all struggling in the playoffs. I would expect Brazil to progress as group winners, and purely on experience I will pick Mexico for spot number two.
Group B: Spain, Holland, Chile, Australia
I feel so sorry for the Aussies. Though they may be obliterating our cricket side down under, but they have been dealt a ridiculous hand for the World Cup. The reigning champions and the runners up, with the Alexis Sanchez-inspired Chile, makes up an incredibly tough task. Though for the neutrals this group will be interesting, as I could conceivably see Holland exit at this stage, the two Europeans are favourites to progress.
Group C: Columbia, Greece, Ivory Coast, Japan
One of the more cut-and-dried groups. Though Japan may seem capable of springing a surprise, Ivory Coast and Columbia must be favourites to progress. Unfortunately for Greece, despite their recent improvement, I can see them getting the dreaded nul point in Brazil.
Group D: Uruguay, England, Costa Rica, Italy
Though 5.2% (and I suspect more) of England fans will not want to admit it, this too appears to be a fairly obvious choice. Uruguay, with one of the greatest strike forces in world football (for those of you that do not follow football, that is Paris Saint Germain's Edinson Cavani and Liverpool's Luis Suarez. But if you don't follow football, that probably means nothing to you either!) And Italy, the side that eliminated England from Euro 2012, and with a rejuvenated Mario Balotelli since his move to Milan. Though Costa Rica will be the proverbial whipping boys of the group, I expect England to suffer their first group stage exit since 1982.
Group E: Switzerland, Ecuador, France, Honduras
The group that England wanted. And typical it should fall to France. So enigmatic in international competitions in recent years, we have seen France reach the final of two of the last five World Cups, but they have also perished in the group stage of the same amount. The other three have never really had much success in recent years, with Switzerland's rise into the top 8 of world football being greeted with derision by many. I think that France will return to their best to take top spot, and after a hard scrap, I wouldn't be surprised to see Ecuador in second.
Group F: Argentina, Bosnia-Herzagovina, Iran, Nigeria
At least we will be able to see the skills of Lionel Messi and Sergio Aguero on show, because Argentina should cruise through this group, scoring plenty of goals in the process. The competition's only debutants, Bosnia, should also feel relatively confident about their chances to progress, as neither Iran nor Nigeria fill international football sides with dread. I think those two will progess, and the Bosnian fairytale can continue.
Group G: Germany, Portugal, Ghana, USA
Another intriguing prospect. The two European giants will be the favourites to progress, but we have seen what happens to Portugal when Ronaldo gets isolated. The Iberians are too often reliant on the Real Madrid striker, and I would imagine that Ghana, though not back by a continent like 4 years ago, will be there to capitalise should the Portuguese stutter.
Group H: Belgium, Algeria, Russia, South Korea
Belgium's meteoric rise has been commented on by many, as they have been the side to slip under the radar for the majority of the qualifying campaign. With the likes of Eden Hazard, Vincent Kompany, Romelu Lukaku and Simon Mignolet, they have some of the Premier League's best players, and I would expect them to progress easily here. Russia would be my second choice, as though we hear little of them in the years between, they seem to turn up for international competitions.
As I mentioned, England have not failed to progress from a World Cup group since 1982. However, I would argue that they have not had a weaker squad since that point than the one we find ourselves with at present. Though the future looks promising, with youngsters like Ross Barkley, Jack Wilshere and Ravel Morrison making headlines in the Premier League this season, we may have to go through a spell of under-performing before we return to the knockout phases once more.
For England, after a hard-fought campaign, whose place in the finals were once again decided on just the final day against Poland, hopes of a kind draw were particularly strong. Going through a period widely described as a 'transition period' (I hate that phrase), after struggling in South Africa and in a seemingly simple qualifying group for Brazil, little is expected for the Three Lions this time around. At least in the minds of the sane anyway. In a BBC poll taken directly before the draw was made, a delusional 5.2% of people tipped England to win the World Cup. That made them 8th favourites! If we look at this positively, at least 95% of the British people can be considered sane. But to place England in the top quarter of teams is ridiculous. As we saw in the pair of friendlies last month, both Germany and Chile are better than us. I think we can also safely assume that we cannot be expected to compete with sides like Spain, Brazil, Argentina, and with rising sides like Uruguay, Columbia and Belgium all seeming to have far too much momentum for Roy Hodgson's men, 8th seems unlikely. Outside that list, European giants in Portugal, Italy, France and Holland. A kind draw was imperative.
And so onto the draw, and my predictions for each of the groups:
Group A: Brazil, Croatia, Mexico, Cameroon
One of my favourite groups. Competitive throughout, and though the hosts may have the advantage, the second spot is well and truly up for grabs. None of the three sides had particularly good qualifying campaigns, with all struggling in the playoffs. I would expect Brazil to progress as group winners, and purely on experience I will pick Mexico for spot number two.
Group B: Spain, Holland, Chile, Australia
I feel so sorry for the Aussies. Though they may be obliterating our cricket side down under, but they have been dealt a ridiculous hand for the World Cup. The reigning champions and the runners up, with the Alexis Sanchez-inspired Chile, makes up an incredibly tough task. Though for the neutrals this group will be interesting, as I could conceivably see Holland exit at this stage, the two Europeans are favourites to progress.
Group C: Columbia, Greece, Ivory Coast, Japan
One of the more cut-and-dried groups. Though Japan may seem capable of springing a surprise, Ivory Coast and Columbia must be favourites to progress. Unfortunately for Greece, despite their recent improvement, I can see them getting the dreaded nul point in Brazil.
Group D: Uruguay, England, Costa Rica, Italy
Though 5.2% (and I suspect more) of England fans will not want to admit it, this too appears to be a fairly obvious choice. Uruguay, with one of the greatest strike forces in world football (for those of you that do not follow football, that is Paris Saint Germain's Edinson Cavani and Liverpool's Luis Suarez. But if you don't follow football, that probably means nothing to you either!) And Italy, the side that eliminated England from Euro 2012, and with a rejuvenated Mario Balotelli since his move to Milan. Though Costa Rica will be the proverbial whipping boys of the group, I expect England to suffer their first group stage exit since 1982.
Group E: Switzerland, Ecuador, France, Honduras
The group that England wanted. And typical it should fall to France. So enigmatic in international competitions in recent years, we have seen France reach the final of two of the last five World Cups, but they have also perished in the group stage of the same amount. The other three have never really had much success in recent years, with Switzerland's rise into the top 8 of world football being greeted with derision by many. I think that France will return to their best to take top spot, and after a hard scrap, I wouldn't be surprised to see Ecuador in second.
Group F: Argentina, Bosnia-Herzagovina, Iran, Nigeria
At least we will be able to see the skills of Lionel Messi and Sergio Aguero on show, because Argentina should cruise through this group, scoring plenty of goals in the process. The competition's only debutants, Bosnia, should also feel relatively confident about their chances to progress, as neither Iran nor Nigeria fill international football sides with dread. I think those two will progess, and the Bosnian fairytale can continue.
Group G: Germany, Portugal, Ghana, USA
Another intriguing prospect. The two European giants will be the favourites to progress, but we have seen what happens to Portugal when Ronaldo gets isolated. The Iberians are too often reliant on the Real Madrid striker, and I would imagine that Ghana, though not back by a continent like 4 years ago, will be there to capitalise should the Portuguese stutter.
Group H: Belgium, Algeria, Russia, South Korea
Belgium's meteoric rise has been commented on by many, as they have been the side to slip under the radar for the majority of the qualifying campaign. With the likes of Eden Hazard, Vincent Kompany, Romelu Lukaku and Simon Mignolet, they have some of the Premier League's best players, and I would expect them to progress easily here. Russia would be my second choice, as though we hear little of them in the years between, they seem to turn up for international competitions.
As I mentioned, England have not failed to progress from a World Cup group since 1982. However, I would argue that they have not had a weaker squad since that point than the one we find ourselves with at present. Though the future looks promising, with youngsters like Ross Barkley, Jack Wilshere and Ravel Morrison making headlines in the Premier League this season, we may have to go through a spell of under-performing before we return to the knockout phases once more.
Tuesday 22 October 2013
The Veil Is Slipping: Are United Still In The Title Race?
The worst start to a Premier League season. This is the (unwanted) record that the 2013/14 Manchester United squad, and David Moyes, have claimed. I hate the term 'transition period', as it is all too often used as an excuse by managers and fans alike to explain poor form. A recent example would be, in my opinion, Liverpool. In the last 5 years, the Reds' form has dipped significantly, with each of Roy Hodgson, Kenny Dalglish and Brendan Rodgers claiming that Liverpool were in 'transition'. However, in United's case, I believe it is justified. After a managerial dynasty, the like of which the Premier League has never seen before, it was always likely to take Manchester United some time to regroup and adjust. However, there remain those who are surprised by their recent dip in form, with many suggesting that United may be out of the title race already. This post will examine this claim, whilst also looking at alternative explanations for the champions' sudden decline.
Man Utd have begun this 2013/2014 Premier League season with three defeats, two draws, and just three victories, leaving them on a grand total of 11 points after 8 games. This represents the club's worst start to a Premier League season ever, and their worst start to a campaign in 24 years. Bearing in mind all three of the sides considered to be in the hunt for the Premier League crown (Man Utd, Man City and Chelsea) have changed their managers, it was always going to be an interesting start to the season. Most United fans believed that they could therefore compare their performances and results to those of their rivals, as they had all gone through a period of instability. When they see their side 8th, and 8 points off the lead of the Premier League, 5 and 6 points behind City and Chelsea respectively, we have seen many become disenchanted. However, I consider the disenchanted to be short-termist supporters (and generally fair-weather fans), and I say that for two reasons. The first is that Manchester United, as I discussed in my Premier League fixtures post, recieved the toughest start to the campaign of the three title contenders. With Chelsea, Liverpool and Manchester City all in their opening five fixtures, two of which were away, it was always going to be tough for United to gain too much momentum. The second is Sir Alex Ferguson.
One misjudgement that Manchester United fans make when they compare Manchester City's and, in particular, Chelsea's situation to their own. In Sir Alex Ferguson, Manchester United had a manager that was with them for quarter of a century, providing them with success unrivalled by any other English club. It is only natural that he will have shaped the club in a particular way, making it incredibly difficult for the next man coming in. If losing Ferguson was not enough, the club would have been further destabilised by the loss of chief executive David Gill. Another incredibly influential member of the footballing world. His replacement, Ed Woodward, was widely considered to have had a poor transfer window, managing to bring in only Marouane Fellaini, despite several key failures. Comparing this to City and Chelsea, we see no such backroom instability. Roberto Mancini at City, whilst he was successful, did not have the same effect on the backroom as Ferguson, meaning that Manuel Pellegrini's transition would be much smoother. For Chelsea, the transition would be even more easy, as Jose Mourinho has managed Chelsea before, and will therefore be accustomed to the Premier League, and the club. Comparisons made between the three clubs are, in my mind, unfair, as United have had to deal with far more internal turmoil than either of their rivals.
Something else that many short-termist Manchester United 'fans' often forget (or perhaps do not even know) is that their idol, Sir Alex Ferguson, was within minutes of a sacking way back before he won his first title. Had he been disposed of, United would almost certainly not be the force we know them as today. In a move regarded as one of the best in history, Manchester United bosses took a risk on the Scottish manager, despite a dismal early United career. It would pay off handsomely, with 13 Premier League titles following. It is that same patience that new man David Moyes will be asking for from United bosses and fans alike. I'm not so sure he will get it...
David Moyes has been heavily criticised by many in recent weeks. The team's abject performance in the Manchester derby was followed by the shock loss at home to West Brom. In no league game since the opening day has the side looked settled and confident, and fans are placing the majority of the blame on the shoulders of the manager. He also shouldered blame for the club's lack of activity in the transfer market. Missing out on key targets like Thiago Alcantara, Gareth Bale and Ander Herrera meant that they had to settle for an ex-Moyes charge, Marouane Fellaini. However, even that was a flawed move. United had allowed a £24 Million minimum fee release clause to expire, meaning that the Belgian cost the Red Devils an extra £4 Million. A move that prompted wide calls of financial incompetance and lack of vision, also seemingly illustrating Moyes's inability to draw in the big players. With the American owners, the Glazers, there is no guarantee that the Abramovic-style short-termism won't win out, meaning that Moyes finds himself in line at the job centre. However, is it really fair that he shoulders the entirety of the blame?
I would certainly argue no. David Moyes has not become a bad manager overnight. He performed miracles year after year at Everton, where he was given the time to build the squad the way he wanted. Admittedly, the expectations at Manchester United are quite difficult to those of Everton, but the point remains the same. It is also important to point out that the current crop of Manchester United players would hardly make their best Premier League XI. There are a few gems (Robin van Persie, Wayne Rooney and Nemanja Vidic spring to mind), but there is little in terms of strength in depth at United. If we compare their players to those at City or Chelsea, they are certainly at a significant disadvantage. United fans may attempt to contradict me here, using last season's emphatic victory in the league as evidence of their squad's quality. My counter-argument would be this: United had their backroom working effectively, with a manager that knew the squad and the team inside-out, meaning he could get the best out of them. City, on the other hand, were divided, with several player revolts against Mancini. I think most sides could have beaten City last season. This year, both the lack of quality in the squad, and Moyes's lack of squad knowledge hinders the side on the field, and the turmoil behind the scenes means that players are not brought in, inevitably transferring onto the pitch.
People also point, quite rightly, to the change of mindset of teams when they play United, especially when they travel to Old Trafford. However, once again, I believe they misunderstand when they apply blame to Moyes for this. Such was the strength of Ferguson-led Manchester United teams, due to the manager's depth of squad knowledge, teams would come to Old Trafford expecting to lose, and treating a draw as though they had won. His retirement lifts that feeling, and teams can now exploit United's many weaknesses, as illustrated by the results thus far. I believe that this would have been the same had it been Moyes, Klopp or Guardiola in the United dugout. The new United manager was always going to struggle initially, perhaps for the rest of this season, as he can only work with what he has been given. What Moyes has been given is arguably the league's best strike force, but little in the midfield, and a defence that remains shaky at times. Ferguson's tactical knowledge instilled a sense of invincibility, which a manager can only grant a side after a considerable stint at the club. Expecting Moyes to come in and instantly perform to a similar standard is deluded. For opposing teams, I believe it is a case of 'making hay whilst the sun shines', as a suspect United will not stay this vulnerable for long.
So are United out of the title race? No. Simple as that. Arsene Wenger was quite right in his comments today. There is still plenty of time for the Red Devils to find their best form. In fact, it has been a trademark of both Manchester United and David Moyes teams in the past to come back strongly after Christmas. If they continue their current form until then, that resurgency may come too late. However, to write someone's title ambitions off after 8 games is ludicrous, and is indicative of the short-term nature of contemporary football.
Will Moyes be sacked? If it was up to me, not a chance. From a City point of view, I have made several jokes to United friends that David Moyes is the best thing to happen to City, so long may this early season form continue. However, I suspect that if United stick with the Scot, I will be smiling on the other side of my face soon enough. You cannot judge a new manager on 8 games (despite what many fans and chairmen think). If United get rid of Moyes, they will be in danger of falling into the trap that City (over the years) and Chelsea have fallen into. It is proven: a revolving door policy rarely brings sustained success. Find the right man, and stick with him. If fans believed Ferguson was the right man, they should be right behind Moyes. After all, the man who won them 13 Premier League titles did choose him for the job.
Man Utd have begun this 2013/2014 Premier League season with three defeats, two draws, and just three victories, leaving them on a grand total of 11 points after 8 games. This represents the club's worst start to a Premier League season ever, and their worst start to a campaign in 24 years. Bearing in mind all three of the sides considered to be in the hunt for the Premier League crown (Man Utd, Man City and Chelsea) have changed their managers, it was always going to be an interesting start to the season. Most United fans believed that they could therefore compare their performances and results to those of their rivals, as they had all gone through a period of instability. When they see their side 8th, and 8 points off the lead of the Premier League, 5 and 6 points behind City and Chelsea respectively, we have seen many become disenchanted. However, I consider the disenchanted to be short-termist supporters (and generally fair-weather fans), and I say that for two reasons. The first is that Manchester United, as I discussed in my Premier League fixtures post, recieved the toughest start to the campaign of the three title contenders. With Chelsea, Liverpool and Manchester City all in their opening five fixtures, two of which were away, it was always going to be tough for United to gain too much momentum. The second is Sir Alex Ferguson.
One misjudgement that Manchester United fans make when they compare Manchester City's and, in particular, Chelsea's situation to their own. In Sir Alex Ferguson, Manchester United had a manager that was with them for quarter of a century, providing them with success unrivalled by any other English club. It is only natural that he will have shaped the club in a particular way, making it incredibly difficult for the next man coming in. If losing Ferguson was not enough, the club would have been further destabilised by the loss of chief executive David Gill. Another incredibly influential member of the footballing world. His replacement, Ed Woodward, was widely considered to have had a poor transfer window, managing to bring in only Marouane Fellaini, despite several key failures. Comparing this to City and Chelsea, we see no such backroom instability. Roberto Mancini at City, whilst he was successful, did not have the same effect on the backroom as Ferguson, meaning that Manuel Pellegrini's transition would be much smoother. For Chelsea, the transition would be even more easy, as Jose Mourinho has managed Chelsea before, and will therefore be accustomed to the Premier League, and the club. Comparisons made between the three clubs are, in my mind, unfair, as United have had to deal with far more internal turmoil than either of their rivals.
Something else that many short-termist Manchester United 'fans' often forget (or perhaps do not even know) is that their idol, Sir Alex Ferguson, was within minutes of a sacking way back before he won his first title. Had he been disposed of, United would almost certainly not be the force we know them as today. In a move regarded as one of the best in history, Manchester United bosses took a risk on the Scottish manager, despite a dismal early United career. It would pay off handsomely, with 13 Premier League titles following. It is that same patience that new man David Moyes will be asking for from United bosses and fans alike. I'm not so sure he will get it...
David Moyes has been heavily criticised by many in recent weeks. The team's abject performance in the Manchester derby was followed by the shock loss at home to West Brom. In no league game since the opening day has the side looked settled and confident, and fans are placing the majority of the blame on the shoulders of the manager. He also shouldered blame for the club's lack of activity in the transfer market. Missing out on key targets like Thiago Alcantara, Gareth Bale and Ander Herrera meant that they had to settle for an ex-Moyes charge, Marouane Fellaini. However, even that was a flawed move. United had allowed a £24 Million minimum fee release clause to expire, meaning that the Belgian cost the Red Devils an extra £4 Million. A move that prompted wide calls of financial incompetance and lack of vision, also seemingly illustrating Moyes's inability to draw in the big players. With the American owners, the Glazers, there is no guarantee that the Abramovic-style short-termism won't win out, meaning that Moyes finds himself in line at the job centre. However, is it really fair that he shoulders the entirety of the blame?
I would certainly argue no. David Moyes has not become a bad manager overnight. He performed miracles year after year at Everton, where he was given the time to build the squad the way he wanted. Admittedly, the expectations at Manchester United are quite difficult to those of Everton, but the point remains the same. It is also important to point out that the current crop of Manchester United players would hardly make their best Premier League XI. There are a few gems (Robin van Persie, Wayne Rooney and Nemanja Vidic spring to mind), but there is little in terms of strength in depth at United. If we compare their players to those at City or Chelsea, they are certainly at a significant disadvantage. United fans may attempt to contradict me here, using last season's emphatic victory in the league as evidence of their squad's quality. My counter-argument would be this: United had their backroom working effectively, with a manager that knew the squad and the team inside-out, meaning he could get the best out of them. City, on the other hand, were divided, with several player revolts against Mancini. I think most sides could have beaten City last season. This year, both the lack of quality in the squad, and Moyes's lack of squad knowledge hinders the side on the field, and the turmoil behind the scenes means that players are not brought in, inevitably transferring onto the pitch.
People also point, quite rightly, to the change of mindset of teams when they play United, especially when they travel to Old Trafford. However, once again, I believe they misunderstand when they apply blame to Moyes for this. Such was the strength of Ferguson-led Manchester United teams, due to the manager's depth of squad knowledge, teams would come to Old Trafford expecting to lose, and treating a draw as though they had won. His retirement lifts that feeling, and teams can now exploit United's many weaknesses, as illustrated by the results thus far. I believe that this would have been the same had it been Moyes, Klopp or Guardiola in the United dugout. The new United manager was always going to struggle initially, perhaps for the rest of this season, as he can only work with what he has been given. What Moyes has been given is arguably the league's best strike force, but little in the midfield, and a defence that remains shaky at times. Ferguson's tactical knowledge instilled a sense of invincibility, which a manager can only grant a side after a considerable stint at the club. Expecting Moyes to come in and instantly perform to a similar standard is deluded. For opposing teams, I believe it is a case of 'making hay whilst the sun shines', as a suspect United will not stay this vulnerable for long.
So are United out of the title race? No. Simple as that. Arsene Wenger was quite right in his comments today. There is still plenty of time for the Red Devils to find their best form. In fact, it has been a trademark of both Manchester United and David Moyes teams in the past to come back strongly after Christmas. If they continue their current form until then, that resurgency may come too late. However, to write someone's title ambitions off after 8 games is ludicrous, and is indicative of the short-term nature of contemporary football.
Will Moyes be sacked? If it was up to me, not a chance. From a City point of view, I have made several jokes to United friends that David Moyes is the best thing to happen to City, so long may this early season form continue. However, I suspect that if United stick with the Scot, I will be smiling on the other side of my face soon enough. You cannot judge a new manager on 8 games (despite what many fans and chairmen think). If United get rid of Moyes, they will be in danger of falling into the trap that City (over the years) and Chelsea have fallen into. It is proven: a revolving door policy rarely brings sustained success. Find the right man, and stick with him. If fans believed Ferguson was the right man, they should be right behind Moyes. After all, the man who won them 13 Premier League titles did choose him for the job.
Tuesday 15 October 2013
England Series: The Developing - The Future's Bright?
In the build-up to Tuesday's do-or-die fixture at home to Poland, I have been running an England mini-series, looking at the talking points that have haunted the England side's preparations, and looking at their chances going forward. A few weeks ago, I gave my opinion on Greg Dyke's comments that England should be looking to reach the semi-finals of the Euro 2020 competition, and win the World Cup in 2022 in Qatar. This assumes that the groundwork is already in place for England to become a viable winner of trophies, as Spain's 'Golden Age' really began a decade or so previously, with the change of several rules regarding training of youngsters. Using the State of the Game report, as well as evidence from the current England squad and the lower leagues, I will examine just how much creedence can be given to Dyke's claims. I dismissed them a few weeks ago-was I wrong to?
After a year and a half of relentless qualification matches, England find themselves on the brink of getting to yet another major tournament. After a morale boosting victory against Montenegro on Friday (the review of which can be found here), only Poland stand between our country and a place in Brazil next year. Whilst few (including the majority of the FA) expect us to achieve any real success in Rio, the plans above indicate that victory is expected in the coming decades. Having seen 'The State of the Game' report, this final post of my six-part England series considers the future of English football, asking whether the majority of our next few tournaments' teams will be found from the top teams, or if the lower leagues could be the place where we will begin finding the next generation of our national team.
Bearing in mind the target for an England victory is the Qatar World Cup in 2022, I wonder just how many of our current crop of players will still be around come that competition. Given that this World Cup is nearly a decade away, it is quite obvious that only players under the age of 25 currently will realistically have any chance of playing in Qatar. This obviously rules out the older members of our current squad, with the likes of Lampard, Gerrard and Cole more likely to retire within the next five years. More surprising is the amount of players that we will not realistically have at our disposal in ten years. If we take the cut-off point as being 25, with anyone older than that unlikely to travel to the Middle East, I will now list the ages and players that will not be there.
31-Phil Jagielka, Jermain Defoe, Joleon Lescott
30-Ben Foster
29-Glen Johnson
28-Leighton Baines, Ashley Young
27-Wayne Rooney, Gary Cahill, James Milner
26-Joe Hart, Aaron Lennon
As you can see, the vast majority of this group are first-team players, all of which will be missed massively, and all of which will need to be replaced. Arguably the only first team players that will remain, having discarded these, are Kyle Walker (23), Andros Townsend (21), Phil Jones (21), Jack Wilshere (21), Tom Cleverley (23), Theo Walcott (24), Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain (20), Daniel Sturridge (24) and Danny Welbeck (22). Whilst these are all good players, it leaves a considerable hole in the English team. Who could we possibly replace our outgoing stars with?
As I discussed in my last post, 'The State of the Game' report has shown that only 32% of the minutes played in the Premier League were played by Englishmen, compared to Spaniards making up 59% in their home country, and Germans making up 50%. This certainly leaves us at a disadvantage when it comes to producing young, bright talent. However, are there any talented youngsters currently breaking into the top flight that we could potentially earmark at this early stage? Andros Townsend is certainly one of these, as he has proven himself to be worth more to Spurs than £30 Million man Erik Lamela in the early part of the season, earning himself his first England call up for the match on Friday. However, even he would be turning 30 as the 2022 tournament kicked off. Perhaps the best thing to is to look at the younger age-groups in English national football. Looking at the U-21s and U-19s, I have produced perhaps 7 names that may be of England fans for the future, that will all be towards the peak of their careers come 2022.
Southampton's James Ward-Prowse, a product of the Saints' excellent youth system, is only 18, and has already been playing semi-regular football in the Premier League. With a handful of appearances this season already, I see no reason why the youngster cannot kick on and challenge for an England place in the near future. Ravel Morrison, once of Manchester United, and now plying his trade for West Ham is another. A name that recently has been hyped up, and one that Sir Alex Ferguson even tipped for stardom. At 20, he has perhaps taken a little while longer to develop than initially expected, but if he maintains the form that he has shown at the beginning of this season, I see no reason why the central midfielder couldn't push Jack Wilshere all the way for a starting place in Qatar. The same applies to Wilfried Zaha. The recent Manchester United signing burst onto the international scene earlier this year, with a single cap to his name. He has perhaps become another casualty of the 'bigger club', where competition for places stunts the growth of young talents. Nevertheless, he still has plenty of time to prove himself, and oust Theo Walcott from his position. He will be competing with two more exciting wingers, however. Liverpool's Raheem Sterling, who had such a fantastic season for the Merseyside club last year, and Norwich's Nathan Redmond, who looks every inch a great winger this season, will also be vying for starting places. Ross Barkley ends the wealth of talented midfielders that England are cultivating, as the 19 year-old Evertonian has shown just how good a player he is over the last two seasons at Goodison Park, and I would not be surprised to see him get a cap in the near future. Finally, up-front, West Brom's Saido Berahino looks a positive prospect. Having scored a stunning finish at Old Trafford, the youngster has been scoring bagfuls in the League Cup, and he could be another to make the jump to international level. I have purposefully left out Adnan Januzaj, as I personally do not believe that the United winger should choose to represent England, having lived elsewhere and formed bonds with another country for the majority of his life.
As we can see, midfield seems to be an area that England have covered for the Qatar World Cup. Up-front, Saido Berahino can add to the likes of Daniel Sturridge, Danny Welbeck and even Andy Carroll, if he forces his way back into the fold. However, based purely on Premier League youngsters, the squad is perilously thin on goalkeepers and defenders. Can promising players from the lower leagues solve this?
Quite simply, no. There are perhaps only four names of players plying their trades in the Championship or below that may make it into the England squad any time in the near future. Though he technically is owned by Stoke, Jack Butland has played the vast majority of his career at Championship level, currently playing for Barnsley. He is an excellent goalkeeper, but one that has not quite reached his true potential as yet. The same could not be said for Tom Ince. The 21-year-old is lighting up the Championship at the minute, and has already been the subject of a bid from Liverpool. I fully expect to see him in and around the England squad within the next few years. Similarly, Will Hughes is another exceptional prospect. The 18-year-old Derby County man has had to fend off interest from the two Manchester clubs and Chelsea to keep playing regular football, and I suspect that he is a real talent for the future. The final name is Danny Ings. Though not consistent enough to really merit significant hype, the Burnley man has had his best season so far, scoring goals for fun in England's second tier. It will be the step up to the Premier League that decides whether he will be international class, or if he will go the same way as David Nugent.
From this analysis, it looks as though the lower leagues actually have a smaller role to play in the shaping of English talent than the Premier League. This would be a concern if it were true, but I think it is not. If we look at many of the names that have just been discussed, along with the names that will still be around the England squad in 2022, we see a significant amount of lower league involvement in their progress. Looking at the names in the current squad, Kyle Walker spent time at Sheffield United, Tom Cleverley had spells at Watford and Leicester, both Alex Oxlade Chamberlain and Theo Walcott began their careers at Southampton, Danny Welbeck had a brief stay at Preston and Andros Townsend played at 8 different football league clubs! The Football League, then, has contributed to many of our current internationals. But what about those for the future? Have they all come from Premier League youth academies?
The future prospects also show signs of Football League involvement. Of those mentioned above, only James Ward-Prowse and Raheem Sterling have been brought up entirely by Premier League clubs, playing only in the top division. Ravel Morrison had a season-long loan at Birmingham, whilst Nathan Redmond began his career there, leaving only this summer. Saido Berahino spent time on loan at Northampton Town, whilst Ross Barkley also went out on loan to Leeds and Sheffield Wednesday. Wilfried Zaha spent almost the entirety of his fledgling career at Crystal Palace, helping them to the Premier League in 2013. So what role do the lower leagues play in the development of the England squad? The fact that the 'State of the Game' report indicates that the Championship's English players make up 70.5% of the minutes played in the second tier last season, up 7% on 2007/8, tells us that the Championship is rapidly becoming a cauldron for young, British talent. This is especially true when you consider the amount of loan signings that we can see from Premier League clubs to Football League ones. This means that the Football League, and the Championship in particular, will be a significant contributor to any England side of the future.
Can the lower leagues help England win the 2022 World Cup? In my opinion, unless Barnet or someone help discover the new Lionel Messi or Cristiano Ronaldo, I doubt it. We need a complete change of our grassroots system, and a much more nurturing attitude to our young English players. The loan system is valuable, but we need plenty of young English players, like Barkley and Wilshere playing regularly in the Premier League. Should we overhaul the system, we can win the 2022 World Cup. However, I feel that we are still some way from an overhaul, and therefore, still some way from ending our near-50 year hoodoo.
After a year and a half of relentless qualification matches, England find themselves on the brink of getting to yet another major tournament. After a morale boosting victory against Montenegro on Friday (the review of which can be found here), only Poland stand between our country and a place in Brazil next year. Whilst few (including the majority of the FA) expect us to achieve any real success in Rio, the plans above indicate that victory is expected in the coming decades. Having seen 'The State of the Game' report, this final post of my six-part England series considers the future of English football, asking whether the majority of our next few tournaments' teams will be found from the top teams, or if the lower leagues could be the place where we will begin finding the next generation of our national team.
Bearing in mind the target for an England victory is the Qatar World Cup in 2022, I wonder just how many of our current crop of players will still be around come that competition. Given that this World Cup is nearly a decade away, it is quite obvious that only players under the age of 25 currently will realistically have any chance of playing in Qatar. This obviously rules out the older members of our current squad, with the likes of Lampard, Gerrard and Cole more likely to retire within the next five years. More surprising is the amount of players that we will not realistically have at our disposal in ten years. If we take the cut-off point as being 25, with anyone older than that unlikely to travel to the Middle East, I will now list the ages and players that will not be there.
31-Phil Jagielka, Jermain Defoe, Joleon Lescott
30-Ben Foster
29-Glen Johnson
28-Leighton Baines, Ashley Young
27-Wayne Rooney, Gary Cahill, James Milner
26-Joe Hart, Aaron Lennon
As you can see, the vast majority of this group are first-team players, all of which will be missed massively, and all of which will need to be replaced. Arguably the only first team players that will remain, having discarded these, are Kyle Walker (23), Andros Townsend (21), Phil Jones (21), Jack Wilshere (21), Tom Cleverley (23), Theo Walcott (24), Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain (20), Daniel Sturridge (24) and Danny Welbeck (22). Whilst these are all good players, it leaves a considerable hole in the English team. Who could we possibly replace our outgoing stars with?
As I discussed in my last post, 'The State of the Game' report has shown that only 32% of the minutes played in the Premier League were played by Englishmen, compared to Spaniards making up 59% in their home country, and Germans making up 50%. This certainly leaves us at a disadvantage when it comes to producing young, bright talent. However, are there any talented youngsters currently breaking into the top flight that we could potentially earmark at this early stage? Andros Townsend is certainly one of these, as he has proven himself to be worth more to Spurs than £30 Million man Erik Lamela in the early part of the season, earning himself his first England call up for the match on Friday. However, even he would be turning 30 as the 2022 tournament kicked off. Perhaps the best thing to is to look at the younger age-groups in English national football. Looking at the U-21s and U-19s, I have produced perhaps 7 names that may be of England fans for the future, that will all be towards the peak of their careers come 2022.
Southampton's James Ward-Prowse, a product of the Saints' excellent youth system, is only 18, and has already been playing semi-regular football in the Premier League. With a handful of appearances this season already, I see no reason why the youngster cannot kick on and challenge for an England place in the near future. Ravel Morrison, once of Manchester United, and now plying his trade for West Ham is another. A name that recently has been hyped up, and one that Sir Alex Ferguson even tipped for stardom. At 20, he has perhaps taken a little while longer to develop than initially expected, but if he maintains the form that he has shown at the beginning of this season, I see no reason why the central midfielder couldn't push Jack Wilshere all the way for a starting place in Qatar. The same applies to Wilfried Zaha. The recent Manchester United signing burst onto the international scene earlier this year, with a single cap to his name. He has perhaps become another casualty of the 'bigger club', where competition for places stunts the growth of young talents. Nevertheless, he still has plenty of time to prove himself, and oust Theo Walcott from his position. He will be competing with two more exciting wingers, however. Liverpool's Raheem Sterling, who had such a fantastic season for the Merseyside club last year, and Norwich's Nathan Redmond, who looks every inch a great winger this season, will also be vying for starting places. Ross Barkley ends the wealth of talented midfielders that England are cultivating, as the 19 year-old Evertonian has shown just how good a player he is over the last two seasons at Goodison Park, and I would not be surprised to see him get a cap in the near future. Finally, up-front, West Brom's Saido Berahino looks a positive prospect. Having scored a stunning finish at Old Trafford, the youngster has been scoring bagfuls in the League Cup, and he could be another to make the jump to international level. I have purposefully left out Adnan Januzaj, as I personally do not believe that the United winger should choose to represent England, having lived elsewhere and formed bonds with another country for the majority of his life.
As we can see, midfield seems to be an area that England have covered for the Qatar World Cup. Up-front, Saido Berahino can add to the likes of Daniel Sturridge, Danny Welbeck and even Andy Carroll, if he forces his way back into the fold. However, based purely on Premier League youngsters, the squad is perilously thin on goalkeepers and defenders. Can promising players from the lower leagues solve this?
Quite simply, no. There are perhaps only four names of players plying their trades in the Championship or below that may make it into the England squad any time in the near future. Though he technically is owned by Stoke, Jack Butland has played the vast majority of his career at Championship level, currently playing for Barnsley. He is an excellent goalkeeper, but one that has not quite reached his true potential as yet. The same could not be said for Tom Ince. The 21-year-old is lighting up the Championship at the minute, and has already been the subject of a bid from Liverpool. I fully expect to see him in and around the England squad within the next few years. Similarly, Will Hughes is another exceptional prospect. The 18-year-old Derby County man has had to fend off interest from the two Manchester clubs and Chelsea to keep playing regular football, and I suspect that he is a real talent for the future. The final name is Danny Ings. Though not consistent enough to really merit significant hype, the Burnley man has had his best season so far, scoring goals for fun in England's second tier. It will be the step up to the Premier League that decides whether he will be international class, or if he will go the same way as David Nugent.
From this analysis, it looks as though the lower leagues actually have a smaller role to play in the shaping of English talent than the Premier League. This would be a concern if it were true, but I think it is not. If we look at many of the names that have just been discussed, along with the names that will still be around the England squad in 2022, we see a significant amount of lower league involvement in their progress. Looking at the names in the current squad, Kyle Walker spent time at Sheffield United, Tom Cleverley had spells at Watford and Leicester, both Alex Oxlade Chamberlain and Theo Walcott began their careers at Southampton, Danny Welbeck had a brief stay at Preston and Andros Townsend played at 8 different football league clubs! The Football League, then, has contributed to many of our current internationals. But what about those for the future? Have they all come from Premier League youth academies?
The future prospects also show signs of Football League involvement. Of those mentioned above, only James Ward-Prowse and Raheem Sterling have been brought up entirely by Premier League clubs, playing only in the top division. Ravel Morrison had a season-long loan at Birmingham, whilst Nathan Redmond began his career there, leaving only this summer. Saido Berahino spent time on loan at Northampton Town, whilst Ross Barkley also went out on loan to Leeds and Sheffield Wednesday. Wilfried Zaha spent almost the entirety of his fledgling career at Crystal Palace, helping them to the Premier League in 2013. So what role do the lower leagues play in the development of the England squad? The fact that the 'State of the Game' report indicates that the Championship's English players make up 70.5% of the minutes played in the second tier last season, up 7% on 2007/8, tells us that the Championship is rapidly becoming a cauldron for young, British talent. This is especially true when you consider the amount of loan signings that we can see from Premier League clubs to Football League ones. This means that the Football League, and the Championship in particular, will be a significant contributor to any England side of the future.
Can the lower leagues help England win the 2022 World Cup? In my opinion, unless Barnet or someone help discover the new Lionel Messi or Cristiano Ronaldo, I doubt it. We need a complete change of our grassroots system, and a much more nurturing attitude to our young English players. The loan system is valuable, but we need plenty of young English players, like Barkley and Wilshere playing regularly in the Premier League. Should we overhaul the system, we can win the 2022 World Cup. However, I feel that we are still some way from an overhaul, and therefore, still some way from ending our near-50 year hoodoo.
Japanese Grand Prix: Not A Racer? Not A Problem
That finger. That victorious, but unbelievably annoying, digit. The sight of Sebastian Vettel's right index finger, oddly turned the wrong way around, will be imprinted onto the memory of F1 for some time to come. It has certainly been the only thing F1 fans will have seen for the entirety of the second half of this season. Red Bull's dominance has led to F1 being accused of being repetitive and borderline boring, with Vettel generally qualifying on pole and leading a practically lights to flag victory. Though it didn't happen this way in Japan, the end result was the same. The irriting twisted index finger raised in triumph come the end of the race. However, there have also been recent questions asked of Vettel's ability as a racer. Seeing as the vast majority of his victories have been won from the front, a question mark can still be raised above his head over his ability to relentlessly chase down and overtake those infront of him. When you think back over recent years, races like Japan in 2005, when Kimi Raikkonen, then at McLaren, came from 17th on the grid to overtake Giancarlo Fisichella on a pulsating final lap to win the race, really illustrate how much real racing ability you have. Similarly Jenson Button's 2011 Canadian Grand Prix win gives us the impression of a racer, coming from last place to win the race on the final lap. Vettel has not yet had that moment, and this was another race where he had the opportunity, but it went begging.
The race was overshadowed by the tragic news on Friday that Maria de Villota, a former test driver for Marussia, had been found dead in her Spanish hotel room. After a horrific crash during a test in July 2012, which saw her lose her right eye, and suffer massive head injuries, Maria showed incredible bravery to fight back. Whilst the crash effectively ended her career as a race driver, she would not be kept away from the paddock, becoming an inspiration to millions worldwide. Her smile and fighting spirit was matched only by her generosity and desire to do good, and she will be remembered by everyone involved in Formula 1, and the motorsport world in general. Such were the extent of her injuries from her crash, it was concluded that she had died as a result of her injuries, and the coroner released a report of 'death by natural causes' the following day. In memory of the 33 year old, many of the teams adopted her 'star' crash helmet design. Marussia had it emblazoned on several parts of the car, whilst Jenson Button had his own tribute, placing a star on his helmet to show his respects. She was a bright and bubbly personality for the sport, and Formula 1 will miss her dearly.
The Suzuka circuit in Japan has been described by many as a drivers' favourite. With its twisting, technically challenging corners, it is a race-track that forces every ounce of concentration and driving ability from the racers. Whilst it is unlike Monaco, in that one mistake does not necessarily earn you a trip to the barriers, one mistake can certainly cost you an exceptional amount of time. Every corner needs to be entered and exited smoothly, otherwise you have a great disadvantage to the cars behind and in front. The iconic corners include Dunlop, Spoon Corner and, of course, the 180 mph 130R corner. It is a circuit where we have seen some of the best, and most dramatic races in the history of the sport. This year's qualifying certainly added to this drama. In qualifying one, we had two separate fires! After fumes caught light in the Sauber garage, Esteban Gutierrez had to make a swift exit from his vehicle as a small fire started behind his head. Thanks to extreme safety regulations, and layers of fire retardant clothing, fire is, thankfully, not the threat it once was in Formula 1. However, it is always disconcerting to see flames in a garage, and luckily, it was an easily containable situation. If one fire during qualifying is unusual, two is extraordinary. However, just ten minutes later, John-Eric Vergne's Toro Rosso was seen lapping with both of the rear brakes on fire, forcing him to retire from qualifying and pull up next to a marshal. This brought out the red flag, causing chaos as the lights went green. With several cars still under pressure from those behind, there was a free-for-all at the end of Q1, with both Massa and Raikkonen making daring passes in an attempt to find space. The big loser at the end of all this was Adrian Sutil. The Force India driver failed to find enough space, meaning that he had to start from the back (having opted to change his engine).
Q2 saw no real surprises, with all of the protagonists comfortably through to the shootout. The main winner of Q2 was Nico Hulkenberg. The German is having a tremendous second half of the season with Sauber, and he has been linked with several teams further up the grid. Once again, he managed to drag a mid-grid car into the top 10. Q3 began quite slowly, with only 4 cars opting to take the opportunity to go out early. In the battle between the Red Bulls for pole, it looked like luck was finally on Webber's side. Vettel had been radioed to explain that his KERS system had failed, costing the German up to three tenths a lap. This would prove crucial. For the first time this season, the Aussie managed to beat his team mate. Such has been the dominance of Red Bull, that generally means pole. Behind that pair, Lewis Hamilton produced an excellent lap to edge ahead of Romain Grosjean, who has been ending the season strongly. Hulkenberg, however, was a revelation. In a far inferior car, he managed to outqualify both Ferraris and the Lotus of Raikkonen: a good effort. But the day belonged to Webber, who may have just had his final pole position.
The Australian will have woken on Sunday morning hoping for the victory to go with his pole, however to do that, he would need to rectify a serious ongoing problem. Webber starts have been extremely suspect, and this has often cost him valuable places and points. Nowhere is this more important than on pole. However, Webber would have a nightmare start, but, even more unusually, as did his teammate. Off the line, the Red Bulls were swamped by Lewis Hamilton and Romain Grosjean, with the latter soaring into the lead. The Mercedes was less fortunate. In the process of overtaking Vettel, Hamilton clipped his front wing, causing a right rear puncture. This caused him to drift wildly, and dropped him right to the back of the field. It would eventually end his race, as the damage to the floor of the car from the delaminating tyre was too much to continue with. Further back, Jules Bianchi and Guido van der Garde tripped over one another on the run down to the first corner, spearing the pair into the gravel. The yellow flags proved a great aid to Romain Grosjean, as it disabled the DRS, preventing the Red Bulls gaining too much time. By the time the yellow flags were rescinded, the Frenchman had broken the 1 second window, and was looking good for the win.
Suzuka is not a track known for its wealth of overtaking opportunities, and as such, the race would all come down to the most effective strategies. The front three all made their first stops within three laps of one another, retaining their places. This meant that round one of the tactical battle had gone to the Lotus team. Further back, overtaking was few and far between, with the race characterised by a large amount of car trains, most notably, the train forming behind Daniel Ricciardo's Toro Rosso in 4th place. With the Aussie running a long first stint, many of the earlier stoppers became trapped behind Ricciardo. This included the other Mercedes of Nico Rosberg. Mercedes day had gone from bad to worse in the laps after Lewis Hamilton's retirement. At the German's first stop, he was released into the path of Sergio Perez, earning him a drive-through penalty and dropping him back into 12th place. With both Ferraris and Lotuses infront of Rosberg, Mercedes were looking like dropping a long way out of the race for 2nd place in the Constructors Championship.
Back up front, the change of tyres had seemed to have a profound effect on the Red Bulls, moving them closer to Grosjean. Webber was looking particularly racy as he came towards the end of his stint, getting within the one second window. Like the first time, it was Webber to pit first and attempt the undercut, but this time, Grosjean and Vettel stayed out longer. The Lotus's pace had dropped away, allowing Vettel to reel him in quickly. However, try as he might, the German could not get past the Lotus. This time, when Grosjean pitted on lap 30, he had no defence to Webber behind, rejoining a good 5 seconds behind. Vettel then turned his attention to jumping the pair, however, he would have to do so on old tyres. It also became very clear that Webber would need to stop again, as the Aussie was setting fastest lap times and burning through his tyres. When Vettel did evetually stop, for the final time, he rejoined behind Grosjean. However, this time, on fresher tyres, he did not find it difficult to overtake the Frenchman. This was his only pass of the race, and he would need just the one.
With Vettel flying away at the front, Mark Webber made his final stop, changing to the softer tyre on lap 47. If he could pass Grosjean quickly, he could make an attempt at hunting Vettel down. Grosjean, however, seemed to have learnt his lessons from the time spent being hounded by Vettel. Lap anfter lap passed, with the Australian becoming increasingly frustrated, and the race win slipped out of his hands. Though he eventually made an excellent pass on Grosjean on lap 52, there was little he could do to reel in his team mate. Vettel took the chequered flag to win his 9th race of the season, by 7 seconds from his teammate. Though Fernando Alonso finished 4th, meaning that the title was not mathmatically over, he conceded defeat to his rival. The title will be decided in India if Alonso fails to outscore Vettel by 16 points. Seeing as the German has had only 1 retirement in a year, it would take an extraordinary set of circumstances to deny him from here.
But the question remains: is Vettel a true racer? Here, he had the opportunity to show everyone how tenacious and capable he is, however he at times looked out of ideas against Romain Grosjean. Though he did eventually overtake the Frenchman, it was the perfect execution of a better strategy that won the German this race. He certainly prefers to be out in front, as he is the expert of creating gaps and running away from the rest of the field. Whether he will ever win a race from the back of the field, putting the race in the annuls alongside those races like Japan 8 years ago, I am unsure. His car seems too good to need him to do this at the minute, so we may be waiting for some time to find this out.
The race was overshadowed by the tragic news on Friday that Maria de Villota, a former test driver for Marussia, had been found dead in her Spanish hotel room. After a horrific crash during a test in July 2012, which saw her lose her right eye, and suffer massive head injuries, Maria showed incredible bravery to fight back. Whilst the crash effectively ended her career as a race driver, she would not be kept away from the paddock, becoming an inspiration to millions worldwide. Her smile and fighting spirit was matched only by her generosity and desire to do good, and she will be remembered by everyone involved in Formula 1, and the motorsport world in general. Such were the extent of her injuries from her crash, it was concluded that she had died as a result of her injuries, and the coroner released a report of 'death by natural causes' the following day. In memory of the 33 year old, many of the teams adopted her 'star' crash helmet design. Marussia had it emblazoned on several parts of the car, whilst Jenson Button had his own tribute, placing a star on his helmet to show his respects. She was a bright and bubbly personality for the sport, and Formula 1 will miss her dearly.
The Suzuka circuit in Japan has been described by many as a drivers' favourite. With its twisting, technically challenging corners, it is a race-track that forces every ounce of concentration and driving ability from the racers. Whilst it is unlike Monaco, in that one mistake does not necessarily earn you a trip to the barriers, one mistake can certainly cost you an exceptional amount of time. Every corner needs to be entered and exited smoothly, otherwise you have a great disadvantage to the cars behind and in front. The iconic corners include Dunlop, Spoon Corner and, of course, the 180 mph 130R corner. It is a circuit where we have seen some of the best, and most dramatic races in the history of the sport. This year's qualifying certainly added to this drama. In qualifying one, we had two separate fires! After fumes caught light in the Sauber garage, Esteban Gutierrez had to make a swift exit from his vehicle as a small fire started behind his head. Thanks to extreme safety regulations, and layers of fire retardant clothing, fire is, thankfully, not the threat it once was in Formula 1. However, it is always disconcerting to see flames in a garage, and luckily, it was an easily containable situation. If one fire during qualifying is unusual, two is extraordinary. However, just ten minutes later, John-Eric Vergne's Toro Rosso was seen lapping with both of the rear brakes on fire, forcing him to retire from qualifying and pull up next to a marshal. This brought out the red flag, causing chaos as the lights went green. With several cars still under pressure from those behind, there was a free-for-all at the end of Q1, with both Massa and Raikkonen making daring passes in an attempt to find space. The big loser at the end of all this was Adrian Sutil. The Force India driver failed to find enough space, meaning that he had to start from the back (having opted to change his engine).
Q2 saw no real surprises, with all of the protagonists comfortably through to the shootout. The main winner of Q2 was Nico Hulkenberg. The German is having a tremendous second half of the season with Sauber, and he has been linked with several teams further up the grid. Once again, he managed to drag a mid-grid car into the top 10. Q3 began quite slowly, with only 4 cars opting to take the opportunity to go out early. In the battle between the Red Bulls for pole, it looked like luck was finally on Webber's side. Vettel had been radioed to explain that his KERS system had failed, costing the German up to three tenths a lap. This would prove crucial. For the first time this season, the Aussie managed to beat his team mate. Such has been the dominance of Red Bull, that generally means pole. Behind that pair, Lewis Hamilton produced an excellent lap to edge ahead of Romain Grosjean, who has been ending the season strongly. Hulkenberg, however, was a revelation. In a far inferior car, he managed to outqualify both Ferraris and the Lotus of Raikkonen: a good effort. But the day belonged to Webber, who may have just had his final pole position.
The Australian will have woken on Sunday morning hoping for the victory to go with his pole, however to do that, he would need to rectify a serious ongoing problem. Webber starts have been extremely suspect, and this has often cost him valuable places and points. Nowhere is this more important than on pole. However, Webber would have a nightmare start, but, even more unusually, as did his teammate. Off the line, the Red Bulls were swamped by Lewis Hamilton and Romain Grosjean, with the latter soaring into the lead. The Mercedes was less fortunate. In the process of overtaking Vettel, Hamilton clipped his front wing, causing a right rear puncture. This caused him to drift wildly, and dropped him right to the back of the field. It would eventually end his race, as the damage to the floor of the car from the delaminating tyre was too much to continue with. Further back, Jules Bianchi and Guido van der Garde tripped over one another on the run down to the first corner, spearing the pair into the gravel. The yellow flags proved a great aid to Romain Grosjean, as it disabled the DRS, preventing the Red Bulls gaining too much time. By the time the yellow flags were rescinded, the Frenchman had broken the 1 second window, and was looking good for the win.
Suzuka is not a track known for its wealth of overtaking opportunities, and as such, the race would all come down to the most effective strategies. The front three all made their first stops within three laps of one another, retaining their places. This meant that round one of the tactical battle had gone to the Lotus team. Further back, overtaking was few and far between, with the race characterised by a large amount of car trains, most notably, the train forming behind Daniel Ricciardo's Toro Rosso in 4th place. With the Aussie running a long first stint, many of the earlier stoppers became trapped behind Ricciardo. This included the other Mercedes of Nico Rosberg. Mercedes day had gone from bad to worse in the laps after Lewis Hamilton's retirement. At the German's first stop, he was released into the path of Sergio Perez, earning him a drive-through penalty and dropping him back into 12th place. With both Ferraris and Lotuses infront of Rosberg, Mercedes were looking like dropping a long way out of the race for 2nd place in the Constructors Championship.
Back up front, the change of tyres had seemed to have a profound effect on the Red Bulls, moving them closer to Grosjean. Webber was looking particularly racy as he came towards the end of his stint, getting within the one second window. Like the first time, it was Webber to pit first and attempt the undercut, but this time, Grosjean and Vettel stayed out longer. The Lotus's pace had dropped away, allowing Vettel to reel him in quickly. However, try as he might, the German could not get past the Lotus. This time, when Grosjean pitted on lap 30, he had no defence to Webber behind, rejoining a good 5 seconds behind. Vettel then turned his attention to jumping the pair, however, he would have to do so on old tyres. It also became very clear that Webber would need to stop again, as the Aussie was setting fastest lap times and burning through his tyres. When Vettel did evetually stop, for the final time, he rejoined behind Grosjean. However, this time, on fresher tyres, he did not find it difficult to overtake the Frenchman. This was his only pass of the race, and he would need just the one.
With Vettel flying away at the front, Mark Webber made his final stop, changing to the softer tyre on lap 47. If he could pass Grosjean quickly, he could make an attempt at hunting Vettel down. Grosjean, however, seemed to have learnt his lessons from the time spent being hounded by Vettel. Lap anfter lap passed, with the Australian becoming increasingly frustrated, and the race win slipped out of his hands. Though he eventually made an excellent pass on Grosjean on lap 52, there was little he could do to reel in his team mate. Vettel took the chequered flag to win his 9th race of the season, by 7 seconds from his teammate. Though Fernando Alonso finished 4th, meaning that the title was not mathmatically over, he conceded defeat to his rival. The title will be decided in India if Alonso fails to outscore Vettel by 16 points. Seeing as the German has had only 1 retirement in a year, it would take an extraordinary set of circumstances to deny him from here.
But the question remains: is Vettel a true racer? Here, he had the opportunity to show everyone how tenacious and capable he is, however he at times looked out of ideas against Romain Grosjean. Though he did eventually overtake the Frenchman, it was the perfect execution of a better strategy that won the German this race. He certainly prefers to be out in front, as he is the expert of creating gaps and running away from the rest of the field. Whether he will ever win a race from the back of the field, putting the race in the annuls alongside those races like Japan 8 years ago, I am unsure. His car seems too good to need him to do this at the minute, so we may be waiting for some time to find this out.
Monday 14 October 2013
England Series: What Does 'The State of the Game' Mean For The National Team?
In the build-up to Tuesday's do-or-die fixture at home to Poland, I will be running an England mini-series, looking at the talking points that have haunted the England side's preparations, and looking at their chances going forward. A few weeks ago, I gave my opinion on Greg Dyke's comments that England should be looking to reach the semi-finals of the Euro 2020 competition, and win the World Cup in 2022 in Qatar. This assumes that the groundwork is already in place for England to become a viable winner of trophies, as Spain's 'Golden Age' really began a decade or so previously, with the change of several rules regarding training of youngsters. Using the State of the Game report, as well as evidence from the current England squad and the lower leagues, I will examine just how much creedence can be given to Dyke's claims. I dismissed them a few weeks ago-was I wrong to?
28th February 1999. The last time any Premier League side fielded an entire XI of English players. The team: Aston Villa. The match: Coventry City vs Villa. The scoreline: 4-1. Which perhaps explains why it has never happened since. Nevertheless, it is slightly worrying when you consider that less than a third of the Premier League minutes played were by English players, after staggering decline of English players in the Premier League. This is the reality as described by the BBC State of the Game report last week. However, is it really any different around the continent? With the influx of players from Europe and, especially, South America, is it really that surprising that the leagues have been diluted? This post will compare the plight of the English game to other European leagues, before assessing why this has occurred, in order to see just how much of an English specific problem this is. Finally, by assessing the performance of the England team in the recent World Cup Qualifiers, we can further compare them as a footballing force to other European nations.
First, I think it would be useful to outline the core findings of this report. The BBC State of the Game report is taken once every 5 years, in order to get a basic lay of the land during the intermittent period. The 2013 report stated that the percentage of minutes played by English players in the Premier League has dipped below a third of the overall minutes played. The 32.26% that English players have played this season is a dip on the 2007/8 stat of 35.43%, and, as a result, is the lowest ever on record. This has prompted many in the game to make statements about how worrying this should be considered, almost blaming the Premier League for the lack of English talent. Personally, I believe that they have the cause and effect the wrong way around. Whilst the influx of foreign players inevitably affects the national squad, it is not the fault of other players if England as a nation are not the force they once were. If the league wants to compete with the other European leagues (e.g. Spain, Italy and Germany), they need to be providing the best talent. If that is not from England, as is the case at the minute, it is not the fault of the league.
One way of looking to see the influence of South American and African imports is to look at competing European leagues. Are imports really more prevalent in the Premier League than in the Bundesliga or La Liga? The State of the Game report indicates that perhaps there is an English-specific problem. La Liga, the league of the current World Cup holders, and winner of the last three major international tournaments available in Europe, Spain, shows that 59% of the minutes played were played by Spaniards. Meanwhile, in Germany, the Bundesliga's statistics are vastly similar to that of their Spanish counterparts, with Germans making up 50% of the minutes played. This clearly indicates that the Premier League relies far more on players from abroad than homegrown talents.
So why is there such a gap between the continental leagues and the Premier League? On the face of it, it doesn't make sense, as many of the big money transfers over the last few summers have been from Spanish or German clubs, not buying Spanish or German players. Looking purely at this season's transfers, whilst Real Madrid did sign two Spanish youngsters for large sums (Isco and Illaramendi), the majority of their transfer outlay were on foreign players (Bale, Casemiro and Carvajal). Barcelona's only signing was Brazilian Neymar, indicating that foreign players do still play a significant role when it comes to Spanish transfers. The same is true for the Bundesliga, where big name signings like Henrikh Mkhitaryan, Luis Gustavo, Thiago Alcantara and Pierre-Emerick Aubameyang were also brought in from abroad. However, whilst the big name transfers and the big teams are the ones more frequently focused on, the teams that really give the indication of the study are those further down the table. Looking at Spain, we can see that there are only two teams outside of the El Clasico pair that spent more than £20 Million on players. Similarly, in Germany, only three teams outside of the top two spent past that margin. Generally speaking, foreign players tend to be more expensive, so those that have spent large sums have generally brought in foreign talent. However, if we look at Premier League teams outside the Manchester clubs, eleven of the 18 clubs have spent beyond £20 Million in this recent transfer window. In England, there has been the school of thought that the better English players are rare and overpriced, and therefore too expensive for smaller clubs to buy, making foreign players a more affordable alternative. However, we can also see that the majority of big-name transfers have been foreign, with the likes of Willian, Lamela, Eriksen, Ozil and Osvaldo all coming in for large fees. This perhaps goes some way to explaining exactly why we have seen a decline in the percentage of minutes played by English players in the Premier League.
However, to what extent does this affect the England national team more than that of other nations? Do the players in the national squads get regular game time? Underneath I will lay out what I consider to be each of the nations' top squads (all 4-4-2 formation). This way we can see whether each of the sides' starting line-ups are playing regularly.
Spain: Casillas, Jordi Alba, Sergio Ramos, Pique, Arbeloa, Pedro, Xavi, Iniesta, Fabregas, Soldado, Negredo
Germany: Neuer, Lahm, Boateng, Hummels, Jansen, Muller, Ozil, Schweinsteiger, Kroos, Kiessling, Gomez
England: Hart, Walker, Cahill, Jagielka, Baines, Walcott, Gerrard, Lampard, Milner, Rooney, Sturridge
Looking at these XI's, we can see that in Spain's case, every single one of the names mentioned play week-in, week-out, with 9 of the 11 coming from the El Clasico pair. The other pair, both strikers, now play every match for their sides Tottenham and Manchester City respectively. This is a similar story for Germany. Every one of their XI plays on a weekly basis, with 7 of their players coming from Bayern Munich or Borussia Dortmund. For England, whilst the majority play every match, there are a few that have found they are in strong competition for their place at club level. Gary Cahill and Frank Lampard at Chelsea have both, at one time or another, found themselves ousted in favour of either David Luiz (in Cahill's case) or Ramires/Kevin De Bruyne (in Lampard's). James Milner has also found it difficult to break into the Manchester City midfield. Though he often starts the important matches, he is usually used as a bit-part player, covering for the likes of Jesus Navas and Fernandinho. Before the start of the season, even Wayne Rooney's place was not guaranteed at United, with the Englishman playing second fiddle to Robin van Persie for the majority of last season. His performances so far this season have won him his place back, but this shows that the influx of foreign players is affecting the national team. The differences are far more stark when we consider those that would be expecting to be on the bench. Spain's bench is an embarrasment of riches, with the likes of Valdes, Jesus Navas, David Silva, Juan Mata, Santi Cazorla all playing regular football. Germany's bench is much the same, with Adler, Khedira, Gotze, Mertesacker and Draxler in their first-team squads. Looking at those players pushing for the bench for England, Fraser Forster and Andros Townsend illustrate the rare exceptions to the rule. Players like Jack Wilshere, Danny Welbeck, Tom Cleverley, Phil Jones, Chris Smalling and Jermain Defoe all have a battle on their hands to retain their place, with many of them having to settle for benchwarmer for part of the season. This will have a disastrous effect on the strength in depth of the squad, as without match practice, the England team will be left far behind by their European rivals, as has been the case in recent years.
How does the English game rectify this? As I stated earlier, the Premier League prides itself on being (arguably) the best league in the world, and with that status comes a lot of money. The league can only work with what they are given, and if the problems with the English players begin at the very bottom, as I suspect, there is where we need to start. Enforcing 'minimum English' rules will only be to the detriment of the Premier League, as we will inevitably see the top talent elsewhere. What we have to do is train the English top talents properly here. By bettering our training techniques, teaching technical ability over 'win at all costs', we should see some of the better players rise to the top at junior level. By nurturing our players properly, and teaching them the skills they need to succeed, there is no reason why we cannot follow Spain's example and have a 'Golden Generation'. We just need to get the grassroots organised correctly first.
28th February 1999. The last time any Premier League side fielded an entire XI of English players. The team: Aston Villa. The match: Coventry City vs Villa. The scoreline: 4-1. Which perhaps explains why it has never happened since. Nevertheless, it is slightly worrying when you consider that less than a third of the Premier League minutes played were by English players, after staggering decline of English players in the Premier League. This is the reality as described by the BBC State of the Game report last week. However, is it really any different around the continent? With the influx of players from Europe and, especially, South America, is it really that surprising that the leagues have been diluted? This post will compare the plight of the English game to other European leagues, before assessing why this has occurred, in order to see just how much of an English specific problem this is. Finally, by assessing the performance of the England team in the recent World Cup Qualifiers, we can further compare them as a footballing force to other European nations.
First, I think it would be useful to outline the core findings of this report. The BBC State of the Game report is taken once every 5 years, in order to get a basic lay of the land during the intermittent period. The 2013 report stated that the percentage of minutes played by English players in the Premier League has dipped below a third of the overall minutes played. The 32.26% that English players have played this season is a dip on the 2007/8 stat of 35.43%, and, as a result, is the lowest ever on record. This has prompted many in the game to make statements about how worrying this should be considered, almost blaming the Premier League for the lack of English talent. Personally, I believe that they have the cause and effect the wrong way around. Whilst the influx of foreign players inevitably affects the national squad, it is not the fault of other players if England as a nation are not the force they once were. If the league wants to compete with the other European leagues (e.g. Spain, Italy and Germany), they need to be providing the best talent. If that is not from England, as is the case at the minute, it is not the fault of the league.
One way of looking to see the influence of South American and African imports is to look at competing European leagues. Are imports really more prevalent in the Premier League than in the Bundesliga or La Liga? The State of the Game report indicates that perhaps there is an English-specific problem. La Liga, the league of the current World Cup holders, and winner of the last three major international tournaments available in Europe, Spain, shows that 59% of the minutes played were played by Spaniards. Meanwhile, in Germany, the Bundesliga's statistics are vastly similar to that of their Spanish counterparts, with Germans making up 50% of the minutes played. This clearly indicates that the Premier League relies far more on players from abroad than homegrown talents.
So why is there such a gap between the continental leagues and the Premier League? On the face of it, it doesn't make sense, as many of the big money transfers over the last few summers have been from Spanish or German clubs, not buying Spanish or German players. Looking purely at this season's transfers, whilst Real Madrid did sign two Spanish youngsters for large sums (Isco and Illaramendi), the majority of their transfer outlay were on foreign players (Bale, Casemiro and Carvajal). Barcelona's only signing was Brazilian Neymar, indicating that foreign players do still play a significant role when it comes to Spanish transfers. The same is true for the Bundesliga, where big name signings like Henrikh Mkhitaryan, Luis Gustavo, Thiago Alcantara and Pierre-Emerick Aubameyang were also brought in from abroad. However, whilst the big name transfers and the big teams are the ones more frequently focused on, the teams that really give the indication of the study are those further down the table. Looking at Spain, we can see that there are only two teams outside of the El Clasico pair that spent more than £20 Million on players. Similarly, in Germany, only three teams outside of the top two spent past that margin. Generally speaking, foreign players tend to be more expensive, so those that have spent large sums have generally brought in foreign talent. However, if we look at Premier League teams outside the Manchester clubs, eleven of the 18 clubs have spent beyond £20 Million in this recent transfer window. In England, there has been the school of thought that the better English players are rare and overpriced, and therefore too expensive for smaller clubs to buy, making foreign players a more affordable alternative. However, we can also see that the majority of big-name transfers have been foreign, with the likes of Willian, Lamela, Eriksen, Ozil and Osvaldo all coming in for large fees. This perhaps goes some way to explaining exactly why we have seen a decline in the percentage of minutes played by English players in the Premier League.
However, to what extent does this affect the England national team more than that of other nations? Do the players in the national squads get regular game time? Underneath I will lay out what I consider to be each of the nations' top squads (all 4-4-2 formation). This way we can see whether each of the sides' starting line-ups are playing regularly.
Spain: Casillas, Jordi Alba, Sergio Ramos, Pique, Arbeloa, Pedro, Xavi, Iniesta, Fabregas, Soldado, Negredo
Germany: Neuer, Lahm, Boateng, Hummels, Jansen, Muller, Ozil, Schweinsteiger, Kroos, Kiessling, Gomez
England: Hart, Walker, Cahill, Jagielka, Baines, Walcott, Gerrard, Lampard, Milner, Rooney, Sturridge
Looking at these XI's, we can see that in Spain's case, every single one of the names mentioned play week-in, week-out, with 9 of the 11 coming from the El Clasico pair. The other pair, both strikers, now play every match for their sides Tottenham and Manchester City respectively. This is a similar story for Germany. Every one of their XI plays on a weekly basis, with 7 of their players coming from Bayern Munich or Borussia Dortmund. For England, whilst the majority play every match, there are a few that have found they are in strong competition for their place at club level. Gary Cahill and Frank Lampard at Chelsea have both, at one time or another, found themselves ousted in favour of either David Luiz (in Cahill's case) or Ramires/Kevin De Bruyne (in Lampard's). James Milner has also found it difficult to break into the Manchester City midfield. Though he often starts the important matches, he is usually used as a bit-part player, covering for the likes of Jesus Navas and Fernandinho. Before the start of the season, even Wayne Rooney's place was not guaranteed at United, with the Englishman playing second fiddle to Robin van Persie for the majority of last season. His performances so far this season have won him his place back, but this shows that the influx of foreign players is affecting the national team. The differences are far more stark when we consider those that would be expecting to be on the bench. Spain's bench is an embarrasment of riches, with the likes of Valdes, Jesus Navas, David Silva, Juan Mata, Santi Cazorla all playing regular football. Germany's bench is much the same, with Adler, Khedira, Gotze, Mertesacker and Draxler in their first-team squads. Looking at those players pushing for the bench for England, Fraser Forster and Andros Townsend illustrate the rare exceptions to the rule. Players like Jack Wilshere, Danny Welbeck, Tom Cleverley, Phil Jones, Chris Smalling and Jermain Defoe all have a battle on their hands to retain their place, with many of them having to settle for benchwarmer for part of the season. This will have a disastrous effect on the strength in depth of the squad, as without match practice, the England team will be left far behind by their European rivals, as has been the case in recent years.
How does the English game rectify this? As I stated earlier, the Premier League prides itself on being (arguably) the best league in the world, and with that status comes a lot of money. The league can only work with what they are given, and if the problems with the English players begin at the very bottom, as I suspect, there is where we need to start. Enforcing 'minimum English' rules will only be to the detriment of the Premier League, as we will inevitably see the top talent elsewhere. What we have to do is train the English top talents properly here. By bettering our training techniques, teaching technical ability over 'win at all costs', we should see some of the better players rise to the top at junior level. By nurturing our players properly, and teaching them the skills they need to succeed, there is no reason why we cannot follow Spain's example and have a 'Golden Generation'. We just need to get the grassroots organised correctly first.
England Series: What The Montenegro Game Says
In the build-up to Tuesday's do-or-die fixture at home to Poland, I will be running an England mini-series, looking at the talking points that have haunted the England side's preparations, and looking at their chances going forward. A few weeks ago, I gave my opinion on Greg Dyke's comments that England should be looking to reach the semi-finals of the Euro 2020 competition, and win the World Cup in 2022 in Qatar. This assumes that the groundwork is already in place for England to become a viable winner of trophies, as Spain's 'Golden Age' really began a decade or so previously, with the change of several rules regarding training of youngsters. Using the State of the Game report, as well as evidence from the current England squad and the lower leagues, I will examine just how much creedence can be given to Dyke's claims. I dismissed them a few weeks ago-was I wrong to?
England vs Sheffield. That's how I thought best described the contest on Friday. Montenegro, a country populated by just 600,000 people, around the size of Sheffield, should have posed no threat to England, who outnumber them by 100 to 1. However, such has been the decline of England as a footballing nation over the last half century, we were unsure whether we would have the strength to beat the Montenegrin side. To be fair to the Eastern Europeans, Montenegro were the only country, having played them on two or more occasions, that England had never beaten. The history of the fixture, albeit only relatively recent, seemed to illustrate the difficulty of the task. Everyone will remember the game in Podgorica back in 2011, where Wayne Rooney was sent off in a 2-2 draw, an event that would force the England striker out of the first two Euro 2012 games.
This task was made somewhat more difficult by the additional pressure placed upon the final two matches of the World Cup Qualification Group. Despite remaining undefeated in Group H, England were not assured of qualification for the 2014 World Cup in Brazil. Too many draws (Poland (a) Ukraine (h&a) and Montenegro (a)) had seen the chasing pack latch onto the 1966 champions, meaning that two wins from their final two matches were required to guarantee qualification. The inconsistency of England, coupled with the aforementioned poor record against the recently formed Montenegrin side (carried by the likes of Mirko Vucinic and Stevan Jovetic) meant that the valuable three points were by no means guaranteed. However, after a slow and methodical first half, England got into their stride to run out comfortable 4-1 winners. This came as a massive relief to all around the ground, and places even more emphasis on tomorrow's game with the Poles.
England, as a footballing nation, tend to leave the public in a constant bipolar state. When we win, everyone proclaims that we are certainties for the World Cup or European Championship. When we lose, the press and the public come down on the team like a ton of bricks. After this weekend's result, I have identified 5 things that we can learn from the Montenegro game, in order to keep our expectations more on an even keel.
1) Don't Get Carried Away
Before I get into the more positive aspects of our play that we can take forward with us into further competitive matches, I will offer a word of warning. Though we have ended the only unbeaten record of any country who has played multiple games against us, this is no time to get ahead of ourselves. We have to refrain from our usual practice of over-hyping that performance. Yes, we played well, but it is important to remember that this was only Montenegro. A side that currently sits in 27th place in the FIFA World Rankings. Whilst this is a good result, it is not one that marks a significant step forward. England should be expecting to beat those around them and slightly ahead. Should they beat Portugal or Chile in a competitive game, then we can say they are moving forwards. However, giving our players an sense of invincibility could have catastrophic effects, in the short term (against Poland tomorrow) or more long term (the World Cup).
2) We Can Be Patient
Friday's game, for one of the first times in my memory, was one in which England were successfully patient. Ordinarily in must-win matches, England come out of the traps quickly, hounding the opposition's area. If we score an early goal, normally, an England win follows. However, should the 20 minute mark come and go without a goal, England's passing begins to become sloppy, and they end up inviting pressure on themselves. The crowd become restless, and this translates onto the pitch. England become more and more frustrated, often resulting in exactly the opposite result of their initial aim. A story we have seen on numerous occasions against smaller nations, particularly at Wembley.
However, the game against Montenegro saw England keep their cool. Despite being unable to break the stubborn wall of Montenegrin defenders in the opening half hour, England remained solid. Though the tempo did dip on occasion, they were never threatened defensively, and they did not let their heads go down. This paid off early in the second half, when Wayne Rooney was given the chance to give the Three Lions the lead. Rarely does he squander such an opportunity. Once the first went in, it was clear that others would follow. That they did, with only a brief scare after Damjanovic deflected in a wayward shot. Nevertheless, the performance showed great maturity from England, and one that I cannot recall be so evident previously.
3) Trust In Young Talent
At Friday lunchtime, the news broke that Spurs's young winger Andros Townsend would start his first game for England. This brought about widespread criticism, myself included, as I did not believe that testing out such an inexperienced player in such an important match would reap the rewards. How wrong was I? The 22 year old thrust the words of his dissenters back down their throats with a superb display from first whistle to last. Working tirelessly to break up the play and put England back on the front foot, the midfielder was excellent creatively when he got the chance, setting up many of our better chances. Having played so well, he capped his debut off with the perfect coup de gras: the goal of the night. With England slightly rocking after Damjanovic's improvised goal to take the lead back to 1, Townsend picked the ball up 25 yards from goal and let fly. The ball flew beyond the Montenegrin keeper to hand England their two-goal cushion back, and ensure that they would take the three points. A stunning debut for the winger, who I doubt could have dreamed of such a start to the season for both club and country.
4) We Have More Than Plan A
Credit must also go to the manager. Having had a turbulent week in the press, after Harry Redknapp's autobiography criticised the selection process of Hodgson, he would have been under intense scrutiny had he failed to win the game against Montenegro. His decision to hand the debut to Andros Townsend was completely vindicated, as was his decision to begin with a extremely positive lineup. Starting with three up front was an extremely risky tactic, and it paid off for Hodgson this time. Though he may not be as fortunate against other opponents, it would be unfair to claim that it was merely luck that saw England through the game. Hodgson is blamed when it may otherwise have been attributed to misfortune, so I see no reason why we should not praise him when it could be described as good fortune. His tactical knowledge enabled him to make small changes at half time, and these changes had an immediate impact. Pressure will remain on the former Fulham man on Tuesday, but his management of the situation on Friday can instil some confidence in his ability to take the team forward.
5) Defensive Partnerships Are Emerging
Finally, whilst this was something that I spotted predominantly during the Ukraine away game, it was clearly evident just how well Phil Jagielka and Gary Cahill have got to know each others' games at the heart of the England defence. The understanding between the pair was exceptional, and reminded me of the partnership that a young Rio Ferdinand and John Terry used to provide during the 'Golden Era' of English football. Whilst they are yet to be fully tested, they are certainly showing signs of connection, which will only be good moving forward. Baines also had an outstanding game on the left, and I feel that England have a ready made replacement for the aging Ashley Cole, who is perhaps past his best. The only area that remains of some concern, especially when considering the near future, is the right back position. Whilst Kyle Walker is an excellent attacking prospect, as well as a reasonable defender, the problem comes when attempting to play a more offensive winger (like Andros Townsend) with him on the right. Whilst against opposition like Montenegro this tactic may work, I would expect to see the like of James Milner on the right more often against the stronger sides, as he provides defensive cover for when the young right back bombs forward. Nevertheless, the England defence are finally showing signs of solidarity and stability, and this can only be a positive thing.
England have done, in Hodgson's own words 'half the job'. Having seen off Montenegro, the task does not get any easier. The home match against Poland may seem in England's favour at first glance, but players like Robert Lewandowski and Jakub Blaszczykowski will pose a significant threat to England. No-one wants a repeat performance of Croatia 2007! A win is essential. If we play as we did in the Montenegro game, taking into account the above 5 points, I feel we have enough to win the game. Take our foot off the gas for just a second, however, and we may see our World Cup dreams slip away.
England vs Sheffield. That's how I thought best described the contest on Friday. Montenegro, a country populated by just 600,000 people, around the size of Sheffield, should have posed no threat to England, who outnumber them by 100 to 1. However, such has been the decline of England as a footballing nation over the last half century, we were unsure whether we would have the strength to beat the Montenegrin side. To be fair to the Eastern Europeans, Montenegro were the only country, having played them on two or more occasions, that England had never beaten. The history of the fixture, albeit only relatively recent, seemed to illustrate the difficulty of the task. Everyone will remember the game in Podgorica back in 2011, where Wayne Rooney was sent off in a 2-2 draw, an event that would force the England striker out of the first two Euro 2012 games.
This task was made somewhat more difficult by the additional pressure placed upon the final two matches of the World Cup Qualification Group. Despite remaining undefeated in Group H, England were not assured of qualification for the 2014 World Cup in Brazil. Too many draws (Poland (a) Ukraine (h&a) and Montenegro (a)) had seen the chasing pack latch onto the 1966 champions, meaning that two wins from their final two matches were required to guarantee qualification. The inconsistency of England, coupled with the aforementioned poor record against the recently formed Montenegrin side (carried by the likes of Mirko Vucinic and Stevan Jovetic) meant that the valuable three points were by no means guaranteed. However, after a slow and methodical first half, England got into their stride to run out comfortable 4-1 winners. This came as a massive relief to all around the ground, and places even more emphasis on tomorrow's game with the Poles.
England, as a footballing nation, tend to leave the public in a constant bipolar state. When we win, everyone proclaims that we are certainties for the World Cup or European Championship. When we lose, the press and the public come down on the team like a ton of bricks. After this weekend's result, I have identified 5 things that we can learn from the Montenegro game, in order to keep our expectations more on an even keel.
1) Don't Get Carried Away
Before I get into the more positive aspects of our play that we can take forward with us into further competitive matches, I will offer a word of warning. Though we have ended the only unbeaten record of any country who has played multiple games against us, this is no time to get ahead of ourselves. We have to refrain from our usual practice of over-hyping that performance. Yes, we played well, but it is important to remember that this was only Montenegro. A side that currently sits in 27th place in the FIFA World Rankings. Whilst this is a good result, it is not one that marks a significant step forward. England should be expecting to beat those around them and slightly ahead. Should they beat Portugal or Chile in a competitive game, then we can say they are moving forwards. However, giving our players an sense of invincibility could have catastrophic effects, in the short term (against Poland tomorrow) or more long term (the World Cup).
2) We Can Be Patient
Friday's game, for one of the first times in my memory, was one in which England were successfully patient. Ordinarily in must-win matches, England come out of the traps quickly, hounding the opposition's area. If we score an early goal, normally, an England win follows. However, should the 20 minute mark come and go without a goal, England's passing begins to become sloppy, and they end up inviting pressure on themselves. The crowd become restless, and this translates onto the pitch. England become more and more frustrated, often resulting in exactly the opposite result of their initial aim. A story we have seen on numerous occasions against smaller nations, particularly at Wembley.
However, the game against Montenegro saw England keep their cool. Despite being unable to break the stubborn wall of Montenegrin defenders in the opening half hour, England remained solid. Though the tempo did dip on occasion, they were never threatened defensively, and they did not let their heads go down. This paid off early in the second half, when Wayne Rooney was given the chance to give the Three Lions the lead. Rarely does he squander such an opportunity. Once the first went in, it was clear that others would follow. That they did, with only a brief scare after Damjanovic deflected in a wayward shot. Nevertheless, the performance showed great maturity from England, and one that I cannot recall be so evident previously.
3) Trust In Young Talent
At Friday lunchtime, the news broke that Spurs's young winger Andros Townsend would start his first game for England. This brought about widespread criticism, myself included, as I did not believe that testing out such an inexperienced player in such an important match would reap the rewards. How wrong was I? The 22 year old thrust the words of his dissenters back down their throats with a superb display from first whistle to last. Working tirelessly to break up the play and put England back on the front foot, the midfielder was excellent creatively when he got the chance, setting up many of our better chances. Having played so well, he capped his debut off with the perfect coup de gras: the goal of the night. With England slightly rocking after Damjanovic's improvised goal to take the lead back to 1, Townsend picked the ball up 25 yards from goal and let fly. The ball flew beyond the Montenegrin keeper to hand England their two-goal cushion back, and ensure that they would take the three points. A stunning debut for the winger, who I doubt could have dreamed of such a start to the season for both club and country.
4) We Have More Than Plan A
Credit must also go to the manager. Having had a turbulent week in the press, after Harry Redknapp's autobiography criticised the selection process of Hodgson, he would have been under intense scrutiny had he failed to win the game against Montenegro. His decision to hand the debut to Andros Townsend was completely vindicated, as was his decision to begin with a extremely positive lineup. Starting with three up front was an extremely risky tactic, and it paid off for Hodgson this time. Though he may not be as fortunate against other opponents, it would be unfair to claim that it was merely luck that saw England through the game. Hodgson is blamed when it may otherwise have been attributed to misfortune, so I see no reason why we should not praise him when it could be described as good fortune. His tactical knowledge enabled him to make small changes at half time, and these changes had an immediate impact. Pressure will remain on the former Fulham man on Tuesday, but his management of the situation on Friday can instil some confidence in his ability to take the team forward.
5) Defensive Partnerships Are Emerging
Finally, whilst this was something that I spotted predominantly during the Ukraine away game, it was clearly evident just how well Phil Jagielka and Gary Cahill have got to know each others' games at the heart of the England defence. The understanding between the pair was exceptional, and reminded me of the partnership that a young Rio Ferdinand and John Terry used to provide during the 'Golden Era' of English football. Whilst they are yet to be fully tested, they are certainly showing signs of connection, which will only be good moving forward. Baines also had an outstanding game on the left, and I feel that England have a ready made replacement for the aging Ashley Cole, who is perhaps past his best. The only area that remains of some concern, especially when considering the near future, is the right back position. Whilst Kyle Walker is an excellent attacking prospect, as well as a reasonable defender, the problem comes when attempting to play a more offensive winger (like Andros Townsend) with him on the right. Whilst against opposition like Montenegro this tactic may work, I would expect to see the like of James Milner on the right more often against the stronger sides, as he provides defensive cover for when the young right back bombs forward. Nevertheless, the England defence are finally showing signs of solidarity and stability, and this can only be a positive thing.
England have done, in Hodgson's own words 'half the job'. Having seen off Montenegro, the task does not get any easier. The home match against Poland may seem in England's favour at first glance, but players like Robert Lewandowski and Jakub Blaszczykowski will pose a significant threat to England. No-one wants a repeat performance of Croatia 2007! A win is essential. If we play as we did in the Montenegro game, taking into account the above 5 points, I feel we have enough to win the game. Take our foot off the gas for just a second, however, and we may see our World Cup dreams slip away.
Sunday 13 October 2013
England Series: Harry Redknapp: The Jilted Lover
In the build-up to Tuesday's do-or-die fixture at home to Poland, I will be running an England mini-series, looking at the talking points that have haunted the England side's preparations, and looking at their chances going forward. A few weeks ago, I gave my opinion on Greg Dyke's comments that England should be looking to reach the semi-finals of the Euro 2020 competition, and win the World Cup in 2022 in Qatar. This assumes that the groundwork is already in place for England to become a viable winner of trophies, as Spain's 'Golden Age' really began a decade or so previously, with the change of several rules regarding training of youngsters. Using the State of the Game report, as well as evidence from the current England squad and the lower leagues, I will examine just how much creedence can be given to Dyke's claims. I dismissed them a few weeks ago-was I wrong to?
This post will be the last in my 'headline-makers' aspect to this England series, and has perhaps been the most damaging to English footballing stability. It concerns Roy Hodgson's appointment as England manager in the spring of 2012 was a surprise, as the front runner for the position from the start had been then Tottenham boss Harry Redknapp. The loveable Cockney Arry', best known for his transfer deadline day antics, most famously hanging out of his car window, and his odd resemblance to a bulldog, had proven himself to be one of the Premier League's top managers in the previous few seasons. Having taken Spurs from the relegation zone after 7 games of the 2008/2009 season, he transformed the North London club's fortunes, taking them to a league cup final in the same season, where they lost narrowly on penalties. The following year, he led Spurs to 4th place, and a Champions League spot for the first time in the club's history. A remarkable run in the competition took them to the quarter finals, where they had accept defeat against Real Madrid. Nevertheless, from the relegation zone to the quarter-finals of the Champions League in two years is a quite incredible run, and put the Spurs manager on the lips of many for the recently available post of England manager.
However, things took an unexpected turn for the Londoner. With all the distractions over his potential move, his Spurs side began to slide away from the title race in 2011/2012, even finishing behind local rivals Arsenal. This meant that they missed out on the automatic Champions League places, which would prove incredibly costly. With Chelsea winning the tournament, 4th was not enough to get them into the Champions League the following year. To make matters worse for media darling Arry', despite him being installed as overwhelming favourite to succeed Fabio Capello as England boss, the FA opted to go with Roy Hodgson, a decision met with derision by many in the footballing world. They say that bad things come in threes, and this was to be the case for Harry, as no sooner had the season concluded, with Spurs equalling their best ever finish to a Premier League season, he and Spurs parted ways, due to 'unresolved contract issues'. Since the dismissal, Redknapp's managerial career seems to have been in terminal decline. He quickly found employment in the form of struggling QPR last season, only to lead the club down, rock bottom of the Premier League. Since the speculation over the England job, he had not been the same successful Harry that football had known and come to love, and, underneath, there was developing a rather bitter edge to the Cockney manager that few had fully experienced.
This bitterness was suddenly thrust into the public eye with the release of his autobiography in October 2013. Here, he registers his disgust at the FA for the decision-making in the run-up to the announcement of Roy Hodgson as England manager. Whilst the former Spurs manager states that he never held anything against the former Fulham manager, the tone in which he wrote his words suggests exactly the opposite. Just read some of the words he (and by that I mean Martin Samuel) wrote: 'I wouldn't trust the FA to show me a good manager if their lives depended on it', 'Everyone says I was the people's choice, the only choice' and 'I got quite a few text messages at the time from players saying they would love me to manage England: Steven Gerrard, Wayne Rooney, Rio Ferdinand, John Terry. But the FA went for Roy Hodgson-a man who is more their cup of tea.' All of these quotes have an undertone of bitterness to them, and will do little to further his career.
These comments are also exactly what Roy Hodgson and England did not need in the build up to their two most critical World Cup Qualifiers for Brazil 2014. With England not guaranteed qualification, two performances (at home to firstly Montenegro, and then Poland) would be required to ensure their place in South America. Considering that Harry specifically says in his book that he wants England to do well, you have to question the release date of an autobiography that is so critical of the England manager and the FA. Surely it wouldn't have made any difference to Redknapp if he had waited to release his book for another week? Or perhaps that was his intention-especially if England did fail to qualify over the following two games. That way, he could point to the England performances as evidence of the FA's incompetence in appointing Hodgson over him, as predicted in his book. Had he released it a week later, he could be accused of acting in hindsight, when his claims would not have as much of an effect. Perhaps that is me being cynical, but they are certainly questions that can be levied at the former Spurs boss.
Timing aside, the way in which Redknapp has criticised the FA will do nothing to aid the England side as they prepare for the game against Poland. Any negative comments about the squad, manager and FA will inevitably destabilise the side, potentially even causing the seed of doubt into the minds of the England players. If the Montenegro game is anything to go by, we shouldn't worry too much about the mental effect, but nevertheless, it is hardly the ideal preparation. Redknapp has inherently criticised all three of those groups, claiming that recent performances at World Cups have not been acceptable, that the manager is not the right man, and as we have heard, aimed several shots across the bows of the FA. How much of this is influenced by the ludicrous expectations placed upon our national side by the media and the FA, I am unsure. However, we have been shown that our national team needs little excuse to implode, and these comments could certainly have been the catalyst.
In my opinion, Harry Redknapp has acted very much like a jilted lover. His bitter comments to the press are broadly similar to telling your friends embarrassing secrets about your ex after they have broken up with you. How malicious the intent of both the comments, and the timing of them, are cannot be proven, but my cynical mind tends to suspect that there is a very good reason for releasing his comments when he has. Such has his recent conduct been, I would almost expect him to have a rebound one-night stand managing another national side to try and make England jealous! His managerial failure with QPR has left him wildly blaming others for his decline, with the FA the prime recipients of his bile. If nothing else, this episode has illustrated precisely why the FA made the right decision to go with Hodgson. If a manager deals with disappointment by bitching about others to the press, he is hardly the professional you need. His media darling image has well and truly gone now, and I expect him to become the managerial equivalent of a spinster, with his only supporters his loyal bulldogs.
This post will be the last in my 'headline-makers' aspect to this England series, and has perhaps been the most damaging to English footballing stability. It concerns Roy Hodgson's appointment as England manager in the spring of 2012 was a surprise, as the front runner for the position from the start had been then Tottenham boss Harry Redknapp. The loveable Cockney Arry', best known for his transfer deadline day antics, most famously hanging out of his car window, and his odd resemblance to a bulldog, had proven himself to be one of the Premier League's top managers in the previous few seasons. Having taken Spurs from the relegation zone after 7 games of the 2008/2009 season, he transformed the North London club's fortunes, taking them to a league cup final in the same season, where they lost narrowly on penalties. The following year, he led Spurs to 4th place, and a Champions League spot for the first time in the club's history. A remarkable run in the competition took them to the quarter finals, where they had accept defeat against Real Madrid. Nevertheless, from the relegation zone to the quarter-finals of the Champions League in two years is a quite incredible run, and put the Spurs manager on the lips of many for the recently available post of England manager.
However, things took an unexpected turn for the Londoner. With all the distractions over his potential move, his Spurs side began to slide away from the title race in 2011/2012, even finishing behind local rivals Arsenal. This meant that they missed out on the automatic Champions League places, which would prove incredibly costly. With Chelsea winning the tournament, 4th was not enough to get them into the Champions League the following year. To make matters worse for media darling Arry', despite him being installed as overwhelming favourite to succeed Fabio Capello as England boss, the FA opted to go with Roy Hodgson, a decision met with derision by many in the footballing world. They say that bad things come in threes, and this was to be the case for Harry, as no sooner had the season concluded, with Spurs equalling their best ever finish to a Premier League season, he and Spurs parted ways, due to 'unresolved contract issues'. Since the dismissal, Redknapp's managerial career seems to have been in terminal decline. He quickly found employment in the form of struggling QPR last season, only to lead the club down, rock bottom of the Premier League. Since the speculation over the England job, he had not been the same successful Harry that football had known and come to love, and, underneath, there was developing a rather bitter edge to the Cockney manager that few had fully experienced.
This bitterness was suddenly thrust into the public eye with the release of his autobiography in October 2013. Here, he registers his disgust at the FA for the decision-making in the run-up to the announcement of Roy Hodgson as England manager. Whilst the former Spurs manager states that he never held anything against the former Fulham manager, the tone in which he wrote his words suggests exactly the opposite. Just read some of the words he (and by that I mean Martin Samuel) wrote: 'I wouldn't trust the FA to show me a good manager if their lives depended on it', 'Everyone says I was the people's choice, the only choice' and 'I got quite a few text messages at the time from players saying they would love me to manage England: Steven Gerrard, Wayne Rooney, Rio Ferdinand, John Terry. But the FA went for Roy Hodgson-a man who is more their cup of tea.' All of these quotes have an undertone of bitterness to them, and will do little to further his career.
These comments are also exactly what Roy Hodgson and England did not need in the build up to their two most critical World Cup Qualifiers for Brazil 2014. With England not guaranteed qualification, two performances (at home to firstly Montenegro, and then Poland) would be required to ensure their place in South America. Considering that Harry specifically says in his book that he wants England to do well, you have to question the release date of an autobiography that is so critical of the England manager and the FA. Surely it wouldn't have made any difference to Redknapp if he had waited to release his book for another week? Or perhaps that was his intention-especially if England did fail to qualify over the following two games. That way, he could point to the England performances as evidence of the FA's incompetence in appointing Hodgson over him, as predicted in his book. Had he released it a week later, he could be accused of acting in hindsight, when his claims would not have as much of an effect. Perhaps that is me being cynical, but they are certainly questions that can be levied at the former Spurs boss.
Timing aside, the way in which Redknapp has criticised the FA will do nothing to aid the England side as they prepare for the game against Poland. Any negative comments about the squad, manager and FA will inevitably destabilise the side, potentially even causing the seed of doubt into the minds of the England players. If the Montenegro game is anything to go by, we shouldn't worry too much about the mental effect, but nevertheless, it is hardly the ideal preparation. Redknapp has inherently criticised all three of those groups, claiming that recent performances at World Cups have not been acceptable, that the manager is not the right man, and as we have heard, aimed several shots across the bows of the FA. How much of this is influenced by the ludicrous expectations placed upon our national side by the media and the FA, I am unsure. However, we have been shown that our national team needs little excuse to implode, and these comments could certainly have been the catalyst.
In my opinion, Harry Redknapp has acted very much like a jilted lover. His bitter comments to the press are broadly similar to telling your friends embarrassing secrets about your ex after they have broken up with you. How malicious the intent of both the comments, and the timing of them, are cannot be proven, but my cynical mind tends to suspect that there is a very good reason for releasing his comments when he has. Such has his recent conduct been, I would almost expect him to have a rebound one-night stand managing another national side to try and make England jealous! His managerial failure with QPR has left him wildly blaming others for his decline, with the FA the prime recipients of his bile. If nothing else, this episode has illustrated precisely why the FA made the right decision to go with Hodgson. If a manager deals with disappointment by bitching about others to the press, he is hardly the professional you need. His media darling image has well and truly gone now, and I expect him to become the managerial equivalent of a spinster, with his only supporters his loyal bulldogs.
Saturday 12 October 2013
England Series: Jack Wilshere's 'English'
In the build-up to Tuesday's do-or-die fixture at home to Poland, I will be running an England mini-series, looking at the talking points that have haunted the England side's preparations, and looking at their chances going forward. A few weeks ago, I gave my opinion on Greg Dyke's comments that England should be looking to reach the semi-finals of the Euro 2020 competition, and win the World Cup in 2022 in Qatar. This assumes that the groundwork is already in place for England to become a viable winner of trophies, as Spain's 'Golden Age' really began a decade or so previously, with the change of several rules regarding training of youngsters. Using the State of the Game report, as well as evidence from the current England squad and the lower leagues, I will examine just how much creedence can be given to Dyke's claims. I dismissed them a few weeks ago-was I wrong to?
However, I will begin with the stories that have hit the headlines over the last few days, perhaps affecting the run-up to what Hodgson himself has called his most important week in management. Earlier today I wrote about the plight of Joe Hart, one not entirely of his own doing. The reasons that Jack Wilshere has been in the headlines, however, is wholly the Arsenal man's fault. He hasn't had the best of fortnights, with allegations of smoking following a photo of him caught outside a nightclub with a cigarette, prompting widespread criticism, including from his manager. Then this. On Wednesday, Wilshere, in an interview, made his views on England (sort of) clear. He stated that only English people should play for England, making an implicit argument that FIFA's residency rules are wrong. This has led to widespread criticism of his remarks in the footballing world, and many comments (made both seriously and in jest) likening his comments to the racist rhetoric of the English Defence League and the British National Party.
Before we completely condemn Wilshere's comments, we really need to take a more detailed look at exactly what was said and what we can imagine was intended to have been said. Despite the complaints of many, labelling the Englishman a racist, I refuse to believe that was the intended message of his statement. Wilshere's statement of 'just because you've lived in England for 5 years, it doesn't make you English' doesn't help his cause much, as it certainly sounds off, but I think most reasonable people understand the intent behind his words. The idea that the finer points of a nation (being the cultural influences and lifestyle) can be picked up and internalised within 5 years is unlikely, and this is what I think Wilshere is referring to. He himself said that this was not a dig at any individual player (meaning the recent comments over Manchester United's Adnan Januzaj), nor was he saying that those born outside of the country should be instantly considered ineligable. The midfielder explained that the target of his comments were adults that arrived in this country, having been brought up and spent their formative years elsewhere, and therefore have an attachment to another county.
Being a Politics graduate, I hate it when sportsmen dip their toes into political waters, using terms and concepts that they don't wholly understand. The idea of nationality and nation is something far deeper than something you have on your passport, and, in this respect, I understand exactly what Jack Wilshere has said (albeit disastrously from a PR standpoint). Being from a specific country means more than just the specific rules and regulations. It is getting in touch with the nation, rather than the state. This means getting a real feel of English life (queuing, tea, complaining etc.), and really attaching themselves to the culture and heritage of England. In footballing terms, it is like making a transfer and then learning about the past legends and overall history of the club you have joined. However, unlike another club, whose history can generally be learnt in a couple of days, the history and culture of a state and nation is extremely difficult to learn, even more so to take on as your own. However, it could certainly be argued that a significant portion of the English culture is tolerance, with cultures from far and wide encouraged to add to the 'melting pot' style feel of British life. To that extent, I think that Jack Wilshire is wrong with his comments about Britishness, however I do understand the frustration that he feels over adults coming over and claiming to feel the same attachment to a country in five years that Wilshere has had to cultivate over 20. As a child, your formative years are generally when you form your strongest attachments, and begin to get a sense of who you really are. That is why Wilshere later made it clear that he had nothing against those who moved here from an early age, as they have had the experience of growing up in the country and gathering all the necessary national characteristics and feel an attachment to them. Perhaps the Arsenal player was simply attempting to question the FIFA eligibility rules. Nevertheless, a footballer getting involved in immigration policy, philosophy (yes, I do mean you Joey Barton) and politics in general is not advisable.
So does Wilshere have a point? By looking at FIFA's rules regarding eligibility, we can see there there are certainly areas that need tightening up. Whilst there is a rule that states that to play for any country, you must hold a passport from the state that you wish to represent. In order to gain a new nationality, you must either: be born in the country, have a biological mother, father or grandparent born in that country, or have resided in the country since the age of 18 for 5 years continuously. It is the latter that the midfielder was complaining about. I think he has a point. No-one can garner sufficient information of a nation's history and culture in 5 years to be able to strongly identify with it. I think that the rule would be far more accurate and appropriate if we said that anyone wanting to claim a new nationality must have lived in the country for 5 years before the age of 18, or 15 years over the age of 18. That should enable those that truly identify with the country, i.e. those that go through their formative years there, to represent the nation they want, whilst preventing those who simply want to represent a competitive team or, in the case of athletics, get better funding, with no concept of what it is to be 'British'. Wilshere should perhaps have said that the rules need changing-not by seeming to claim that only those that were born here are eligible. 'England for the English' is a headline often seen on BNP propaganda, and not an organisation that Wilshere will want to be associated with, especially if he is genuinely attempting to present a reasoned argument to change FIFA's rules.
However, if he is looking to change the rules, there will be many in this country wanting to oppose him. Now, I am by no means saying that any of the people mentioned do not feel a strong sense of attachment with England, merely that they were born in another country, and have now gone on to become highly successful at their sport. In many sports, England are heavily reliant on individuals that were not born in this country, and perhaps would not even fit the rules as I have suggested them to be. In cricket, both Kevin Pietersen and Jonathan Trott were born in South Africa. Both are now considered critical to the success of the batting lineup, and both were integral parts of the successful Ashes winning team this summer. In athletics, poster boy Mo Farah was born in Somalia, and he was one of the British faces of the 2012 Olympic Games last year. In golf, Justin Rose, like cricketers Pietersen and Trott, was born in South Africa. In both rugby forms, there are a multitude of names that are from Australasia and South Africa, with rugby union's Manu Tuilagi arguably the most high profile. Even in football, future talents like Saido Berahino (born in Burundi) and Wilfried Zaha (born in Ivory Coast), who are both widely considered English, were in fact born elsewhere. I dislike the idea that goes around, somewhat cynically, that 'if they are good, they can be English'. It seems too much like glory supporting. Personally, as long as those individuals truly feel like they identify with England, I am happy to have them representing us, however, this identification may be difficult to prove when determining whether someone should receive a passport.
Jack Wilshere's comments were ill-concieved and poorly delivered. He did not say exactly what he intended, and as a result left himself open to wild accusations of racism from the PC brigade and sections of the media, and more reasonable criticism from the majority of the footballing world. That being said, I do understand where he was coming from, as there do appear to be faults with the current residency part of the FIFA rules of eligibility. I have set out what I believe to be better to satisfy both criteria, to allow those that genuinely have a connection with a country from a young age to play for the country to which they have become attached, whilst denying those adults that have no concept of being part of the nation that they compete for. However, when applying any rules over nationality, we run the risk of alienating people who genuinely feel a strong connection to a nation. Therefore, perhaps it is best to have rather broad rules, as I would rather let 10 people who don't care about England represent us than deny a single person who really does identify. On a very basic level, people who value and identify with the shirt that they are playing for will perform to their potential. This will eventually show who cares and who doesn't, and bring the best performers to the top. I think that is how Wilshere should have prefaced his statements.
However, I will begin with the stories that have hit the headlines over the last few days, perhaps affecting the run-up to what Hodgson himself has called his most important week in management. Earlier today I wrote about the plight of Joe Hart, one not entirely of his own doing. The reasons that Jack Wilshere has been in the headlines, however, is wholly the Arsenal man's fault. He hasn't had the best of fortnights, with allegations of smoking following a photo of him caught outside a nightclub with a cigarette, prompting widespread criticism, including from his manager. Then this. On Wednesday, Wilshere, in an interview, made his views on England (sort of) clear. He stated that only English people should play for England, making an implicit argument that FIFA's residency rules are wrong. This has led to widespread criticism of his remarks in the footballing world, and many comments (made both seriously and in jest) likening his comments to the racist rhetoric of the English Defence League and the British National Party.
Before we completely condemn Wilshere's comments, we really need to take a more detailed look at exactly what was said and what we can imagine was intended to have been said. Despite the complaints of many, labelling the Englishman a racist, I refuse to believe that was the intended message of his statement. Wilshere's statement of 'just because you've lived in England for 5 years, it doesn't make you English' doesn't help his cause much, as it certainly sounds off, but I think most reasonable people understand the intent behind his words. The idea that the finer points of a nation (being the cultural influences and lifestyle) can be picked up and internalised within 5 years is unlikely, and this is what I think Wilshere is referring to. He himself said that this was not a dig at any individual player (meaning the recent comments over Manchester United's Adnan Januzaj), nor was he saying that those born outside of the country should be instantly considered ineligable. The midfielder explained that the target of his comments were adults that arrived in this country, having been brought up and spent their formative years elsewhere, and therefore have an attachment to another county.
Being a Politics graduate, I hate it when sportsmen dip their toes into political waters, using terms and concepts that they don't wholly understand. The idea of nationality and nation is something far deeper than something you have on your passport, and, in this respect, I understand exactly what Jack Wilshere has said (albeit disastrously from a PR standpoint). Being from a specific country means more than just the specific rules and regulations. It is getting in touch with the nation, rather than the state. This means getting a real feel of English life (queuing, tea, complaining etc.), and really attaching themselves to the culture and heritage of England. In footballing terms, it is like making a transfer and then learning about the past legends and overall history of the club you have joined. However, unlike another club, whose history can generally be learnt in a couple of days, the history and culture of a state and nation is extremely difficult to learn, even more so to take on as your own. However, it could certainly be argued that a significant portion of the English culture is tolerance, with cultures from far and wide encouraged to add to the 'melting pot' style feel of British life. To that extent, I think that Jack Wilshire is wrong with his comments about Britishness, however I do understand the frustration that he feels over adults coming over and claiming to feel the same attachment to a country in five years that Wilshere has had to cultivate over 20. As a child, your formative years are generally when you form your strongest attachments, and begin to get a sense of who you really are. That is why Wilshere later made it clear that he had nothing against those who moved here from an early age, as they have had the experience of growing up in the country and gathering all the necessary national characteristics and feel an attachment to them. Perhaps the Arsenal player was simply attempting to question the FIFA eligibility rules. Nevertheless, a footballer getting involved in immigration policy, philosophy (yes, I do mean you Joey Barton) and politics in general is not advisable.
So does Wilshere have a point? By looking at FIFA's rules regarding eligibility, we can see there there are certainly areas that need tightening up. Whilst there is a rule that states that to play for any country, you must hold a passport from the state that you wish to represent. In order to gain a new nationality, you must either: be born in the country, have a biological mother, father or grandparent born in that country, or have resided in the country since the age of 18 for 5 years continuously. It is the latter that the midfielder was complaining about. I think he has a point. No-one can garner sufficient information of a nation's history and culture in 5 years to be able to strongly identify with it. I think that the rule would be far more accurate and appropriate if we said that anyone wanting to claim a new nationality must have lived in the country for 5 years before the age of 18, or 15 years over the age of 18. That should enable those that truly identify with the country, i.e. those that go through their formative years there, to represent the nation they want, whilst preventing those who simply want to represent a competitive team or, in the case of athletics, get better funding, with no concept of what it is to be 'British'. Wilshere should perhaps have said that the rules need changing-not by seeming to claim that only those that were born here are eligible. 'England for the English' is a headline often seen on BNP propaganda, and not an organisation that Wilshere will want to be associated with, especially if he is genuinely attempting to present a reasoned argument to change FIFA's rules.
However, if he is looking to change the rules, there will be many in this country wanting to oppose him. Now, I am by no means saying that any of the people mentioned do not feel a strong sense of attachment with England, merely that they were born in another country, and have now gone on to become highly successful at their sport. In many sports, England are heavily reliant on individuals that were not born in this country, and perhaps would not even fit the rules as I have suggested them to be. In cricket, both Kevin Pietersen and Jonathan Trott were born in South Africa. Both are now considered critical to the success of the batting lineup, and both were integral parts of the successful Ashes winning team this summer. In athletics, poster boy Mo Farah was born in Somalia, and he was one of the British faces of the 2012 Olympic Games last year. In golf, Justin Rose, like cricketers Pietersen and Trott, was born in South Africa. In both rugby forms, there are a multitude of names that are from Australasia and South Africa, with rugby union's Manu Tuilagi arguably the most high profile. Even in football, future talents like Saido Berahino (born in Burundi) and Wilfried Zaha (born in Ivory Coast), who are both widely considered English, were in fact born elsewhere. I dislike the idea that goes around, somewhat cynically, that 'if they are good, they can be English'. It seems too much like glory supporting. Personally, as long as those individuals truly feel like they identify with England, I am happy to have them representing us, however, this identification may be difficult to prove when determining whether someone should receive a passport.
Jack Wilshere's comments were ill-concieved and poorly delivered. He did not say exactly what he intended, and as a result left himself open to wild accusations of racism from the PC brigade and sections of the media, and more reasonable criticism from the majority of the footballing world. That being said, I do understand where he was coming from, as there do appear to be faults with the current residency part of the FIFA rules of eligibility. I have set out what I believe to be better to satisfy both criteria, to allow those that genuinely have a connection with a country from a young age to play for the country to which they have become attached, whilst denying those adults that have no concept of being part of the nation that they compete for. However, when applying any rules over nationality, we run the risk of alienating people who genuinely feel a strong connection to a nation. Therefore, perhaps it is best to have rather broad rules, as I would rather let 10 people who don't care about England represent us than deny a single person who really does identify. On a very basic level, people who value and identify with the shirt that they are playing for will perform to their potential. This will eventually show who cares and who doesn't, and bring the best performers to the top. I think that is how Wilshere should have prefaced his statements.
England Series: Joe Hart: Over-Reliance Breeds Complacency
In the build-up to Tuesday's do-or-die fixture at home to Poland, I will be running an England mini-series, looking at the talking points that have haunted the England side's preparations, and looking at their chances going forward. A few weeks ago, I gave my opinion on Greg Dyke's comments that England should be looking to reach the semi-finals of the Euro 2020 competition, and win the World Cup in 2022 in Qatar. This assumes that the groundwork is already in place for England to become a viable winner of trophies, as Spain's 'Golden Age' really began a decade or so previously, with the change of several rules regarding training of youngsters. Using the State of the Game report, as well as evidence from the current England squad and the lower leagues, I will examine just how much creedence can be given to Dyke's claims. I dismissed them a few weeks ago-was I wrong to?
However, I will start with the talking points that have hit the headlines in the run-up to last night's match with Montenegro. The British media use rather wild expectations, with often contradictory arguments, when portraying our footballers and England as a footballing nation. I have long since despaired of the fact that, whenever a major tournament or big game is on the horizon, the British (mainly tabloid) media tend to overhype the abilities of our players. This leads to many people (ridiculous optimists, as I prefer to call them) claiming every World Cup year that 'we're going to win it'. Arguably the most ludicrous of these was Chris Kamara's claims on 8 Out Of 10 Cats last year. Ok, he was releasing his own England single (God knows why), and therefore had to be a little more optimistic about England's chances than I ever am, but he attempted to convince 5 comedians that England realistically had a chance of winning Euro 2012. A tall order at the best of times, but, with the team that England had assembled last year, it was almost laughable to hear his claims. Although not quite as laughable as some of the comebacks that Jimmy Carr and the like had for him! However, for those of you that have read the title of this blog and thought I am going wildly off topic, just bear with me. It will become clear. The most annoying aspect to the British media regarding English football is that, as a result of holding these ridiculously optimistic expectations, assuming that England will steamroller any nation in their path, they then lambast any player that does not meet their (overhyped) demands. This usually refers to how much they get paid (I know it's a lot, but it's private money, the full argument of which I will not get into here), how irrelevant what they are doing is (despite the coverage the media gives it and the money it brings to the economy every year) etc etc. This has the inevitable effect of sapping the confidence of any player that finds themselves on the recieving end of this pressure, as they know that every move they make is being scrutinised under ridiculous standards. As we will see, just one mistake is often sufficient to see a player's international career ended by bad press.
Goalkeepers, historically, have a extremely bad press whenever they make a mistake. That is because, inevitably, whenever they make a mistake, a goal usually is the end result. This is the situation that they signed up for when they accepted the position, and therefore should expect more media scrutiny than that of a central midfielder. However, I feel that the disparity in blame apportioned to goalkeepers to that given to strikers that miss guilt-edged chances is unfair. Both cost their sides a goal, so there is no problem in terms of comparison. Equally, I think the person that gives away possession that costs a goal should be treated similarly. Nevertheless, I think that the extent of public scrutiny given to any footballer will have a self-fulfilling prophecy effect on most individuals. They will take more risks to put themselves back in the media's good books, and as a result, will often fail, leading to further dirision. This is not really repeated by any other national media around the world, and I refuse to believe that this does not have an effect. The amount of pressure placed upon any footballer for individual mistakes is unfair, and should be stopped. However, there are too many examples, especially to goalkeepers, in recent years that suggests that the practice will continue for the foreseeable future.
The expansion of the mass media has led to this scrutiny, which is why all examples are within the last 20 years or so. The first that I can remember: David Beckham's media assassination after the 1998 World Cup. His sending off in the crucial game against Argentina led the papers to crucify the young winger, subjecting him to abuse that no person should ever have to go through. The Sun headline of 'Sorry Lads, No Tits, Only Beckham' is particularly memorable, and is indicative of the abuse that the England man went through. A weaker person would have crumbled-fortunately Beckham responded to become the player we all know today. It did not end his England career. Three former England goalkeepers were not so fortunate. In 2002, after another World Cup exit, this time at the hands of eventual winners Brazil, the media formed a lynch-mob to end the England career of David Seaman. After being at fault for the now-infamous Ronaldinho free-kick, Seaman was hounded out of his position in the England squad. Similar fates have since befallen Scott Carson (England vs Croatia, 2008), Steve McLaren ('The Wally With The Brolly', England vs Croatia, 2008) and Rob Green (England vs USA, 2010). None of these individuals have been involved in the England squad since, and this can only be attributed to the media. I am a firm believer that a mistake can be forgiven, as long as the person learns from it. The media's reaction to the mistakes means that the individual is not given the time to learn anything, as they are usually ousted.
This is the fate that could also await Joe Hart. The current England number 1 was the prime beneficiary of Rob Green's demise in 2010 (after the short reliance on the aging David James), and has secured the goalkeeper's jersey from that point. He began his career at lower league Shrewsbury Town, before a rapidly improving Manchester City spotted the talented youngster in 2006. His £100,000 fee seems like an absolute steal now, especially considering the £15 Million that neighbours United shelled out on David De Gea in 2011. His early years for City were spent mostly on loan, first at Tranmere and then Blackpool, before he finally got his hands on the Man City jersey in 2008. After a good first season for City, where he made his first England appearance in a friendly against Trinidad and Tobago in that June. He also started the following season in good form, but, with the arrival of Shay Given from Newcastle, he found himself out in the cold at City. He therefore decided to go out on loan to Birmingham City for the 2009/2010 season. It would prove to be the best decision of his career. In his breakthrough season, he helped the recently promoted Birmingham set a club record 12 Premier League matches unbeaten, and earned himself a place in the PFA Team of the Year. Though he narrowly missed out on an individual award, to be nominated at all was a great achievement. Since he returned to City, he has solidified the goalkeeper's jersey, winning the Golden Glove award (most clean sheets) for the last three years.
However, his more recent form has given the media, and the fans, plenty of reasons to criticise him. Whilst his reflexes are excellent, he is often prone to a mistake. Earlier mistakes for City against Blackburn in 2010 and Leicester in 2011, and Poland in 2012 for England, led to many stating that his 'cocky' demeanour was adversely affecting his game. He retaliated with an excellent 2011/2012 season, leading City to their first top flight title in 44 years, but those mistakes have resurfaced more recently. Beginning with a howler in the England/Scotland game, allowing James Morrison's effort to slip over the line, before a ragged start to the Premier League season with City, with mistakes against Cardiff and Aston Villa, before a nightmare in the Champions League against Bayern Munich. This has led for many pundits (Roy Keane) and the media to call for Hart to be replaced, with Celtic's Fraser Forster the most likely replacement. This pressure leaves Hart at a crossroads, with an important decision to make. With the additional pressure, does he try harder to produce exceptional performances, that we all know he is capable of, and risk making further mistakes, or does he attempt to slide under the radar with unspectacular, but simple performances? Unfortunately, the latter has become far more difficult to do, with every goal conceded now blown up and scrutinised to the n'th degree. Romelu Lukaku's goal for Everton at the weekend is a good example of this. Whilst this was essentially a one-on-one situation from 10 yards, a penalty, Hart's inability to save was criticised (unfairly in my view) by some. It is something he will have to put up with for the foreseeable future.
But, in Hart's case, is it even fair? For every mistake he has made, he has made countless match-saving stops. As a City fan, I can think of several matches where Hart's athleticism and brilliance has saved a point, or three, at one time or another. I will give two examples of this that are clearest in the memory. The opening of the 2010/2011 season saw City travel to Spurs, where a quite incredible display of goalkeeping, to deny Huddlestone, Kranjcar, and, most memorably, an incredible snapshot from Jermain Defoe, to preserve a point for the Blues. The second example occurred just last season, which illustrates just how short-termist and fickle football pundits, fans and the media are. The home game against Borussia Dortmund in the Champions League saw Hart make flying save after save, denying Reus and Lewandowski on numerous occasions. He was the only reason City managed to pick a point up from that game, and showed just how good a goalkeeper he is. For England, he has also shown his quality. At Euro 2012 he was consistently strong, making good saves in each of the group games, and ensuring that Italy could not score in the quarter final. The game where I feel he showed his club form was in the friendly game against Brazil. Saving shot after shot in a Brazil-dominated first half, Hart even managed to deny Ronaldinho from the penalty spot, before making another excellent save from Fred later in the half. This allowed England to get a foothold in the game, eventually taking the lead. Though they could not hang on, they were indebtted to Hart for the draw.
One thing that could be levelled at Hart is a sense of complacency. This is partially his fault, and partially due to the circumstances that he finds himself in. As both his club, and his country, rely on him heavily in goal, with little in the way of alternatives. For City, Costel Pantilimon is an adequate cup keeper, meaning that City need Hart to remain fit and in form to be successful. For England, only Fraser Forster has looked like putting any sort of pressure on Hart for the jersey, as his competition has been few and far between. This will instil a sense of invincibility in the player involved, as when they believe their place is safe, there is no need to go the extra mile to impress. This has the end result of getting complacent, which almost inevitably leads to poor performances and mistakes. This is the situation that Joe Hart finds himself in, and he desperately needs to get out of it. City signing an adequate back-up keeper (Given would be a good choice) would help his club form, and Forster's recent rise could be the best thing for England, as Hart will feel that pressure for his place that he needs to be at his best.
Nevertheless, the voracity of the criticism that Hart has been receiving in recent weeks is just wrong, as he has not done enough wrong to be deserving of such abuse. He has the backing of both his club, and national managers (which is not entirely surprising when considering the paragraph above), and he will continue to be top dog for both for the time being. In order to rectify the situation, Hart needs the pressure from another goalkeeper, but he does not need the additional pressure from the media's unrealistic ambitions. To strive perfection is acceptable, but to expect it is unfair. The British media seems particularly culpable of being optimistic, and pessimistic, when it most suits them, and this has a knock-on effect on our players. We need to be a little more realistic in our expectations before we start applying them to people.
However, I will start with the talking points that have hit the headlines in the run-up to last night's match with Montenegro. The British media use rather wild expectations, with often contradictory arguments, when portraying our footballers and England as a footballing nation. I have long since despaired of the fact that, whenever a major tournament or big game is on the horizon, the British (mainly tabloid) media tend to overhype the abilities of our players. This leads to many people (ridiculous optimists, as I prefer to call them) claiming every World Cup year that 'we're going to win it'. Arguably the most ludicrous of these was Chris Kamara's claims on 8 Out Of 10 Cats last year. Ok, he was releasing his own England single (God knows why), and therefore had to be a little more optimistic about England's chances than I ever am, but he attempted to convince 5 comedians that England realistically had a chance of winning Euro 2012. A tall order at the best of times, but, with the team that England had assembled last year, it was almost laughable to hear his claims. Although not quite as laughable as some of the comebacks that Jimmy Carr and the like had for him! However, for those of you that have read the title of this blog and thought I am going wildly off topic, just bear with me. It will become clear. The most annoying aspect to the British media regarding English football is that, as a result of holding these ridiculously optimistic expectations, assuming that England will steamroller any nation in their path, they then lambast any player that does not meet their (overhyped) demands. This usually refers to how much they get paid (I know it's a lot, but it's private money, the full argument of which I will not get into here), how irrelevant what they are doing is (despite the coverage the media gives it and the money it brings to the economy every year) etc etc. This has the inevitable effect of sapping the confidence of any player that finds themselves on the recieving end of this pressure, as they know that every move they make is being scrutinised under ridiculous standards. As we will see, just one mistake is often sufficient to see a player's international career ended by bad press.
Goalkeepers, historically, have a extremely bad press whenever they make a mistake. That is because, inevitably, whenever they make a mistake, a goal usually is the end result. This is the situation that they signed up for when they accepted the position, and therefore should expect more media scrutiny than that of a central midfielder. However, I feel that the disparity in blame apportioned to goalkeepers to that given to strikers that miss guilt-edged chances is unfair. Both cost their sides a goal, so there is no problem in terms of comparison. Equally, I think the person that gives away possession that costs a goal should be treated similarly. Nevertheless, I think that the extent of public scrutiny given to any footballer will have a self-fulfilling prophecy effect on most individuals. They will take more risks to put themselves back in the media's good books, and as a result, will often fail, leading to further dirision. This is not really repeated by any other national media around the world, and I refuse to believe that this does not have an effect. The amount of pressure placed upon any footballer for individual mistakes is unfair, and should be stopped. However, there are too many examples, especially to goalkeepers, in recent years that suggests that the practice will continue for the foreseeable future.
The expansion of the mass media has led to this scrutiny, which is why all examples are within the last 20 years or so. The first that I can remember: David Beckham's media assassination after the 1998 World Cup. His sending off in the crucial game against Argentina led the papers to crucify the young winger, subjecting him to abuse that no person should ever have to go through. The Sun headline of 'Sorry Lads, No Tits, Only Beckham' is particularly memorable, and is indicative of the abuse that the England man went through. A weaker person would have crumbled-fortunately Beckham responded to become the player we all know today. It did not end his England career. Three former England goalkeepers were not so fortunate. In 2002, after another World Cup exit, this time at the hands of eventual winners Brazil, the media formed a lynch-mob to end the England career of David Seaman. After being at fault for the now-infamous Ronaldinho free-kick, Seaman was hounded out of his position in the England squad. Similar fates have since befallen Scott Carson (England vs Croatia, 2008), Steve McLaren ('The Wally With The Brolly', England vs Croatia, 2008) and Rob Green (England vs USA, 2010). None of these individuals have been involved in the England squad since, and this can only be attributed to the media. I am a firm believer that a mistake can be forgiven, as long as the person learns from it. The media's reaction to the mistakes means that the individual is not given the time to learn anything, as they are usually ousted.
This is the fate that could also await Joe Hart. The current England number 1 was the prime beneficiary of Rob Green's demise in 2010 (after the short reliance on the aging David James), and has secured the goalkeeper's jersey from that point. He began his career at lower league Shrewsbury Town, before a rapidly improving Manchester City spotted the talented youngster in 2006. His £100,000 fee seems like an absolute steal now, especially considering the £15 Million that neighbours United shelled out on David De Gea in 2011. His early years for City were spent mostly on loan, first at Tranmere and then Blackpool, before he finally got his hands on the Man City jersey in 2008. After a good first season for City, where he made his first England appearance in a friendly against Trinidad and Tobago in that June. He also started the following season in good form, but, with the arrival of Shay Given from Newcastle, he found himself out in the cold at City. He therefore decided to go out on loan to Birmingham City for the 2009/2010 season. It would prove to be the best decision of his career. In his breakthrough season, he helped the recently promoted Birmingham set a club record 12 Premier League matches unbeaten, and earned himself a place in the PFA Team of the Year. Though he narrowly missed out on an individual award, to be nominated at all was a great achievement. Since he returned to City, he has solidified the goalkeeper's jersey, winning the Golden Glove award (most clean sheets) for the last three years.
However, his more recent form has given the media, and the fans, plenty of reasons to criticise him. Whilst his reflexes are excellent, he is often prone to a mistake. Earlier mistakes for City against Blackburn in 2010 and Leicester in 2011, and Poland in 2012 for England, led to many stating that his 'cocky' demeanour was adversely affecting his game. He retaliated with an excellent 2011/2012 season, leading City to their first top flight title in 44 years, but those mistakes have resurfaced more recently. Beginning with a howler in the England/Scotland game, allowing James Morrison's effort to slip over the line, before a ragged start to the Premier League season with City, with mistakes against Cardiff and Aston Villa, before a nightmare in the Champions League against Bayern Munich. This has led for many pundits (Roy Keane) and the media to call for Hart to be replaced, with Celtic's Fraser Forster the most likely replacement. This pressure leaves Hart at a crossroads, with an important decision to make. With the additional pressure, does he try harder to produce exceptional performances, that we all know he is capable of, and risk making further mistakes, or does he attempt to slide under the radar with unspectacular, but simple performances? Unfortunately, the latter has become far more difficult to do, with every goal conceded now blown up and scrutinised to the n'th degree. Romelu Lukaku's goal for Everton at the weekend is a good example of this. Whilst this was essentially a one-on-one situation from 10 yards, a penalty, Hart's inability to save was criticised (unfairly in my view) by some. It is something he will have to put up with for the foreseeable future.
But, in Hart's case, is it even fair? For every mistake he has made, he has made countless match-saving stops. As a City fan, I can think of several matches where Hart's athleticism and brilliance has saved a point, or three, at one time or another. I will give two examples of this that are clearest in the memory. The opening of the 2010/2011 season saw City travel to Spurs, where a quite incredible display of goalkeeping, to deny Huddlestone, Kranjcar, and, most memorably, an incredible snapshot from Jermain Defoe, to preserve a point for the Blues. The second example occurred just last season, which illustrates just how short-termist and fickle football pundits, fans and the media are. The home game against Borussia Dortmund in the Champions League saw Hart make flying save after save, denying Reus and Lewandowski on numerous occasions. He was the only reason City managed to pick a point up from that game, and showed just how good a goalkeeper he is. For England, he has also shown his quality. At Euro 2012 he was consistently strong, making good saves in each of the group games, and ensuring that Italy could not score in the quarter final. The game where I feel he showed his club form was in the friendly game against Brazil. Saving shot after shot in a Brazil-dominated first half, Hart even managed to deny Ronaldinho from the penalty spot, before making another excellent save from Fred later in the half. This allowed England to get a foothold in the game, eventually taking the lead. Though they could not hang on, they were indebtted to Hart for the draw.
One thing that could be levelled at Hart is a sense of complacency. This is partially his fault, and partially due to the circumstances that he finds himself in. As both his club, and his country, rely on him heavily in goal, with little in the way of alternatives. For City, Costel Pantilimon is an adequate cup keeper, meaning that City need Hart to remain fit and in form to be successful. For England, only Fraser Forster has looked like putting any sort of pressure on Hart for the jersey, as his competition has been few and far between. This will instil a sense of invincibility in the player involved, as when they believe their place is safe, there is no need to go the extra mile to impress. This has the end result of getting complacent, which almost inevitably leads to poor performances and mistakes. This is the situation that Joe Hart finds himself in, and he desperately needs to get out of it. City signing an adequate back-up keeper (Given would be a good choice) would help his club form, and Forster's recent rise could be the best thing for England, as Hart will feel that pressure for his place that he needs to be at his best.
Nevertheless, the voracity of the criticism that Hart has been receiving in recent weeks is just wrong, as he has not done enough wrong to be deserving of such abuse. He has the backing of both his club, and national managers (which is not entirely surprising when considering the paragraph above), and he will continue to be top dog for both for the time being. In order to rectify the situation, Hart needs the pressure from another goalkeeper, but he does not need the additional pressure from the media's unrealistic ambitions. To strive perfection is acceptable, but to expect it is unfair. The British media seems particularly culpable of being optimistic, and pessimistic, when it most suits them, and this has a knock-on effect on our players. We need to be a little more realistic in our expectations before we start applying them to people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)