Danny Murphy’s recent comments on the overuse of physicality in the English game were laudable on many levels. He was honest, and brave- especially when you consider that he still has to play against the teams he condemned.
The most significant aspect of this is an easily overlooked one. With so much negativity surrounding the English national team, critics should spend less time decrying the substandard performances of a substandard team, and more worrying about changing the culture of their game.
Every time there is an incident like the one involving Shawcross and Ramsey last season, and many in the game show sympathy towards the perpetrator and not the victim, they help cement an outdated attitude that it is ok to go in hard and hurt players. Not many would accuse Shawcross of intending to do the damage he did- that would make him a sociopath- but he has a proven track record of causing injury and so he is clearly acting recklessly.
Physicality is something that is important to the Premiership’s image as arguably the most exciting of the world’s football leagues. Rightly so. But in a game played so fast, by big, strong athletes, there has to be more emphasis on the safety of the players. It would serve England well.
Few seem to see the link between the encouragement of brutal play in the Premiership and the perceived underachievement of the English national side. There is plenty of artistic play on show in the league, but it must be said that most of the technical excellence has, in recent years, been provided by the continental players who have flooded it since the mid 1990s. There are less and less English players of the technical calibre of a Glenn Hoddle, a John Barnes, or a Paul Gascoigne, perhaps because the English clubs know they can import class from abroad, and look to their English players to provide grit and hard work.
And when an unpolished gem like Jack Wilshere is unearthed, look at the treatment that is dished out- he has already been the victim of some unnecessarily tough tackling this season, with more undoubtedly to come.
I don’t mean to be too black and white about the debate. It’s not only British players who apply brute force on a football pitch- Nigel De Jong plays like an assassin, and George Boateng has been at it for years, and there are plenty more continental examples. But I do think that aggression is over-emphasised in English footballing culture. Even looking at a Gerrard or a Rooney- they often have the look of a bull in a china shop, and they are regarded as the most skilful of English players.
This aggression, when allied to a reckless nature like that of Karl Henry or Ryan Shawcross, is dangerous and destructive. It can destroy careers. And if it is weeded out of the game, I believe it would be of immense benefit to the English national team, as technical brilliance may finally come to be privileged over the clichés of 110%, putting ‘em under pressure, and kicking the skilful players in the air until their spirit- or their legs- are broken.
Showing posts with label Gerrard. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gerrard. Show all posts
Friday, October 15, 2010
Thursday, June 17, 2010
World Cup: The Team That Could Win It For England
In what is vaguely a 4-2-3-1.....
Hart; Johnson, King, Terry, A. Cole; Lampard, Barry; Lennon, Gerrard, J. Cole; Rooney.
This is reliant on a few things. Firstly, Ledley King will need to make it back for the vital closing stages. None of Carragher, Upson or Dawson are ideal partners for the sometimes ponderous but still capable John Terry. This would also free up Carragher to, if necessary, play right-back against more proficient opposition who could expose the vulnerable Johnson.
Gareth Barry needs to come back, and fit. While not the most pyrotechnic of players, he is clearly a vital cog in the England machine, one for whom Capello sees no viable alternative. With Barry in the team, it will be more difficult to get at England's potentially shaky back four. He'll also bring the ability to build moves from the middle, rather than hoofing it to Heskey all the time.
Speaking of which, my team will only come into being if Capello drops Heskey, which does seem unlikely. There is a school of thought, and it is one to which I partly belong, that Heskey rightly commands a place because he allows Rooney to play his best. Rooney's goal tally with Heskey compared to without suggests that there is some validity to this. But Rooney has just had his best season for United playing as a lone striker, and if Capello really wants England to adopt a passing game, he should strengthen his midfield and remove the temptation, in the shape of Heskey, for England's defence and midfield to launch high, long, and largely ineffective passes into the opposition's third, thus ceding possession too often.
Joe Cole is at the centre of this matter. The fact that he was included in the squad suggests that Capello believes he is ready and is willing to use him. But there still seems a hesitation. When Barry returns, the likelihood is that Gerrard will be shunted out to the nominally left-wing position in which he spent the qualifying campaign. Gerrard's most effective position is as a midfielder without defensive duties- with Lampard and Barry doing the donkey work, a 4-2-3-1 would free the Liverpool man up to link with Rooney, Cole and Lennon and try to rediscover his old dynamic self. His time on the left for England and, a few seasons ago, on the right for Liverpool, would also facilitate a level of interchange between Gerrard, Cole and Lennon. Cole could move centrally to try to weave some magic; Lennon could move left to test out the other full-back. If the intention is to play some passing, attacking football, surely this trio supporting Rooney is the most potentially devastating option. And this line-up is adaptable, with the possibility of Gerrard withdrawing further back into midfield when the extra man is needed. Perhaps the issue for Capello is that Lennon and Cole do not have the work rate to help their full-backs as much as he would like.
I know I derided England for their performance against the USA, but this World Cup has been so poor so far that a mediocre winner is perfectly plausible. Don't forget, Greece won Euro 2004, and the European Championships are arguably harder to win, what with less teams and tougher groups. Fabio Capello is probably the best manager, in terms of pedigree, at the World Cup, although pretty inexperienced in international tournaments. The team that everyone would expect to make the most of England's weaknesses have lost their first game. Now, if Spain do qualify for the second round, they are quite likely to be playing Brazil. In that scenario, the quarter-finals would include only one team that England should truly fear. I fancy that it will be Brazil.
Other than those two, there are teams with more attacking talent than England, but I would back Capello's ability to set England out to stifle, then sucker-punch, either Germany or Holland. Argentina, with a coach who ought to swap his tracksuit for a strait jacket, are bound to self-destruct at some point, even if Leo Messi reaches the heady heights of his best form. In fact, their defence and midfield are so ordinary that even a good manager might have struggled. As for France, it seems there is a latent ability in their players, but as I've said before they lack character- this was the case when they fell to pieces against Ireland in the play-off second leg, and it remains so. Raymond Domenech, inept as he is, is hardly the man to guide them far, and their petty in-fighting will prove a hindrance to a team that needs to be harmonious.
In conclusion, it really really really could happen. England could win the World Cup. What it would say about the state of international football does not bear thinking about, nor does the jingoistic bleating that would waft over here from across the Irish Sea for the next fifty years.
Hart; Johnson, King, Terry, A. Cole; Lampard, Barry; Lennon, Gerrard, J. Cole; Rooney.
This is reliant on a few things. Firstly, Ledley King will need to make it back for the vital closing stages. None of Carragher, Upson or Dawson are ideal partners for the sometimes ponderous but still capable John Terry. This would also free up Carragher to, if necessary, play right-back against more proficient opposition who could expose the vulnerable Johnson.
Gareth Barry needs to come back, and fit. While not the most pyrotechnic of players, he is clearly a vital cog in the England machine, one for whom Capello sees no viable alternative. With Barry in the team, it will be more difficult to get at England's potentially shaky back four. He'll also bring the ability to build moves from the middle, rather than hoofing it to Heskey all the time.
Speaking of which, my team will only come into being if Capello drops Heskey, which does seem unlikely. There is a school of thought, and it is one to which I partly belong, that Heskey rightly commands a place because he allows Rooney to play his best. Rooney's goal tally with Heskey compared to without suggests that there is some validity to this. But Rooney has just had his best season for United playing as a lone striker, and if Capello really wants England to adopt a passing game, he should strengthen his midfield and remove the temptation, in the shape of Heskey, for England's defence and midfield to launch high, long, and largely ineffective passes into the opposition's third, thus ceding possession too often.
Joe Cole is at the centre of this matter. The fact that he was included in the squad suggests that Capello believes he is ready and is willing to use him. But there still seems a hesitation. When Barry returns, the likelihood is that Gerrard will be shunted out to the nominally left-wing position in which he spent the qualifying campaign. Gerrard's most effective position is as a midfielder without defensive duties- with Lampard and Barry doing the donkey work, a 4-2-3-1 would free the Liverpool man up to link with Rooney, Cole and Lennon and try to rediscover his old dynamic self. His time on the left for England and, a few seasons ago, on the right for Liverpool, would also facilitate a level of interchange between Gerrard, Cole and Lennon. Cole could move centrally to try to weave some magic; Lennon could move left to test out the other full-back. If the intention is to play some passing, attacking football, surely this trio supporting Rooney is the most potentially devastating option. And this line-up is adaptable, with the possibility of Gerrard withdrawing further back into midfield when the extra man is needed. Perhaps the issue for Capello is that Lennon and Cole do not have the work rate to help their full-backs as much as he would like.
I know I derided England for their performance against the USA, but this World Cup has been so poor so far that a mediocre winner is perfectly plausible. Don't forget, Greece won Euro 2004, and the European Championships are arguably harder to win, what with less teams and tougher groups. Fabio Capello is probably the best manager, in terms of pedigree, at the World Cup, although pretty inexperienced in international tournaments. The team that everyone would expect to make the most of England's weaknesses have lost their first game. Now, if Spain do qualify for the second round, they are quite likely to be playing Brazil. In that scenario, the quarter-finals would include only one team that England should truly fear. I fancy that it will be Brazil.
Other than those two, there are teams with more attacking talent than England, but I would back Capello's ability to set England out to stifle, then sucker-punch, either Germany or Holland. Argentina, with a coach who ought to swap his tracksuit for a strait jacket, are bound to self-destruct at some point, even if Leo Messi reaches the heady heights of his best form. In fact, their defence and midfield are so ordinary that even a good manager might have struggled. As for France, it seems there is a latent ability in their players, but as I've said before they lack character- this was the case when they fell to pieces against Ireland in the play-off second leg, and it remains so. Raymond Domenech, inept as he is, is hardly the man to guide them far, and their petty in-fighting will prove a hindrance to a team that needs to be harmonious.
In conclusion, it really really really could happen. England could win the World Cup. What it would say about the state of international football does not bear thinking about, nor does the jingoistic bleating that would waft over here from across the Irish Sea for the next fifty years.
Monday, May 3, 2010
I'm Going On Strike: Blackburn 2-1 Arsenal
Will we even finish third?
Let's look for some positives... Wenger still sounds, in public remarks at least, as if he doesn't think we need a new goalkeeper. Fabianski provided yet more concrete evidence to the contrary. He is amazingly prolific in his mistake-making. So maybe some good will come out of another defeat, in a perverse way.
With all the first-choice players we're missing, I see the season's end as an audition for the squad players. Almost to a man, they're failing. Abou Diaby is, for me, a nothing player. Flashes of mercurial brilliance are not what's required from a central midfielder, although in a league in which Steven Gerrard has been lionised, you'd be forgiven for thinking so. Theo Walcott, I've said all I have to say. Eduardo looks a spent force thanks to the neanderthal ethic of the English game. Vela is the new Aliadieire. Nasri, though talented, shirks responsibility too often. Yes, we are missing good players, but what is a squad for?
Third place, assuming we still finish there: some will say it's no disgrace. If they've bought into Sky Sports bullshit, they may peddle a line about it being the best league in the world. This year, the league's relative poorness has covered up Arsenal's myriad deficiencies somewhat but nine defeats cannot be ignored. Something is rotten in the state of Arsenal. You can fall for the rhetoric and the ideals if you so please but as far as I'm concerned, the right man for the job is the man who does the right things; Arsene Wenger hasn't for quite some time and thus I suggest that the Summer and the season that follows become his audition.
Let's look for some positives... Wenger still sounds, in public remarks at least, as if he doesn't think we need a new goalkeeper. Fabianski provided yet more concrete evidence to the contrary. He is amazingly prolific in his mistake-making. So maybe some good will come out of another defeat, in a perverse way.
With all the first-choice players we're missing, I see the season's end as an audition for the squad players. Almost to a man, they're failing. Abou Diaby is, for me, a nothing player. Flashes of mercurial brilliance are not what's required from a central midfielder, although in a league in which Steven Gerrard has been lionised, you'd be forgiven for thinking so. Theo Walcott, I've said all I have to say. Eduardo looks a spent force thanks to the neanderthal ethic of the English game. Vela is the new Aliadieire. Nasri, though talented, shirks responsibility too often. Yes, we are missing good players, but what is a squad for?
Third place, assuming we still finish there: some will say it's no disgrace. If they've bought into Sky Sports bullshit, they may peddle a line about it being the best league in the world. This year, the league's relative poorness has covered up Arsenal's myriad deficiencies somewhat but nine defeats cannot be ignored. Something is rotten in the state of Arsenal. You can fall for the rhetoric and the ideals if you so please but as far as I'm concerned, the right man for the job is the man who does the right things; Arsene Wenger hasn't for quite some time and thus I suggest that the Summer and the season that follows become his audition.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)