A fascinating piece by the excellent Jonathan Wilson. I agree with a lot of his comment here and have often wondered how best to counter the False 9 (which is a good name but not one that will stick as it isn't, well, sticky enough). In his wonderful book ‘Inverting The Pyramid’ and elsewhere.
That said... Look at the players he picks out. Ronaldo, Tevez, Messi, Totti, Bergkamp, Zola, Cantona. All fantastic players. A good British example is Gerrard who has become something akin to the role of a False 9 and was at his most effective in the game against United where Ferdinand and Vidic simply didn't know whether to stay with him and drift into midfield (leaving lots of space) or allow him lots of space in central midfield to ping passes around. In the end, Ferdinand tended to go with Gerrard leaving Torres up against Vidic... the ideal combination as Torres + Space + Vidic = goals.
A question that Wilson does not ask is this: Why don't bad teams utilise the False 9 more often? Surely, if it causes the disruption that he suspects that it does surely teams lower down the divisions would be best served by introducing it?
Perhaps, the system only works with excellent players? Or, perhaps, it only works when there is excellence around them - the Barcelona system worked so well last season not because of the False 9 but because of Xavi's brilliance. Bergkamp was feeding Henry, Cantona had Fergie's Fledglings around him and so on.
I think it might be a little bit of all of these factors that make bad teams not adopt the strategy and, furthermore, the fear that False 9s don't tend to score as many goals as, well, 9s. We should also note that none of the False 9s Wilson mentions are British. I think Gerrard, Rooney and, occasionally, Joe Cole could fill the role but these are all exceptional players.
Other than these three I can't think of any and certainly not outside the ''Big Four''.
Why don't we produce more of them and why don't teams like the system? I’d guess that it is a combination of tactical naivety throughout the youth system and the focus on speed and strength rather than ball control and thinking.
From a young age we in the UK are told that 4-4-2 is the only possible formation to play and, therefore, no one grows up playing as a False 9. Our focus on speed, strength and stamina over technique, ability and insight (Note that Ajax have long focused on TIPS) which, again, doesn’t facilitate the development of False 9s. You need exceptional ball control and insight to be a good False 9... our players don't tend to do insight. Wilson is right that England's rigid and simplistic structure, and dogmatic adherence to 4-4-2, that means False 9s can excel in the game against us.
On, how to stop the the False 9, I disagree with Wilson. I think the best way is to play a 4-2-3-1 and detail a midfielder to man-mark the False 9 (this doesn't need to be a deep-lying midfielder). Fabrice Muamba was excellent against Liverpool (until his sending off) and totally nullified Gerrard. Indeed, playing a 4-2-3-1 gives teams that option. If one of the '2' becomes roving, the team still has a lot of solidity in defence.
Of course, a lot of Wilson's argument is obvious and goes back to a very simple premise about football - the team that manipulates space better will usually win.
His point about the False 9 (or floating 9, which sees a striker play in a multi-position role during the game) highlights a wider development in recent years of players who can play in multiple positions in the same game.
Now, admittedly, this is not a new thing (all roads in footballing excellence lead back to the Dutch Total Football Team of 1974 where players could switch into almost all positions at will ) but players like Sergio Ramos and Dani Alves are so skilful and fit that they can, essentially, become both the full-back and wingers at the same time. Madrid, for a while, didn’t play with a right-sided midfielder because Ramos could fill both roles. This meant that Beckham, on the right-wing, could play there or drift in-field to become a ''quarterback''. Those two links go into greater depth (please do read).
Elsewhere, Dirk Kuyt seems to do the work the work of a winger, midfielder or (in old-fashioned lingo) inside-right.
I think this is the future of football. Players who can swap positions and who can adequately play a number of roles - strikers or wingers like Kuyt and Rooney who can tackle and track back, midfielders like Essien who can also be surging wing-backs or centre backs when needs be, central defenders like Agger who can score goals and pass the ball beautifully and the likes of Ramos and Alves who can dominate games from the full-back position.
RCM
Friday, 30 October 2009
The Hidden Wonder Goal
One of the great Liverpool midfielders and, an inspiration for fatties everywhere, here is the goal that everyone thought was lost to the ages. God Bless Jan Molby.
RCM
RCM
Wednesday, 28 October 2009
The Golden Dustbin
An interesting piece over at Soccernet here (previous winners here). I've highlighted my problems with Huntelaar before (he's too slow)*. It seems to be an award not for the worst player but for the most disappointing one. If so, who would win it in England?
RCM
*I should say, for accuracy, I've long been a fan of Quaresma (and Rivaldo - that award is a travesty for, arguably, the best player since Maradona)
RCM
*I should say, for accuracy, I've long been a fan of Quaresma (and Rivaldo - that award is a travesty for, arguably, the best player since Maradona)
Saturday, 24 October 2009
Scottish fitba again
Yet again, Scottish football is navel-gazing. I'm currently sitting watching USC vs Oregon State (on TV - the no booze policy was a bit much for my tastes) so a quick blog can be slotted in.
His article is pretty good bar his first point. The rest, I largely agree with.
I seem to remember a chap called Jari Litmanen as well....
All that said, he might have an idea about playing in the summer - why not?
Other posts on this here and here.
RCM
His article is pretty good bar his first point. The rest, I largely agree with.
Firstly, winter is approaching. It's the wrong time play when you are trying to learn the basics. Ball control and passing will not be mastered in gales and torrential rain.
Kids need to play in the summer when surfaces are better and more conducive to getting good quality work done with the ball.
How can we expect our youngsters to develop dribbling and passing skills in such conditions?
Total horse. Dalglish, Law, Johnstone, Souness and countless others managed to become skillfull players with great ball control. Alex Young was one of the greatest passers the British game has ever seen. Furthermore, the Scottish climate isn't so different from the climate of the North of England (that is, the climate of the central belt - where most players come from isn't that different) and the North of England has managed to produce the likes of Scholes, Rooney and Gerrard in recent years.I seem to remember a chap called Jari Litmanen as well....
All that said, he might have an idea about playing in the summer - why not?
Other posts on this here and here.
RCM
Tuesday, 20 October 2009
Lack of blogging
As alluded to below, am currently in the USA so blogposting will be light.
Ta a la
RCM
Ta a la
RCM
Thursday, 15 October 2009
North Atlantic League
A few days ago, I wrote an extended piece about the Old Firm moving to England and my good friend Will has offered an equally extended rebuttal.
I will, at some point, respond to his point but I'm currently on my holidays in Las Vegas and, well, it is unlikely that I will be doing much more than light blogging - I am doing my best to jack as much money into the American economy as physically possible.
A quick thing though is to note the discussion of the ''North Atlantic League'' or, as I would like to think it would be, 'The Champions League For Diddy Leagues''.
Patently, the idea is absurd. Just one note to the journalist here - there are precedents of multi-national club tournaments working reasonably well. The best example being the Super 14s in the Southern Hemisphere. Now, admittedly, that is arguably the highest standard of club rugby in the world so it does have massive revenues from advertisers (the populations are interested, after all, whereas there is no evidence that the population of Scotland cares about Old Firm vs Malmo).
However, away fans haven't died away massively. When I saw the Hurricanes vs Waratahs there was a very healthy Australian contingent (and that is a three to three and a half hour flight each way...). The only time away fans are thin on the ground is in games involving South African teams playing away but, then, they are flying a long, long way. So, it works for rugby over a bigger area. Could it work for football? I think not and I hope not but money makes the world go square if there is enough of it... and the second-tier clubs (from Belgium, Scotland, Holland, Denmark and, to a lesser extent, Portugal) will no doubt be willing to do anything to get Champions League revenues.
RCM
I will, at some point, respond to his point but I'm currently on my holidays in Las Vegas and, well, it is unlikely that I will be doing much more than light blogging - I am doing my best to jack as much money into the American economy as physically possible.
A quick thing though is to note the discussion of the ''North Atlantic League'' or, as I would like to think it would be, 'The Champions League For Diddy Leagues''.
Patently, the idea is absurd. Just one note to the journalist here - there are precedents of multi-national club tournaments working reasonably well. The best example being the Super 14s in the Southern Hemisphere. Now, admittedly, that is arguably the highest standard of club rugby in the world so it does have massive revenues from advertisers (the populations are interested, after all, whereas there is no evidence that the population of Scotland cares about Old Firm vs Malmo).
However, away fans haven't died away massively. When I saw the Hurricanes vs Waratahs there was a very healthy Australian contingent (and that is a three to three and a half hour flight each way...). The only time away fans are thin on the ground is in games involving South African teams playing away but, then, they are flying a long, long way. So, it works for rugby over a bigger area. Could it work for football? I think not and I hope not but money makes the world go square if there is enough of it... and the second-tier clubs (from Belgium, Scotland, Holland, Denmark and, to a lesser extent, Portugal) will no doubt be willing to do anything to get Champions League revenues.
RCM
Sunday, 11 October 2009
The Old Firm
Yet again the issue of The Old Firm moving to the English league has raised it's rather gnarled and ugly head. I am torn on the issue - that is I can see both sides. That said, Paul Hayward in the Observer lays out five questions. I attempt to answer them below.
Would England gain from it?
This seems to be the 'en vogue' argument. Various FA wonks and big-wigs now say things along the lines 'well, we can see what The Old Firm gain from it but what do we get'.
This is either idiocy, stupidity or ignorance. Celtic Park is the 2nd biggest club ground in the UK (with a very slightly higher capacity than the Emirates) and Ibrox is the 4th largest (ahead of all bar United and Arsenal in the current Premier League). I'd guess that this would be attractive for many clubs as this would bring a revenue boost for them. Both stadiums are more than twice the capacity of the DW Stadium, Turf Moor and Fratton Park.
Added to this, Rangers and Celtic are more marketable in terms of selling TV rights than Portsmouth or Wigan (and they are better recognised around the world). It is likely that both clubs would add to that capacity if they were in the Premiership.
Finally, and quite simply, it adds showpiece (something that Hayward admits but then goes on to say there are already enough high-level rivalries in England...). Manchester United vs Rangers, even today, is more exciting for all concerned than Manchester United vs Hull City.
Those English pundits that worry about the bigotry are right to do so but anyone who has heard the sickening chants directed towards Sol Campbell or Mido; or about Hillsborough or Munich knows that all is not rosy on the terraces of England.
Would Premier League 2 kill off the other English clubs?
This is pretty simplistic misdirection. Premier League 2 may kill off the other English clubs but The Old Firm joining has nothing to do with this - it is perfectly possible that Gartside's plan would go ahead without The Old Firm. Hayward is a better journalist than this and will know this. England could say 'yes' to the Old Firm and 'no' to Premier League 2. Equally, and probably more likely, they will say 'no' to the Old Firm and 'yes' to Premier League 2. Total tosh.
Would it kill Scottish football?
It might kill Scottish football as we know it. Chick Young thinks that it would be ruinous for Scottish football for The Old Firm to leave. Firms would be less likely to sponsor teams, the Old Firm would still hog the media limelight and Sky and co would shy away from broadcasting the English League. However, it seems very much to me that the Old Firm (and the SPL high heid yins) are killing Scottish football anyway.
Talent is drained from the likes of Hibs and Hearts to the Old Firm. Some of this talent ends up on the bench at the Old Firm. Quite frankly, this system can only work whilst the Old Firm can hoover up these players and still do well. If they were in the EPL, they couldn't buy the likes of Flood, Robson, Killen, Whittaker, Broadfoot, Novo and Naismith - they'd have to buy a better standard of player. Some of these players, like Scott Brown, would probably still move to the Old Firm. However, the smaller clubs would probably retain more of their talent simply because the Old Firm would have to look for better players.
As well as this it would be naive to think that Scottish football are ignorant of the Premier League already. Plenty of people up here support English teams but plenty also have multiple supporting identities - they support Rangers and Liverpool, they support Celtic and Manchester United, they support Hearts and Arsenal. This could continue. Apparently, Manchester United shirts sell third only to Rangers and Celtic in Scotland (Liverpool, as it happens, are fourth). The Premier League may already be ripping supporters away from St. Mirren, Kilmarnock and co.
Would the league be more competitive? Almost certainly. Would supporters retain these multiple identities - supporting Hearts and Arsenal? Possibly. Would a league that was competitive bring in more weekend supporters? Possibly. It may change the league but, in the long run, it may be a more competitive league and a more fun league even if it didn't have as much money kicking about.
Elsewhere in Northern Europe, Norway's perennial champions, Rosenborg attract crowds of 20,000+ as do Danish clubs like Brondby and F.C. Copenhagen in Denmark. In Sweden, IFK Gothenburg attract 18,000, Malmo have a capacity of 24,000 etc. Yes, these teams do not do do particularly well in Europe but then, again brutally, neither do the Old Firm particularly often. Plenty of leagues manage to survive professionally or semi-professionally with big attendances, a decent enough standard of football (I bet F.C Copenhagen would destroy Hearts, Hibs and co) and no real European presence.
Those that argue Scottish football would become like Ireland misunderstand this entirely. No one in Ireland regularly gets over 3,500 attendances. Over 15,000 people turn out to watch Hearts vs Kilmarnock today when the fixture is utterly meaningless. I'd guess that with Hearts actually winning trophies and getting into Europe (even if it meant early exits) players and fans would be more likely to stay there.
Would FIFA allow it and if they did would it bring about the end of the status of the National Teams?
FIFA themselves admit there are other examples analagous to this. FC Vaduz play in the Swiss league but are from Lichtenstein - the winner of the Lichtenstein Cup still goes into the UEFA Cup. Up until 1995, 6 teams played in the Welsh Cup and English leagues. Indeed, three Welsh teams play in the English leagues and this has not destroyed either the Welsh or English national teams. It is not terribly far-fetched to see Cardiff City in the Premiership - would them getting into the UEFA Cup destroy the Welsh FA? No, of course not.
If the associations involved agreed it (SFA, SPL, EPL and FA) and it was allowed by FIFA there wouldn't be a problem - as outlined in Article 80 of the FIFA Statuses. 'Any Association, League or Club that is affiliated to a member cannot belong to another member or participate in competitions on the territory of another member without the authorisation of its current and prospective members and of FIFA, except in exceptional circumstances'. So it is possible.
Would England gain from it?
This seems to be the 'en vogue' argument. Various FA wonks and big-wigs now say things along the lines 'well, we can see what The Old Firm gain from it but what do we get'.
This is either idiocy, stupidity or ignorance. Celtic Park is the 2nd biggest club ground in the UK (with a very slightly higher capacity than the Emirates) and Ibrox is the 4th largest (ahead of all bar United and Arsenal in the current Premier League). I'd guess that this would be attractive for many clubs as this would bring a revenue boost for them. Both stadiums are more than twice the capacity of the DW Stadium, Turf Moor and Fratton Park.
Added to this, Rangers and Celtic are more marketable in terms of selling TV rights than Portsmouth or Wigan (and they are better recognised around the world). It is likely that both clubs would add to that capacity if they were in the Premiership.
Finally, and quite simply, it adds showpiece (something that Hayward admits but then goes on to say there are already enough high-level rivalries in England...). Manchester United vs Rangers, even today, is more exciting for all concerned than Manchester United vs Hull City.
Those English pundits that worry about the bigotry are right to do so but anyone who has heard the sickening chants directed towards Sol Campbell or Mido; or about Hillsborough or Munich knows that all is not rosy on the terraces of England.
Would Premier League 2 kill off the other English clubs?
This is pretty simplistic misdirection. Premier League 2 may kill off the other English clubs but The Old Firm joining has nothing to do with this - it is perfectly possible that Gartside's plan would go ahead without The Old Firm. Hayward is a better journalist than this and will know this. England could say 'yes' to the Old Firm and 'no' to Premier League 2. Equally, and probably more likely, they will say 'no' to the Old Firm and 'yes' to Premier League 2. Total tosh.
Would it kill Scottish football?
It might kill Scottish football as we know it. Chick Young thinks that it would be ruinous for Scottish football for The Old Firm to leave. Firms would be less likely to sponsor teams, the Old Firm would still hog the media limelight and Sky and co would shy away from broadcasting the English League. However, it seems very much to me that the Old Firm (and the SPL high heid yins) are killing Scottish football anyway.
Talent is drained from the likes of Hibs and Hearts to the Old Firm. Some of this talent ends up on the bench at the Old Firm. Quite frankly, this system can only work whilst the Old Firm can hoover up these players and still do well. If they were in the EPL, they couldn't buy the likes of Flood, Robson, Killen, Whittaker, Broadfoot, Novo and Naismith - they'd have to buy a better standard of player. Some of these players, like Scott Brown, would probably still move to the Old Firm. However, the smaller clubs would probably retain more of their talent simply because the Old Firm would have to look for better players.
As well as this it would be naive to think that Scottish football are ignorant of the Premier League already. Plenty of people up here support English teams but plenty also have multiple supporting identities - they support Rangers and Liverpool, they support Celtic and Manchester United, they support Hearts and Arsenal. This could continue. Apparently, Manchester United shirts sell third only to Rangers and Celtic in Scotland (Liverpool, as it happens, are fourth). The Premier League may already be ripping supporters away from St. Mirren, Kilmarnock and co.
Would the league be more competitive? Almost certainly. Would supporters retain these multiple identities - supporting Hearts and Arsenal? Possibly. Would a league that was competitive bring in more weekend supporters? Possibly. It may change the league but, in the long run, it may be a more competitive league and a more fun league even if it didn't have as much money kicking about.
Elsewhere in Northern Europe, Norway's perennial champions, Rosenborg attract crowds of 20,000+ as do Danish clubs like Brondby and F.C. Copenhagen in Denmark. In Sweden, IFK Gothenburg attract 18,000, Malmo have a capacity of 24,000 etc. Yes, these teams do not do do particularly well in Europe but then, again brutally, neither do the Old Firm particularly often. Plenty of leagues manage to survive professionally or semi-professionally with big attendances, a decent enough standard of football (I bet F.C Copenhagen would destroy Hearts, Hibs and co) and no real European presence.
Those that argue Scottish football would become like Ireland misunderstand this entirely. No one in Ireland regularly gets over 3,500 attendances. Over 15,000 people turn out to watch Hearts vs Kilmarnock today when the fixture is utterly meaningless. I'd guess that with Hearts actually winning trophies and getting into Europe (even if it meant early exits) players and fans would be more likely to stay there.
Would FIFA allow it and if they did would it bring about the end of the status of the National Teams?
FIFA themselves admit there are other examples analagous to this. FC Vaduz play in the Swiss league but are from Lichtenstein - the winner of the Lichtenstein Cup still goes into the UEFA Cup. Up until 1995, 6 teams played in the Welsh Cup and English leagues. Indeed, three Welsh teams play in the English leagues and this has not destroyed either the Welsh or English national teams. It is not terribly far-fetched to see Cardiff City in the Premiership - would them getting into the UEFA Cup destroy the Welsh FA? No, of course not.
If the associations involved agreed it (SFA, SPL, EPL and FA) and it was allowed by FIFA there wouldn't be a problem - as outlined in Article 80 of the FIFA Statuses. 'Any Association, League or Club that is affiliated to a member cannot belong to another member or participate in competitions on the territory of another member without the authorisation of its current and prospective members and of FIFA, except in exceptional circumstances'. So it is possible.
That said, I don't think, if FIFA allowed the Old Firm to play in England, I would imagine that the discussions (involving the SFA and FA) would be predicated on it not abolishing them as entities... The blazers are, first and foremost (and wrongly), about self-preservation they wouldn't do anything that would endanger themselves.
If Scotland became independent would the English league let others in (e.g. Feyenoord)
No. Only if the English league wanted them to and only if Feyenoord et al wanted to come. This is nonsense. I don't think this is being floated seriously and it is just some more misdirection.
RCM
PS - I was trying to put together a 'Smokers XI' but struggled to find defenders. Cruijff, Tigana, Socrates, Tugay, Prosinecki, Berbatov, Blanc, Barthez, Vialli but struggled too much with defenders!
PPS - Martin Palermo (focused on this blog earlier in the week) saved the day for Argentina. He is one of those players that, for whatever reason, will make the headlines.
PPPS - (watch it. - Ed) Look what might happen in South Africa because of the World Cup.
PPS - Martin Palermo (focused on this blog earlier in the week) saved the day for Argentina. He is one of those players that, for whatever reason, will make the headlines.
PPPS - (watch it. - Ed) Look what might happen in South Africa because of the World Cup.
A future project: why are some clubs more injury prone than others?
I'm a big fan of Graham Spiers - I think he is one of the best football journalists in the game and it is a shame, as a football fan, that he writes almost exclusively on Scotland. That isn't to say his analysis of the game up here isn't great (it is) but I'd like to hear more of his thoughts on international and Premier League football.
Anyway, this is a typically interesting piece from the man. A little research project I'm going to look into on my return from holiday is going to be looking into if certain clubs seem to have more injury prone players. Is it because of ''bad luck''? Is it because of training facilities? Is it because of over-playing (or, perhaps, smaller squad size leading to over-playing)? Is it due to the ground that they are playing on being harder and more likely to lead to hamstring problems - which has often been spoken of in regards to Newcastle?
I'm sure this has been done before - Milan's lab has reputedly not only turned a team of thirty somethings into European Champions but, furthermore, reduced injury rates massively (have a look here and here).
RCM
Anyway, this is a typically interesting piece from the man. A little research project I'm going to look into on my return from holiday is going to be looking into if certain clubs seem to have more injury prone players. Is it because of ''bad luck''? Is it because of training facilities? Is it because of over-playing (or, perhaps, smaller squad size leading to over-playing)? Is it due to the ground that they are playing on being harder and more likely to lead to hamstring problems - which has often been spoken of in regards to Newcastle?
I'm sure this has been done before - Milan's lab has reputedly not only turned a team of thirty somethings into European Champions but, furthermore, reduced injury rates massively (have a look here and here).
RCM
Far East Farce
I have written already this week about the farce in the Far East. So bad that Burley had to apologise to the Japanese coach for the squad that he put out.
Whilst I don't blame Burley for the pull-outs, it again shows an issue with Burley's management.
When Steven Gerrard pulled out of an England friendly against Germany, Capello called him up to be assessed by the England medical staff. He was released but it showed that Capello would not stand for pull-outs even from big name players - I don't think he ever doubted Gerrard was injured but the message was sent. Burley does not have the authority to do this and even if he does have, he would not have the balls to call up Darren Fletcher to be assessed by Scotland's medics. I do not doubt that Burley is disappointed but feel that he, and the SFA, should have sent out a Cappello-esque message.
If we are going to annoy our friends in the Far East why didn't Burley at least call up young talent, why not call up Leigh Griffiths, Scott Arfield, John Fleck, Barry Bannan or Gary Glen rather than those in their mid-20s who are unlikely to break into the squad? Does anyone really believe that Don Cowie has more of an international future than Scott Arfield? I'm not even sure that Dorrans, Adam and Conway are likely to play a lot of international football whereas I'm sure Fleck will and, from all accounts, Bannan will.
Anyway, my point has always been that this was a farcical exercise. A friend noted on the Facebook version of these notes put forward Gordon Smith's case fairly eloquently in defence of the fixture (more eloquently than the repetitive Smith). The reasons for this are:
- The friendly was agreed with a play-off in mind
- We couldn't pull out because it would annoy the Japanese
- Makes good financial sense
- Bonding as a squad
So, in rebuttal mode:
The friendly was agreed with a play-off in mind - Fine. I understand that this had to be done outside Europe as other qualifiers are going ahead. However, there are plenty of teams nearer than Japan who would have given us a decent game - any of the countries of North Africa that are traditionally decent enough (Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt). Indeed, Ghana, Cameroon or Nigeria would all have been good. Why did this need to be played overseas?
We couldn't pull out because it would annoy the Japanese - Of course, but we've annoyed them with so many players pulling out. My point is players probably wouldn't have pulled out if they hadn't had to do two 11 hour flights. It being in Japan made it more likely we'd annoy the Japanese.
Furthermore, Burley should have called a few of the players up to double-check their injuries (and if he did this he should have sent press releases about it).
It makes good financial sense - Only in the short-term (which is, of course, important) but it is unlikely that Japan will want to host Scotland again. This game has been largely pointless for them. The next Kirin Cup probably won't have Scotland invited and other far away friendlies may overlook us in future. Let us see the figures.... could this have been played in Scotland? Or at a neutral venue, say, Dubai? It is fine to say this is good business but let us see the figures before we believe it.
Bonding as a squad - Fine but a large chunk of the actual squad weren't there and many of those in this squad won't be back again... We've annoyed the Japanese to have an expensive bonding exercise for the B Team.
A sorry state of affairs and I feel rather sorry for Burley and slightly more so for the Japanese.
RCM
Whilst I don't blame Burley for the pull-outs, it again shows an issue with Burley's management.
When Steven Gerrard pulled out of an England friendly against Germany, Capello called him up to be assessed by the England medical staff. He was released but it showed that Capello would not stand for pull-outs even from big name players - I don't think he ever doubted Gerrard was injured but the message was sent. Burley does not have the authority to do this and even if he does have, he would not have the balls to call up Darren Fletcher to be assessed by Scotland's medics. I do not doubt that Burley is disappointed but feel that he, and the SFA, should have sent out a Cappello-esque message.
If we are going to annoy our friends in the Far East why didn't Burley at least call up young talent, why not call up Leigh Griffiths, Scott Arfield, John Fleck, Barry Bannan or Gary Glen rather than those in their mid-20s who are unlikely to break into the squad? Does anyone really believe that Don Cowie has more of an international future than Scott Arfield? I'm not even sure that Dorrans, Adam and Conway are likely to play a lot of international football whereas I'm sure Fleck will and, from all accounts, Bannan will.
Anyway, my point has always been that this was a farcical exercise. A friend noted on the Facebook version of these notes put forward Gordon Smith's case fairly eloquently in defence of the fixture (more eloquently than the repetitive Smith). The reasons for this are:
- The friendly was agreed with a play-off in mind
- We couldn't pull out because it would annoy the Japanese
- Makes good financial sense
- Bonding as a squad
So, in rebuttal mode:
The friendly was agreed with a play-off in mind - Fine. I understand that this had to be done outside Europe as other qualifiers are going ahead. However, there are plenty of teams nearer than Japan who would have given us a decent game - any of the countries of North Africa that are traditionally decent enough (Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt). Indeed, Ghana, Cameroon or Nigeria would all have been good. Why did this need to be played overseas?
We couldn't pull out because it would annoy the Japanese - Of course, but we've annoyed them with so many players pulling out. My point is players probably wouldn't have pulled out if they hadn't had to do two 11 hour flights. It being in Japan made it more likely we'd annoy the Japanese.
Furthermore, Burley should have called a few of the players up to double-check their injuries (and if he did this he should have sent press releases about it).
It makes good financial sense - Only in the short-term (which is, of course, important) but it is unlikely that Japan will want to host Scotland again. This game has been largely pointless for them. The next Kirin Cup probably won't have Scotland invited and other far away friendlies may overlook us in future. Let us see the figures.... could this have been played in Scotland? Or at a neutral venue, say, Dubai? It is fine to say this is good business but let us see the figures before we believe it.
Bonding as a squad - Fine but a large chunk of the actual squad weren't there and many of those in this squad won't be back again... We've annoyed the Japanese to have an expensive bonding exercise for the B Team.
A sorry state of affairs and I feel rather sorry for Burley and slightly more so for the Japanese.
RCM
Wednesday, 7 October 2009
Pythagoras in Boots The Third!
Johan Cruijff's grandson has made his debut for one of Barca's youth teams. Bit of an odd story from the Mail about them hanging their hopes on him - they are European Champions after all but a nice story nonetheless.RCM
The Scotland Squad to face Japan
It is not George Burley's fault that the SFA have organised a friendly in Japan so early into the season.
One must ask why on Earth the friendly was arranged on the other side of the world?
One must also ask are these players taken Burley for a ride or, if not, why are so many of them injured after only a handful of games into a season?
Either some of these players have been pulled out by their clubs (and if so Burley should pull a Cappello and call a few of them to be examined by SFA medical officers) or there is something seriously remiss.
Just to clarify:
Darren Fletcher, Alan Hutton, Scott Brown, Shaun Maloney, Steven Naismith, Scott Robertson, Robert Snodgrass, Kevin Thomson, Garry O'Connor and Danny Fox have all pulled out.
On top of that James McFadden, Ross McCormack, Chris Iwelumo, Kenny Miller, James Morrison, Kris Commons and Gary Naysmith were all injured. Kevin Kyle has also not been called up because he has been injured. The squad, therefore, is:
Goalkeepers: Craig Gordon (Sunderland), Jamie Langfield (Aberdeen), David Marshall (Cardiff City)
Defenders: Darren Barr (Falkirk), Christophe Berra (Wolverhampton Wanderers), Gary Caldwell (Celtic), Lee Wallace (Hearts), Stephen McManus (Celtic), Steven Whittaker (Rangers)
Midfielders: Charles Adam (Blackpool), Graham Dorrans (West Bromwich Albion), Craig Conway (Dundee United), Ross Wallace (Preston North End), Stephen Hughes (Norwich City), Don Cowie (Watford)
Forwards: Steven Fletcher (Burnley), Lee Miller (Aberdeen), Derek Riordan (Hibernian)
What is the point of them playing this game?
RCM
One must ask why on Earth the friendly was arranged on the other side of the world?
One must also ask are these players taken Burley for a ride or, if not, why are so many of them injured after only a handful of games into a season?
Either some of these players have been pulled out by their clubs (and if so Burley should pull a Cappello and call a few of them to be examined by SFA medical officers) or there is something seriously remiss.
Just to clarify:
Darren Fletcher, Alan Hutton, Scott Brown, Shaun Maloney, Steven Naismith, Scott Robertson, Robert Snodgrass, Kevin Thomson, Garry O'Connor and Danny Fox have all pulled out.
On top of that James McFadden, Ross McCormack, Chris Iwelumo, Kenny Miller, James Morrison, Kris Commons and Gary Naysmith were all injured. Kevin Kyle has also not been called up because he has been injured. The squad, therefore, is:
Goalkeepers: Craig Gordon (Sunderland), Jamie Langfield (Aberdeen), David Marshall (Cardiff City)
Defenders: Darren Barr (Falkirk), Christophe Berra (Wolverhampton Wanderers), Gary Caldwell (Celtic), Lee Wallace (Hearts), Stephen McManus (Celtic), Steven Whittaker (Rangers)
Midfielders: Charles Adam (Blackpool), Graham Dorrans (West Bromwich Albion), Craig Conway (Dundee United), Ross Wallace (Preston North End), Stephen Hughes (Norwich City), Don Cowie (Watford)
Forwards: Steven Fletcher (Burnley), Lee Miller (Aberdeen), Derek Riordan (Hibernian)
What is the point of them playing this game?
RCM
Tuesday, 6 October 2009
Martin Palermo
Martin Palermo is in the news for scoring an astonishing headed goal - from 40 yards out! Amazing stuff.
Let us hope that he is remembered for that or for his 81 goals in 102 games in his first spell at Boca or his 83 in 147 in his second spell and not his horrific injury falling off a wall when playing for Villareal or his world-breaking 3 penalty misses in one international game.
RCM
Let us hope that he is remembered for that or for his 81 goals in 102 games in his first spell at Boca or his 83 in 147 in his second spell and not his horrific injury falling off a wall when playing for Villareal or his world-breaking 3 penalty misses in one international game.
RCM
Monday, 5 October 2009
The Brazilian Darren Fletcher
Liverpool, by any measure, have had a stuttering start to the season. Three losses in the league(more than last season already we are consistently told - although it wasn't Liverpool's losses last year that caused them to come 2nd in the league... rather the number of draws against weak opposition. Liverpool, after all, came top of the top four table by quite some margin. It did not matter a jot) and a poor, poor performance against Fiorentina can at best be called stuttering, at worst a crisis but is probably a shade closer to the former than the latter.
I believe that Lucas has been unfairly treated by the fans and the media. Now I will be honest: Lucas is not Xabi Alonso. He doesn't have his passing range or his vision. This is hardly a sin in terms of footballing ability - barely any players in world football do although, perhaps crucially for Alonso, at least three of them play for Spain.
Against Villa he did play poorly admittedly. However, much of the criticism that has been laid at his door have been more than a little unfair. He played extremely well against Burnley, West Ham and Hull City. Many will say 'ah well, that is easy'. But, as to my point above, Liverpool didn't beat the likes of Hull City last year at home and struggled against teams like Burnley. The sainted Alonso could unpick the defences of Arsenal and Chelsea but struggled against Stoke and Hull.
Now if I asked people what was Liverpool's finest performance last year most people would say the 4-1 victory at Old Trafford? I would agree. And I would point them to the team sheet. I do not see Alonso's name but I do see that of Lucas. It seems that Mascherano and Lucas can play together and can launch attacks - the difference is Riera and Gerrard are not fighting in the same way as last year and, furthermore, Carragher is creaking. We all forget Lucas played his part that day.
That said no one is denying that Liverpool are missing Xabi Alonso. I've blogged about it before here (and I think, until yesterday when Johnson played very solidly in defence, we were missing Arbeloa).
The system Liverpool played last season (generally) was based around Alonso's ability to get the ball to Torres and Gerrard. This played to his strengths and their strengths.
Lucas's strengths are different and he is very similar to Mascherano in terms of 'type of player'. To blame him for not being Alonso is unfair - we were all expecting Liverpool to play the same system as last season and, if they are trying to, they are going to fail. Even against Manchester United in the game last season Liverpool played a different game with Gerrard playing between the midfield and attack and Reina trying to implement a new-style long ball game. This worked against Vidic but, in this case, not against Terry.
In terms of mistakes made in recent weeks have come from other players - sometimes the defence (I refuse to blame zonal marking, for the reasons outlined many times on this blog, bad defending is bad defending), often down to Jamie Carragher and, on Sunday, due to the otherwise excellent Mascherano giving the ball away. Those who criticise him can't point their finger at Lucas in terms of mistakes made. They can point to things he doesn't do (like not being Alonso) but rarely has he made mistakes this season. He's an under-rated player and I would describe him, as a compliment, as a Brazilian Darren Fletcher.
And that is the other thing that swings against Lucas... Lucas is not a 'Brazilian' player just like in the old days his his current Brazil manager Dunga wasn't a Brazilian player. When we hear 'Brazilian midfielder' we think of players who can do endless tricks, lollipops and make the ball dance. That said, Dunga seems to rate Lucas rather highly. He is in the Brazil squad and is keeping out a fair few decent players - Diego, Anderson, Julio Baptista, Kleberson and Mancini.
So, yes, he isn't brilliant but he isn't a bad player.
RCM
I believe that Lucas has been unfairly treated by the fans and the media. Now I will be honest: Lucas is not Xabi Alonso. He doesn't have his passing range or his vision. This is hardly a sin in terms of footballing ability - barely any players in world football do although, perhaps crucially for Alonso, at least three of them play for Spain.
Against Villa he did play poorly admittedly. However, much of the criticism that has been laid at his door have been more than a little unfair. He played extremely well against Burnley, West Ham and Hull City. Many will say 'ah well, that is easy'. But, as to my point above, Liverpool didn't beat the likes of Hull City last year at home and struggled against teams like Burnley. The sainted Alonso could unpick the defences of Arsenal and Chelsea but struggled against Stoke and Hull.
Now if I asked people what was Liverpool's finest performance last year most people would say the 4-1 victory at Old Trafford? I would agree. And I would point them to the team sheet. I do not see Alonso's name but I do see that of Lucas. It seems that Mascherano and Lucas can play together and can launch attacks - the difference is Riera and Gerrard are not fighting in the same way as last year and, furthermore, Carragher is creaking. We all forget Lucas played his part that day.
That said no one is denying that Liverpool are missing Xabi Alonso. I've blogged about it before here (and I think, until yesterday when Johnson played very solidly in defence, we were missing Arbeloa).
The system Liverpool played last season (generally) was based around Alonso's ability to get the ball to Torres and Gerrard. This played to his strengths and their strengths.
Lucas's strengths are different and he is very similar to Mascherano in terms of 'type of player'. To blame him for not being Alonso is unfair - we were all expecting Liverpool to play the same system as last season and, if they are trying to, they are going to fail. Even against Manchester United in the game last season Liverpool played a different game with Gerrard playing between the midfield and attack and Reina trying to implement a new-style long ball game. This worked against Vidic but, in this case, not against Terry.
In terms of mistakes made in recent weeks have come from other players - sometimes the defence (I refuse to blame zonal marking, for the reasons outlined many times on this blog, bad defending is bad defending), often down to Jamie Carragher and, on Sunday, due to the otherwise excellent Mascherano giving the ball away. Those who criticise him can't point their finger at Lucas in terms of mistakes made. They can point to things he doesn't do (like not being Alonso) but rarely has he made mistakes this season. He's an under-rated player and I would describe him, as a compliment, as a Brazilian Darren Fletcher.
And that is the other thing that swings against Lucas... Lucas is not a 'Brazilian' player just like in the old days his his current Brazil manager Dunga wasn't a Brazilian player. When we hear 'Brazilian midfielder' we think of players who can do endless tricks, lollipops and make the ball dance. That said, Dunga seems to rate Lucas rather highly. He is in the Brazil squad and is keeping out a fair few decent players - Diego, Anderson, Julio Baptista, Kleberson and Mancini.
So, yes, he isn't brilliant but he isn't a bad player.
RCM
Sunday, 4 October 2009
Wodehouse et al
The ever splendid Alex Massie writes about a Wodehousian Cricketing XI. Please do go and have a look.
Massie knows rather a lot about cricket and rather a lot about Wodehouse whilst I know a little about cricket and rather less about Wodehouse (I am an enormous fan but my knowledge of the canon outside of Jeeves and Wooster is poor. I've got a few books for my upcoming holiday and 'Young Men In Spats' is one of them. I'm also considering joining this).
I'm looking forward to watching Arsenal on MOTD2 this evening. From all accounts Fabregas was absolutely amazing - he is always a delightful player to watch when he is on form.
As for the other big game of the day, well, Drogba is a frustrating man. He is clearly a wonderfully gifted player. He is, equally clearly, a total plank - to the point where his captain remonstrated with him at one point about his behaviour. Terry, for my money, should have got the bubbly today. Torres had an off-game but this was down, in a large part, to Terry's commanding performance.
Liverpool are running hot and cold this year - when they are good, they are very good. When they are bad, they are contraceptive. Liverpool fans wait, with baited breath, to see whether Aquilani can take the creative burden off Gerrard, Torres and Benayoun and whether his presence next to Mascherano will solidify the team. They wait, also, to see whether Carragher's increasingly creaky performances will lead to Agger being brought into the team.
RCM
Massie knows rather a lot about cricket and rather a lot about Wodehouse whilst I know a little about cricket and rather less about Wodehouse (I am an enormous fan but my knowledge of the canon outside of Jeeves and Wooster is poor. I've got a few books for my upcoming holiday and 'Young Men In Spats' is one of them. I'm also considering joining this).
I'm looking forward to watching Arsenal on MOTD2 this evening. From all accounts Fabregas was absolutely amazing - he is always a delightful player to watch when he is on form.
As for the other big game of the day, well, Drogba is a frustrating man. He is clearly a wonderfully gifted player. He is, equally clearly, a total plank - to the point where his captain remonstrated with him at one point about his behaviour. Terry, for my money, should have got the bubbly today. Torres had an off-game but this was down, in a large part, to Terry's commanding performance.
Liverpool are running hot and cold this year - when they are good, they are very good. When they are bad, they are contraceptive. Liverpool fans wait, with baited breath, to see whether Aquilani can take the creative burden off Gerrard, Torres and Benayoun and whether his presence next to Mascherano will solidify the team. They wait, also, to see whether Carragher's increasingly creaky performances will lead to Agger being brought into the team.
RCM
Why not Mexico?
As a follow-up to my piece on Brazil a few days ago I started thinking about Mexico.
I'll put my cards on the table. I love Mexico - I love the people, I love the food (especially the tortilla soup and tomatillo salsa), I love Mexico City - it is one of the great cities of the world. The best museum I've ever been to was in Mexico City. When I visited I was made to feel incredibly welcome everywhere I went. You should go!
I even loved the subway system whose tickets, according to urban legend, cost more to produce than they do to buy. I loved the stalls on streets around Cuernavaca that all sold the same things - and people would go to other stalls to buy their Coca Cola despite having it on their own stall. It is my kind of place.
In 'Why England Lose & Other Curious Football Phenomena Explained' Szymanski and Kuper work out who is best and worst at football by using variables such as population, GDP and football experience. They attempt to measure the performance of national teams in terms of what they ought to acheive given the country's wealth, population and footballing experience - and think these are telling indicators in performance.
It is also useful to factor in who the teams are playing against - it is hard for Luxembourg to win many games because they are up against France, Holland, Germany, England, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Belgium, Scotland, Sweden etc and many other pretty decent nations besides.
The one thing Mexico doesn't have is strong opposition around them. Mexico are currently, according to FIFA World Rankings, 24th in the world.
The USA, also in the CONCACAF region, are 11th. Costa Rica are 39th, Honduras are 42nd Canada are 66th, Trinidad and Tobago 63rd, Jamaica 69th, Panama 75th, El Salvador 85th, Cuba 87th are the only other CONCACAF nations in the top 100.
Compare that with South America: Brazil 1st, Argentina 8th, Chile 21st, Paraguay 23rd, Uruguay 28th, Ecuador 36th, Colombia 48th.
Or Europe: Spain 2nd, Italy 3rd, Germany 4th, England 7th, France 10th, Greece 12th, Serbia 13th, Switzerland 15th, Denmark 16th, Portugal 17th, Czech Republic 18th, Bulgaria 19th (I stopped at 20...).
Mexico may very well be the international Old Firm - a little too good for their own backyard and, because of this, do not come up against really good teams often enough. Most of their games are very poor opposition or, at least comparatively poor opposition. This means that they don't survive as well as they should do at international level.
In terms of club football, Mexico has a pretty strong league. However, the country has a very poor record in the Copa Libertadores. In the competition's history, only one Mexican club has reached the final of the Copa Libertadores (C.D.S.C Cruz Azul in 2001). Many Mexican players never leave the Mexican league - the subline Hugo Sanchez and the talented Marquez are exceptions rather than the rule although the new generation of Dos Santos and Vela may change that. I'm not sure this helps the national team.
The reason for this post, linking back to the above document is that, it occurred to me that Mexico has many of the advantages for producing good footballers that Brazil and Argentina do.
It has a fairly large population - which, the authors above, think is a useful indicator (Mexico: 109m. Argentina: 40m. Brazil: 190m).
Like in Argentina and Brazil, football is the most popular sport by quite some way and has been for a long time (Mexico entered the 1930 World Cup and has attempted to every time since so, the third of the criteria, international experience is very similar).
Like Argentina and Brazil, it has large urban centres that have lots of people in and lots of relatively poor people in (people who might aspire to be footballers to get out of their poverty).
According to the Human Development Index, Argentina is 46th in the world, Mexico 51st and Brazil 70th. Depending on you listen to when it comes to GDP per capita (2008):
IMF - Mexico 55th, Argentina 57th, Brazil 77th
World Bank - Mexico 45th, Argentina 47th, Brazil 64th
CIA Factbook - Mexico - 63rd, Argentina 61st, Brazil 80th
Population, GDP and history suggest Mexico should do better than Argentina. So are Mexico doing worse or are Argentina over-achieving?
As well as this, it has hosted the World Cup twice (and, generally, hosts do fairly well. In 1966, 1974, 1978, 1998 the hosts won. In 1958, the hosts were runners up. In 1990 and 2006 the hosts came 3rd. In 2002, the hosts came fourth). One would have thought that a semi-final or a final would have been achieved. Szymanski and Kuper's work suggests that Mexico should be doing better - why aren't they?
One would guess, I suppose, using their equations that Mexico should be doing better at international tournaments. Why haven't they? I'm not sure: I think the fact that they are in CONCACAF rather than the in the Copa America region and the fact many Mexican players stay in Mexico. Other than that I don't know.
RCM
Mexico's World Cup Record
1950 - Group Stage
1954 - Group Stage
1958 - Group Stage
1962 - Group Stage (behind the two teams in the Final)
1966 - Group Stage
1970 - Quarter finals (first knockout stage). Knocked out by Italy. HOSTS
1974 - Did Not Qualify
1978 - Group Stage
1982 - Did Not Qualify
1986 - Quarter Finals (knocked out by West Germany) HOSTS
1990 - Disqualified
1994 - Last 16 (knocked out by Bulgaria)
1998 - Last 16 (knocked out by Germany)
2002 - Last 16 (knocked out by USA)
2006 - Last 16 (knocked out by Argentina)
No muddle, no fiddle - best of luck
Best of luck to Henry McLeish! I've blogged extensively on 'what should be done about Scottish football?' and I will watch with interest his proposals. The comment thread is actually quite interesting on the link.
My thoughts are here. I'd be interested in hearing other views (as always). Some questions:
1) Should the leagues be re-structured (two leagues of twenty, two leagues of 18, two leagues of 15?)
2) Should a proper pyramid system be introduced?
3) Is it necessary to have an SFA, SPL and SFL?
4) Should we introduce a winter break?
5) Should Rangers and Celtic B be allowed to play in the lower division(s)?
6) Is the League Cup necessary?
If you've got any views on youth development please add them here or on the other link.
RCM
My thoughts are here. I'd be interested in hearing other views (as always). Some questions:
1) Should the leagues be re-structured (two leagues of twenty, two leagues of 18, two leagues of 15?)
2) Should a proper pyramid system be introduced?
3) Is it necessary to have an SFA, SPL and SFL?
4) Should we introduce a winter break?
5) Should Rangers and Celtic B be allowed to play in the lower division(s)?
6) Is the League Cup necessary?
If you've got any views on youth development please add them here or on the other link.
RCM
Hurrah
Internet is finally connected in the flat. I've been writing a very long piece on Mexican football (to follow at some point...) but, in the meantime, inspired by an article from today's Observer which praised Giggsy and Raul...
The One-Club Team
1) I. Casillas (Real Madrid - 479 games, 98 caps)
2) G. Neville (Manchester United - 572 games, 7 goals. 85 caps)
3) J. Carragher (Liverpool - 583 games, 4 goals. 34 caps)
4) C. Puyol (Barcelona - 532 games, 11 goals. 78 caps, 2 goals)
5) J. Terry (Chelsea - 413 games, 35 goals. 54 caps, 6 goals)
6) P. Scholes (Manchester United - 610 games, 143 goals. 66 caps, 14 goals)
7) S. Gerrard (Liverpool - 487 games, 123 goals. 76 caps, 16 goals)
8) Xavi (Barcelona - 539 games, 50 goals. 80 caps, 8 goals)
9) Raul (Real Madrid - 709 games, 315 goals. 102 caps, 44 goals))
10) F. Totti (Roma - 550 games, 234 goals. 58 games, 9 goals)
11) R. Giggs (Manchester United - 814 games, 150 goals. 64 games, 12 goals)
Some team! Interesting that all of them play for big clubs (all bar Totti have won the European Champions League at least once).
RCM
The One-Club Team
1) I. Casillas (Real Madrid - 479 games, 98 caps)
2) G. Neville (Manchester United - 572 games, 7 goals. 85 caps)
3) J. Carragher (Liverpool - 583 games, 4 goals. 34 caps)
4) C. Puyol (Barcelona - 532 games, 11 goals. 78 caps, 2 goals)
5) J. Terry (Chelsea - 413 games, 35 goals. 54 caps, 6 goals)
6) P. Scholes (Manchester United - 610 games, 143 goals. 66 caps, 14 goals)
7) S. Gerrard (Liverpool - 487 games, 123 goals. 76 caps, 16 goals)
8) Xavi (Barcelona - 539 games, 50 goals. 80 caps, 8 goals)
9) Raul (Real Madrid - 709 games, 315 goals. 102 caps, 44 goals))
10) F. Totti (Roma - 550 games, 234 goals. 58 games, 9 goals)
11) R. Giggs (Manchester United - 814 games, 150 goals. 64 games, 12 goals)
Some team! Interesting that all of them play for big clubs (all bar Totti have won the European Champions League at least once).
RCM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
