My attempt at a lame tabloid, lay-the-blame headline, but I do feel the stand-in captain shoulders a fair portion of the blame for England’s qualification capitulation, and as England supporters and their media tend to turn a blind eye to his shortcomings, I see it as my responsibility to balance things out with a scathing attack on he who can do no wrong. First and foremost, he is a very good player, but more and more I am coming to the realisation he is one of the most selfish midfielders I have ever watched. Lampard's poor performances alongside him have as much to do with the fact that Stevie won't let him near the ball as anything.
My major gripe is that , when he has a poor performance, he has a stifling effect on the team as his unwillingness to allow his teammates to see any of the ball in midfield leaves them short of options. At times against Croatia last night, I almost got the feeling he would tackle Lamps or Barry if they didn't cede midfield supremacy to him. In some respects , as a midfield general he shows similarities to Roy Keane, whose dominant personality quickly put paid to any hopes of a dream partnership with Seba Veron. However, Keane is a United legend and so, ultimately, can do no wrong.
Although Stevie is driven by a desire to help the team win, he thinks solely of what he as an individual can contribute without considering how he can help the players around him to be better. Selfless running to create space for others and allowing Lampard the room to play to his strengths were simply not on the menu last night. On form, when a game needs to be taken by the scruff of the neck, he is an incredible player, but the stark contrast between his impact on the team and that of David Beckham was clear to see by comparing the spirits of England's players (and the crowd) during the two halves. Deadball Dave may no longer wear the armband, but certainly did more to galvanise the troops, providing a boost of energy and an assist for Crouch.
I don't really feel Gerrard needs to be dropped or that he is the source of England's misfortune (although he should have picked up Petric when he scored the winner...similar to his slack marking for both of Rosicky's FA Cup goals at Anfield last season...but that's another story...), but even as a neutral, I feel exasperated by the team's performance and feel blaming it solely on Carson or Bridge is a little too easy - although I acknowledge their responsibility for the first and second goals respectively. As a matter of fact, I feel some level of self-loathing for stooping so low as to hand someone the blame and not focus on the really worrying factors, such as the Croatians' superior passing, ball control, movement and (clearly) preparation.
These are problems that only a top manager - and hopefully the introduction of a fresh batch of young talent - can resolve. Either arrogant or delusional, English fans and the press are already calling for the likes of Lippi and Mourinho to take on the job, and while these top-end managers are of the calibre required, whether or not they would be tempted is another kettle of fish completely. Capello has suggested interest in the challenge, and while his brand of football isn't always pleasing on the eye, his tactical nous is undeniable, he has never been averse to making unpopular decisions when required and he virtually guarantees success. He is one worth considering. Another popular suggestion is Martin O'Neill and while I admire his man-management, I think motivation is not what is lacking from the national team players. McClaren was out-thought by Hiddink and Bilic and getting the best out of what is undoubtedly a talented group of players will have more to do with the next boss's tactics, strategies and general approach to the game. Let's hope it is someone who appreciates Joga Bonito.
…Of England playing champagne, sexy-time football on a regular basis. Sometimes I want them to win, sometimes I don’t, and quite often I’m pretty indifferent, but as a football fan in England, I would need to be living under a rock to avoid the hullabaloo every time they play. As such, with no vested interest in their performances beyond my appreciation of good football, the static, direct, unimaginative style of the last five years has been excruciating for me. If they weren’t world-beaters in the ‘90s, I could at least lend them my support for trying to play the game the right way. Sven’s canny approach may appeal when married with playmakers of Veron or Elano’s ilk, but since Paul Scholes retired, they have sorely lacked intelligence in midfield. McClaren has done little to change things since taking over and the football is now plodding and predictable. Gerrard is a battering ram – albeit a highly effective one – and well-organised defences often need to be unlocked rather than hammered down.
Until England have a Lippi, Hiddink, Klinsmann, Scolari or Dunga; i.e. a manager with a strong enough character and reputation to risk making tough decision, they are doomed to soft-touch coaches with rigid 4-4-2 tactics and obvious selections. However, I can always dream and have been thinking about what an ideal England side would look like for me:
Carson/Foster/Green
Richards Ferdinand Terry A.Cole
Carrick/Barry Hargreaves
Lennon/Bentley Lampard/Gerrard J.Cole/Young
Rooney
The Defence
No big surprises at the back, as England are blessed with an abundance of quality young keepers and a world-class back four.
Midfield and Attack
This is where things get interesting. Most likely inspired by the club sides I find most entertaining to watch (namely Manchester United, Arsenal, Roma and Real Madrid), I have gone for a lone striker closely supported by three forwards, with two holding players to allow more freedom for the attacking quartet. This is flexible as it can become anything from a 4-2-4 to a 4-5-1, 4-3-3 or even Ancelotti’s 4-3-2-1 Christmas tree, depending on the circumstances and choice of players.
As far as my selection goes, I would start Hargreaves, as I feel he is England’s best ball-winner, and partner him with either Barry, who has been solid in recent qualifiers, or Carrick, who I feel edges it due to his superior passing and positional sense (and possibly my status as a Man United fanboy).
In front of them, my main focus is on pace, intelligence and interchangeability, in hopes of seeing more clever off-the-ball runs and defence splitting passes. England has plenty of quick, young up-and-coming attacking players who I don’t feel McClaren has fully utilised. My choices in the wide positions provide pace, skill and plenty of assists at club level. I would drop Wright-Phillips as his ball control and crossing let him down, whereas only Beckham surpasses Bentley’s delivery and Lennon’s pace and touch make him a poor man’s Messi – that’s poorly worded, but intended as a compliment. In the absence of left-footed forwards, Joe Cole and Ashley Young are right-sided players more than capable of playing wide left and cutting in to dangerous effect. England also boasts the likes of Agbonlahor and Walcott, who will be pushing for places before long. Lampard and Gerrard I feel would fulfil the same role in my team and so I would only start one of them. Gerrard scored 19 goals playing as a support-striker during Liverpool’s Champions League winning season and Lampard’s eye for goal and late runs into the box guarantee goals, so I’d like to think either of them would flourish when freed of defensive responsibilities.
My confidence in Rooney as a lone-striker has grown since his first leg performance against Milan in last season’s Champions League semi-final and more so as this season has progressed. He possesses a great combination of pace, work-rate and technical ability and with his creativity is always as capable of laying on an assist as scoring a goal. Crouch would make a better target man, but lacks mobility and would slow down the attack. Also, the lack of a big man up front might discourage the centre backs from their infuriating habit of hoofing an aimless 60-yard pass whenever they run out of ideas.
After a last-minute reprieve courtesy of Israel, with England back on course to qualify for the Euros, there is little chance of me seeing total football, England-style, at least until after next summer’s tournament, but I will continue to burn the torch for a little more creativity from England.
Leaving Las Vegas won Nicolas Cage an Oscar...
0 comments Posted by Randy Watson as Bob Digitech at 15:32
David Bellion scored 4 in 24 for United between 2003 and 2006 before returning to his native France. This season he's scored 10 in 13 for Bordeaux, making him Ligue 1's second highest scorer.
Diego Forlan scored 10 goals in 63 games for United from 2002 to 2004. He has since become one of La Liga's most prolific strikers, scoring 62 goals at Villareal and 5 (this season) for Atletico Madrid.
Having joined the United youth team from Parma in 2004, Giuseppe Rossi managed only one first team goal in five appearances in '05/'06, spending the following season out on loan. After scoring 9 Serie A goals in 16 games while at Parma for the second half of last season, his La Liga career at Villareal has picked up where he left off in Italy, with 7 goals in 10 games.
Unlike the others mentioned here, Ruud van Nistelrooy had an admirable goal scoring record at United, netting 150 goals from 200 starts. He hasn't slowed down since leaving in 2006, with 39 goals so far for Real Madrid.
If Sam Allardyce stops, playing him in front of the back four, maybe Alan Smith will get a chance to show similar form at Newcastle. I can't say (with the possible exception of the 20 year old Rossi) that I particularly regret any of their departures, but I am curious as to how - if at all - their subsequent success reflects upon their coaching at United. Could more have been done to accomodate these players? Forlan did show flashes of brilliance and Rossi was always going to be a star. However, these two are players deserving of first-team football, which I doubt Ferguson could have guaranteed either of them and as such their transfers were probably in everyone's best interests. Ruud had to leave and three months of good football is not enough to convince me in Bellion's case. If this trend has anything to it though, maybe it's time Dong Fang Zhou got to stepping...
As I see it, with disaster fast approaching in the national side's Euro 2008 qualification campaign, English media hacks are doing the inevitable, sharpening their knives and seeking out a sacrificial lamb. Steve McClaren has (rightfully) suffered the brunt of the nation's displeasure to this point, but the prospect of non-qualification is too devastating for one man alone to take the blame. More than the failure that Beckham was held responsible for in '98; that Phil Neville apparently caused in 2000; Seaman in 2002, here there is also a sense of utter embarrassment, possibly the worst of the myriad ways in which the beautiful game can express its sadistic streak. On paper, England are better than both Russia and Croatia, and though no nation (save the hosts) are automatically entitled to a place at the tournament, England should be there. The painful will become the downright unbearable for some if neighbours and rivals Scotland advance from a group containing both of last year's World Cup finalists.
So where did it all go wrong? No one outside of the F.A. ever had faith in the manager, but surely the players were more than good enough to progress, if not comfortably, at least occupying the automatic qualification spot. As such, will there be an inquest into the failure of the nation's superstars? This may happen, but in recent days the blame has been pointed in the direction of Premiership clubs' supposed over-reliance on foreign players. How this bears any direct relationship to the national side's poor performance is unimportant. It is reminiscent of the hysteria that saw Cristiano Ronaldo take the blame for Wayne Rooney's red card in Germany, the young Englishman's blatant stomp on Ricardo Carvalho seeming to have faded into irrelevance. Logical or not, an argument proclaiming the nation's suffering at the hands of foreign saboteurs, out to ruin the national game provides instant gratification for the xenophobe in all of us.
However, I see this as little more than a big cop-out. The likes of McClaren and stand-in England captain Steven Gerrard have been quick to jump on the scare-mongering bandwagon, as it suits their interests to deflect attention from their own blunders. Alex Ferguson has also used it to put pressure on his counterparts at Arsenal and Liverpool, who have fewer Englishmen in their first team squads. Ulterior motives aside, their is a strong argument for setting clubs a minimum number of English and homegrown players, to help domestic football maintain its identity. Some would also wish to restrict the big clubs' habit of signing increasingly younger players through their international scouting networks, for the good of the players (as the clubs are virtually cradle-snatching in some cases), their domestic clubs and the English youth being displaced. Arsene Wenger for one would dispute this, and considering how well Fabregas's signing has worked out it would be hard to blame him.
All that being said, a quota on foreign players will not resurrect - assuming that this is what is required - the English national game. It does not automatically follow that forcing out more talented foreign players will make better players of the mediocre Englishmen brought in to replace them. Premier League revenues will suffer from the loss of some of the league's great entertainers and who is to say the English players will not suffer in the absence of imports of the calibre of Berbatov, Elano and Arteta, whose presence surely inspires their younger team mates to raise their own game. Of course, the Premiership will not lose all its foreign players, but some of its cosmopolitan aura is sure to be lost. The league will be hit in the pocket and its reputation as one of Europe's best, based on its clubs attracting the world's best players, will suffer. This is before bringing up the fact that such restrictions would defy EU law. The old First Division (without foreign players) provided the nation only one international trophy, so it would seem folly to sacrifice the Premier League's success for a policy that would not necessarily guarantee that of the national side.
So if limiting player imports won't do the trick, what is the answer? It is one that is simple to identify, but not the easiest to apply, quite likely the reason it has been put on the back burner by many in the media. Recent success - relative to England - for the likes of Italy, France and Germany has not been because of or in spite of the foreigners in their respective leagues, but rather down to a simple combination of good players and good coaching. None of the leading sides in these countries see the need for foreign managers, as they boast the likes of Hitzfeld, Ancelotti, Lippi and Wenger. It has been a decade since any of Europe's footballing giants coveted an English manager, as they are simply not good enough. Of the English managers in the top division, Harry Redknapp never enters consideration for the England job (maybe it was the bungs), Allardyce plays a striker (Smith) in front of his back four and his two best goalscorers (Owen and Martins) out wide to satisfy his 4-5-1 fixation (don't get me started on the route one tactics), Curbishley is Mr Mid-table-obscurity and most of the others will be satisfied with avoiding relegation. Somewhat in contrast, fellow Brits O'Neill, Hughes and Moyes have all led sides to European football and are breathing down the necks of the top six. Take into account the success of McLeish and Strachan and one wonders what the other home countries are doing that England aren't.
It is not just the top level where the coaching problem exists. Something needs to be done to reform the way kids are taught to play the game; less punt and chase, more pass and move; more patience and appreciation of possession and how to create space. No one can doubt the work ethic and passion of English players, but at the highest level, trying hard doesn't guarantee success. England's recent second half performance in Moscow, reminiscent of those against Brazil in 2002 and France and Portugal in 2004, proved once again that possession is nine tenths of the law and the midfield forgot completely how to play keep-ball.
Hopefully the academy system will bear fruit with a new generation of more technically gifted and tactically-astute English players to prove we do not need to chase out the foreign ones. We must also hope that the F.A. put a greater emphasis on training good coaches and managers, and with a few more English managers of quality, Premier League viewers will see more local players without the need to legislate in their favour first.
Fabregas Iniesta
Messi Kaka Ronaldo
My inclusion of Zlatan over say Drogba, Van Nistelrooy or Rooney ultimately comes down to style (perhaps over substance) and Iniesta I feel is Barca's most improved player over the last year, even more so than Messi. I like intelligent, passing, attack-minded central midfielders and must say with the likes of Fabregas, Xavi and Arteta, Spain have been blessed with an abundance of such players. In Sergio Ramos they also have a player with the potential to become the world's best defender. Of his generation, only Manchester City's Micah Richards shows a similar combination of strength, pace, aggression and intelligence at the back.
I have picked the full-backs for their attacking as much as defensive attributes (otherwise, we may as well play four centre-halves) and few provide as much attacking impetus as these two; as good as having an extra midfield player when in possession. While he most likely won't be seeing too many clean sheets playing for Real Madrid, Iker Casillas is pretty much the game's best shot stopper and rarely guilty of errors. I feel he deserves his berth as his penchant for flamboyant saves makes him one of the game's great entertainers. Ferdinand's technical ability, strong reading of the game and calm, assured manner (along with 11 clean sheets this season) secure his place.
Honourable mentions must go to the injured Totti and Rooney, Real Madrid's Guti and especially Robinho, Man City's Elano and Micah Richards, Ricardo Carvalho, Adrian Mutu, Seedorf, Perrotta and Franck Ribery...all having made a strong start to '07/'08.
Barca’s own version of the Galacticos seemed a mouth-watering prospect in the summer, but injury to Eto’o, indifferent form from Ronaldinho and a lack of sharpness from Henry have left Barcelona’s attack inconsistent at best this season - with the obvious exception of the Messi-ah. However, with Ronaldinho improving in recent matches and Henry slowly adapting to a central-striker role in Rijkaard’s 4-3-3 formation, the question must be asked: who – if anyone – will make way when Samuel Eto’o returns to fitness?
Rijkaard will no doubt have given this some thought before bringing in Henry and, it would seem, has ultimately decided either that a change of formation can accommodate all of the quartet at the same time or that one of them is surplus to requirements in the long-term. In the former scenario, the club would switch to a cavalier 4-2-4 formation. Although this might bear some similarities to the 4-2-3-1 favoured by Real Madrid, Manchester United and Roma, it is questionable whether any of the quartet will assume the defensive responsibility this system requires of the support strikers when possession is lost. Of the group, only Messi makes a habit of chasing back and assigning a more defensive role to Henry or Ronaldinho would not be making the best use of their attributes. Also, with Yaya Toure’s presence in the line-up a must to shield the defence, there would only be room for one of the superb midfield trio of Xavi, Iniesta and Deco to start. Would the manager be willing to gamble on a switch to playing with four strikers mid-way through the season?
If not he will most likely have to pick between dropping one of Henry, Eto’o and Ronaldinho, with Messi’s form and potential making him virtually undroppable. Ronaldinho’s technical ability and set-piece acumen mean he is always a threat, even when off form. However, if his performances continue to be as erratic as they have been throughout 2007 thus far, he may lose his place. As orthodox strikers, it may have initially seemed likely that Eto’o and Henry would be competing for a place, but the French forward is most comfortable in Ronaldinho’s favoured position on the left. Also, the two have failed to develop much of an on-field rapport as the Brazilian likes to take his time on the ball while Henry tends to make the early run. As such, assuming Eto’o plays well on his return, the choice may be between the Frenchman and the Brazilian.
There have been rumours throughout the year of both Laporta and Rijkaard’s willingness to let Ronny go, and maybe Henry was recruited as a replacement, with an eye towards a summer sale to Chelsea or Milan. Just a year ago, Ronaldinho seemed an indispensable asset to the club, but with El Gourdo looking out of shape and promising youngsters Bojan and Giovanni chomping at the bit, he might be the one to lose out. Alternatively, they may pack their frontline and risk playing with the sort of unbalanced shape that saw put to their greatest rivals’ Galactico era. It is a compelling decision and one the club must make, if they haven’t already.
with managers they KNOW aren't up to the job?
(Fair dues to Dave Whelan, he hasn't officially approached Graeme Sourness yet, and if he's lucky, he'll be rebuffed in any attempts he does make to bring him in.)
