Picture the scene. A big sporting event, held in a venue that cost hundreds of millions of pounds, and it is raining. It is raining hard. It looks like God has turned on a shower over the stadium. The fans are dry - well, most of them are - but the players are getting absolutely soaked. There is a roof on the stadium but that is not stopping the rain on the pitch.
This is not the farce in Poland on Tuesday. This is not the Poland National Stadium. This is August 25th, the Carnegie Challenge Cup final between Warrington Wolves and Leeds Rhino. This is Wembley, and although the roof is closed, thanks to some genius the roof does not cover the pitch, and never will.
While Adrian Chiles and his three stooges, along with the fourth estate, ridiculed Poles, Poland, and the Poland FA (as well as FIFA, UEFA, the referee, British Rail and the boogeyman), the England FA must be filling its pants while it waits to be put out to dry whenever the clouds gather over Wembley.
Poland's National Stadium cost £400million. Wembley cost double. Like it's counterpart, the roof cannot be closed if spectators are inside due to health and safety, but unlike it's continental cousin if there was a torrential downpour closing the roof would do nothing to help. The ground in North West London does at least have a proper drainage system, and if the surface water overwhelmed the draining one would hope we would reach a quicker decision to abandon the match than we did in Poland.
The point remains, however, that the Poland debacle was not a problem consigned to corner cutting Eastern Europeans and idiotic FA's. The FA at home are just as culpable for ill-thought out decisions and the home of football is one freak weather event away from disaster. One would hope the FA have taken the chance to plan for a downpour to avoid the embarrassment of a cancelled or delayed match, but I would not bet on it.
Showing posts with label England. Show all posts
Showing posts with label England. Show all posts
Friday, 19 October 2012
Wednesday, 18 April 2012
Scholes operates in a different world
I read a remarkable stat about Paul Scholes's return:
"Scholes has completed almost 93% of his 813 passes that he has attempted in 12 league games, all but 3 % of which have come in the opposition half."
It's not the accuracy that amazes me - whenever someone brings up Barcelona's passing stats as they romp to victory I want to point out that for the last twenty minutes, at 4-0 up, they made 4oo 5-yard passes that an eight year old would complete 99.9% of the time - but where on the pitch Scholes makes his passes. If there is anything young players should take from the 37-year-old's game, it is how far forward he takes and passes on possession.
The return of Scholes has been called desperate and a master stroke. At first I was hesitant to pile on the plaudits because Manchester United are so strong and look to use the wings for their attacks so often that a central midfielder who simply shifts the ball sideways and on to the better players could easily be carried in most games (see Anderson, Carrick), but the fact Scholes is operating in his opponent's half shows he is contributing massively.
Leon Brittain and his Swansea team mates have been lauded for their passing style, and comments have been made about Brittain being in the top 5 for passing accuracy in Europe. But this is where statistics can be misleading - when you operate with a three man midfield, and pass from the back, you can rack up lots of short but meaningless and ineffective passes as you slowly move the opposition around. It can wear the opponent out but until you get into the final third it lacks any threat and can be very frustrating, leaving a team searching for a faster tempo.
To go back to United, Michael Carrick strikes me as someone who should look to replicate Scholes's game. It may be too late for the ex-West Ham and Tottenham midfielder, but whenever I watch him I get the feeling there is so much more to come, but the player himself is reluctant to put his mark on the game. You never hear the commentator say 'Carrick is dominating midfield'. Carrick makes too many square and backwards passes, doesn't look to create enough goal scoring opportunities, and even when he does play it simple he is a fraction slow, and attacks can stutter.
The fact Scholes has come in and done so well shows that Carrick has struggled to take up the mantle in the absence of Scholes.
It's not only United who have struggled with Scholes, England are another example of a team missing central midfielders who will command the ball in the opponent's half. Too often England moves involve the centre backs and central midfielders passing the ball in their own half, under no pressure from the opposition, before becoming desperate and pumping the ball forward.
Everyone knows about Paul Scholes and his ability on the ball, but where he picks the ball and how he passes it on, with pace, impetus and direction, is something the next generation of England playmakers would do well to copy.
"Scholes has completed almost 93% of his 813 passes that he has attempted in 12 league games, all but 3 % of which have come in the opposition half."
It's not the accuracy that amazes me - whenever someone brings up Barcelona's passing stats as they romp to victory I want to point out that for the last twenty minutes, at 4-0 up, they made 4oo 5-yard passes that an eight year old would complete 99.9% of the time - but where on the pitch Scholes makes his passes. If there is anything young players should take from the 37-year-old's game, it is how far forward he takes and passes on possession.
The return of Scholes has been called desperate and a master stroke. At first I was hesitant to pile on the plaudits because Manchester United are so strong and look to use the wings for their attacks so often that a central midfielder who simply shifts the ball sideways and on to the better players could easily be carried in most games (see Anderson, Carrick), but the fact Scholes is operating in his opponent's half shows he is contributing massively.
Leon Brittain and his Swansea team mates have been lauded for their passing style, and comments have been made about Brittain being in the top 5 for passing accuracy in Europe. But this is where statistics can be misleading - when you operate with a three man midfield, and pass from the back, you can rack up lots of short but meaningless and ineffective passes as you slowly move the opposition around. It can wear the opponent out but until you get into the final third it lacks any threat and can be very frustrating, leaving a team searching for a faster tempo.
To go back to United, Michael Carrick strikes me as someone who should look to replicate Scholes's game. It may be too late for the ex-West Ham and Tottenham midfielder, but whenever I watch him I get the feeling there is so much more to come, but the player himself is reluctant to put his mark on the game. You never hear the commentator say 'Carrick is dominating midfield'. Carrick makes too many square and backwards passes, doesn't look to create enough goal scoring opportunities, and even when he does play it simple he is a fraction slow, and attacks can stutter.
The fact Scholes has come in and done so well shows that Carrick has struggled to take up the mantle in the absence of Scholes.
It's not only United who have struggled with Scholes, England are another example of a team missing central midfielders who will command the ball in the opponent's half. Too often England moves involve the centre backs and central midfielders passing the ball in their own half, under no pressure from the opposition, before becoming desperate and pumping the ball forward.
Everyone knows about Paul Scholes and his ability on the ball, but where he picks the ball and how he passes it on, with pace, impetus and direction, is something the next generation of England playmakers would do well to copy.
Wednesday, 15 February 2012
English Managers are best served staying at home.
Riposte to Football365...
Interesting read on football 365 this morning and I thought I would post a response, not in defence of English coaches but in explanation of what are unique circumstances that deter English coaches from plying their trade abroad.
Following on from my analysis on the lack of candidates, creditable or otherwise, for the England job, let's examine the reasons why English managers do not go abroad to build up the reputation and experience that Daniel Storey feels they need to be viable options for the big one, the sainted role of England manager.
Whether foreign experience is ideal for an England manager is another discussion, but the inherent strength of English club football makes it very difficult for English managers to escape their native land. A never-ending circle keeps them contained within domestic football.
Everyone knows about the bestest league in the world ever!! but the strength of English football is not an inverted, top heavy pyramid, with all the money and power dominated by those fortunately to be in the top league. Okay it is, but the Championship is a top 5 league in terms of attendance, as strong as many top leagues in Europe, and no second division anywhere in the world can match the old Division Two for prestige, quality, finance or support.
No one outside of Germany cares about the Second Bundesliga, no one outside of Italy cares about Serie B (unless they have stopped fixing matches), and the less said about the Segunda division in Spain the better. Teams struggle to get attendances that match League Two teams, while the Championship sells its television rights as far as Brazil!
What does this mean for managers? Working in the Championship will bring higher wages than a bottom half team in Serie A or Ligue 1, domestically it will bring more recognition and a bigger spotlight than mid table obscurity in Portugal or Belgium, and unless you have big success abroad you will not get into the Premiership - look how long it took Hodgson to have a crack in the Premier League despite success in Sweden and with the Swiss national team. Paul Lambert has achieved that with two successive promotions with Norwich.
Teams in the championship can challenge famous teams in Europe. Birmingham, with financial issues demanding their star players are sold off, finished only one point behind Braga, a top four team in Portugal, and Club Brugge. A fallen giant in the championship gives an English manager better career prospects than a gamble abroad.
Steve McClaren moved to Twente and won a league title in his first season. But did that impress back home? Sure, his reputation was in dire need of repair, but he could only find employment in the Championship when he decided to return home (and it will take a minor miracle for him to get another chance in England's top two divisions).
There is another question that needs to be asked: is England the anomaly? Other countries employ a majority of native managers but England was quicker to import players into its league. As such this made foreign managers more acceptable, and the likes of Roberto Martinez or even Roberto Mancini have played in England before managing. If more English players went abroad, would more managers naturally do the same?
With fewer top flight English managers, and foreign leagues only employing a small amount of foreign managers, its unlikely English managers could get a decent job abroad even if they wanted one. It's a vicious circle - more domestic jobs are given to foreigners, reducing the opportunities for English managers to show they have the skill to get a job abroad.
There might also be a kind of reverse-nepotism. If John Smith succeeded in Italy, then questions would ask why he did not succeed in England first. There would always be a fear he would struggle back in his homeland.
When you examine the people who have gone abroad - Hodgson, Richard Money, Peter Taylor, John Gregory, Tony Adams - all of them bar the current West Brom manager went to small clubs or nations in obscure lands on the outskirts of the footballing radar, and even then Hodgson was not a great success at Internazionale.
Ultimately the reason why English managers do not try their luck abroad is because they do not have the reputation on the continent to get a big job. Until English managers start winning big domestic and European titles, build up a reputation as a player (like David Platt at Sampdoria) or take advantage of an influx of English talent into a foreign league, their career prospects are better served fighting their way through the domestic scene, hoping for the chance to break into the big league.
Interesting read on football 365 this morning and I thought I would post a response, not in defence of English coaches but in explanation of what are unique circumstances that deter English coaches from plying their trade abroad.
Following on from my analysis on the lack of candidates, creditable or otherwise, for the England job, let's examine the reasons why English managers do not go abroad to build up the reputation and experience that Daniel Storey feels they need to be viable options for the big one, the sainted role of England manager.
Whether foreign experience is ideal for an England manager is another discussion, but the inherent strength of English club football makes it very difficult for English managers to escape their native land. A never-ending circle keeps them contained within domestic football.
Everyone knows about the bestest league in the world ever!! but the strength of English football is not an inverted, top heavy pyramid, with all the money and power dominated by those fortunately to be in the top league. Okay it is, but the Championship is a top 5 league in terms of attendance, as strong as many top leagues in Europe, and no second division anywhere in the world can match the old Division Two for prestige, quality, finance or support.
No one outside of Germany cares about the Second Bundesliga, no one outside of Italy cares about Serie B (unless they have stopped fixing matches), and the less said about the Segunda division in Spain the better. Teams struggle to get attendances that match League Two teams, while the Championship sells its television rights as far as Brazil!
What does this mean for managers? Working in the Championship will bring higher wages than a bottom half team in Serie A or Ligue 1, domestically it will bring more recognition and a bigger spotlight than mid table obscurity in Portugal or Belgium, and unless you have big success abroad you will not get into the Premiership - look how long it took Hodgson to have a crack in the Premier League despite success in Sweden and with the Swiss national team. Paul Lambert has achieved that with two successive promotions with Norwich.
Teams in the championship can challenge famous teams in Europe. Birmingham, with financial issues demanding their star players are sold off, finished only one point behind Braga, a top four team in Portugal, and Club Brugge. A fallen giant in the championship gives an English manager better career prospects than a gamble abroad.
Steve McClaren moved to Twente and won a league title in his first season. But did that impress back home? Sure, his reputation was in dire need of repair, but he could only find employment in the Championship when he decided to return home (and it will take a minor miracle for him to get another chance in England's top two divisions).
There is another question that needs to be asked: is England the anomaly? Other countries employ a majority of native managers but England was quicker to import players into its league. As such this made foreign managers more acceptable, and the likes of Roberto Martinez or even Roberto Mancini have played in England before managing. If more English players went abroad, would more managers naturally do the same?
With fewer top flight English managers, and foreign leagues only employing a small amount of foreign managers, its unlikely English managers could get a decent job abroad even if they wanted one. It's a vicious circle - more domestic jobs are given to foreigners, reducing the opportunities for English managers to show they have the skill to get a job abroad.
There might also be a kind of reverse-nepotism. If John Smith succeeded in Italy, then questions would ask why he did not succeed in England first. There would always be a fear he would struggle back in his homeland.
When you examine the people who have gone abroad - Hodgson, Richard Money, Peter Taylor, John Gregory, Tony Adams - all of them bar the current West Brom manager went to small clubs or nations in obscure lands on the outskirts of the footballing radar, and even then Hodgson was not a great success at Internazionale.
Ultimately the reason why English managers do not try their luck abroad is because they do not have the reputation on the continent to get a big job. Until English managers start winning big domestic and European titles, build up a reputation as a player (like David Platt at Sampdoria) or take advantage of an influx of English talent into a foreign league, their career prospects are better served fighting their way through the domestic scene, hoping for the chance to break into the big league.
Monday, 13 February 2012
Sod the Opposition, Respect the Game
Handshake furore makes grown men look like kids.
Nice to see we have our priorities in order. When racism creeps back into our game, the England manager resigns on a point of principal, the FA acts on a point of principal, and Harry Redknapp shows the ineptitude of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (in one way or another), we all get our knickers in a twist over a handshake or two.
Some say the pre-match ritual of shaking hands with your opponent is redundant. It's meaningless, we wouldn't miss it if it were gone, but these same people agree handshakes should be exchanged after the game. The thought occurs that a handshake, before or after the game, is materially the same. Why can't you respect an opponent before the game as well as after? Only when you've tried to metaphorically (and sometimes literally) kick the shit out of someone can you respect them. Nonsense.
If the handshake is meaningless why do people feel the need to go out of their way to avoid it? Why did the FA feel the need to cancel the pre-match handshake between QPR and Chelsea? Why did some QPR players, Wayne Bridge, Luis Suarez or Rio Ferdinand not shake hands? If it's something that has absolutely no impact on life in any guise, why be a dick about it? Next we won't have players sharing the same tunnel, the same stadium, the same car maker, watch designer, or the same wag.
Personally I think the handshake is important. The pre-match handshake signifies the start of the contest, a sign that while the other team is an opponent they are also a footballer. That as much as player X represents one team, player Y represents the other, and hopefully the game will be played in the right manner and the opponent, whoever they may be, will be treated fairly and with respect (as a footballer, not necessarily as the person they are away from the game).
Just because you shake someone's hand does not mean you condone their actions. Football is not about John Terry or Luis Suarez or Patrice Evra or Bradley Woods-Garness (Sutton Utd player before you ask), the game is much, much bigger. If I was lined up against someone who I personally disliked, I would not avoid shaking their hand, because that says more about me than it does about them. I applaud Patrice Evra for trying to shake Suarez's hand on Saturday because it showed that no matter what someone else did, Evra was not going to let that change who he is. If I had a problem with John Terry I would not want to show he had got to me; in fact I would grip his hand tighter, let him know he was in a fight (then I'd yank his hand towards me, pulling him off balance and making him look a fool).
Professional footballers have a responsibility, a responsibility to the game and the next generation of players who are playing in the schools and the parks across the country. Rather than be dragged down by the lowest denominator on the pitch why don't we try to raise the bar and meet the highest of standards?
Nice to see we have our priorities in order. When racism creeps back into our game, the England manager resigns on a point of principal, the FA acts on a point of principal, and Harry Redknapp shows the ineptitude of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (in one way or another), we all get our knickers in a twist over a handshake or two.
Some say the pre-match ritual of shaking hands with your opponent is redundant. It's meaningless, we wouldn't miss it if it were gone, but these same people agree handshakes should be exchanged after the game. The thought occurs that a handshake, before or after the game, is materially the same. Why can't you respect an opponent before the game as well as after? Only when you've tried to metaphorically (and sometimes literally) kick the shit out of someone can you respect them. Nonsense.
If the handshake is meaningless why do people feel the need to go out of their way to avoid it? Why did the FA feel the need to cancel the pre-match handshake between QPR and Chelsea? Why did some QPR players, Wayne Bridge, Luis Suarez or Rio Ferdinand not shake hands? If it's something that has absolutely no impact on life in any guise, why be a dick about it? Next we won't have players sharing the same tunnel, the same stadium, the same car maker, watch designer, or the same wag.
Personally I think the handshake is important. The pre-match handshake signifies the start of the contest, a sign that while the other team is an opponent they are also a footballer. That as much as player X represents one team, player Y represents the other, and hopefully the game will be played in the right manner and the opponent, whoever they may be, will be treated fairly and with respect (as a footballer, not necessarily as the person they are away from the game).
Just because you shake someone's hand does not mean you condone their actions. Football is not about John Terry or Luis Suarez or Patrice Evra or Bradley Woods-Garness (Sutton Utd player before you ask), the game is much, much bigger. If I was lined up against someone who I personally disliked, I would not avoid shaking their hand, because that says more about me than it does about them. I applaud Patrice Evra for trying to shake Suarez's hand on Saturday because it showed that no matter what someone else did, Evra was not going to let that change who he is. If I had a problem with John Terry I would not want to show he had got to me; in fact I would grip his hand tighter, let him know he was in a fight (then I'd yank his hand towards me, pulling him off balance and making him look a fool).
Professional footballers have a responsibility, a responsibility to the game and the next generation of players who are playing in the schools and the parks across the country. Rather than be dragged down by the lowest denominator on the pitch why don't we try to raise the bar and meet the highest of standards?
Friday, 10 February 2012
Where have all the cowboys gone?
England don't even have joke candidates anymore...
Wanted: Football manager, preferably English or from the UK, for temporary role with chance of becoming full-time should they exceed expectations. Applicant must be happy just to have the job, respect his bosses (and their decisions), have good communication skills, and must be able to work under great media attention including turning up at your house/work/children's school/in fake sheikh fancy dress.
Everyone knows England lacks top class managers and coaches. The Premier League only contains the sixty-somethings Harry Redknapp and Roy Hodgson and 50-year-old Alan Pardew. The Championship, often neglected when English managerial talent is mentioned, is full of plenty of local talent but until they step up to the pressures and expectations of the Premiership it would be a massive gamble to give them the top job in the country.
Or so you would think. Jurgen Klinsmann, and his successor Jogi Low have little success at club level but they have had success with the German national team. Frank Rijkaard and Marco van Basten have coached the Netherlands with less success while France often promoted coaches from Clairfontaine with varying levels of management experience.
International management is a different game to club management. The demands are different, the skills needed are different, the job is simply different, as Capello found to his cost and Harry Redknapp, favoured to take over either in the medium or long term, may find out as well. Should we be looking for a different type of manager?
Stuart Pearce is only signed on for the friendly against Holland at the end of the month - too short an experiment to find out whether his exposure to international management, albeit with the U21s, has taught him skills that would make him successful at senior level. Pearce was not a failure at Man City but nor was he a rip roaring success, and with the U21s he has taken England to three successive Euro championships which, like the senior team, was never a guarantee in the past.
Promoting the U21 coach would be a novel approach for the FA, but what about someone like Sir Trevor Brooking or Gareth Southgate? Men who have played for England, suffered the tournament heartbreak, both have some management experience, and both know about the machinations of the FA. They would be company men, toe the line, and perhaps step away from the media glare and with the reduced pressure they may perform better.
How about other ex pros? Alan Shearer? Paul Ince? Tony Adams? Sure, you wouldn't actually want them to take control of England, but why aren't they getting mentioned? Why aren't they getting involved in the international setup as coaches, assistant coaches etc. Maybe the calamity at the FA stops any long term planning, so Noel Blake at the U19s won't step up to the U21s and we don't get that conveyor-belt going.
Perhaps Redknapp being the obvious candidate makes all discussion mute and the expectations of the media and the fans for the next England manager to be the messiah (and when he fails, for the next guy to be the messiah, and so on...) cuts off a lot of potential candidates. But that doesn't mean we should not have the debate. we should be talking about all the managers, exploring all the paths they can take to the England job, and how those paths can be opened up and multiplied.
Even the joke candidates have their uses. The debate is as important as the decision. But with Harry the only man for the job, we will get stuck in the same cycles as before.
Wanted: Football manager, preferably English or from the UK, for temporary role with chance of becoming full-time should they exceed expectations. Applicant must be happy just to have the job, respect his bosses (and their decisions), have good communication skills, and must be able to work under great media attention including turning up at your house/work/children's school/in fake sheikh fancy dress.
Everyone knows England lacks top class managers and coaches. The Premier League only contains the sixty-somethings Harry Redknapp and Roy Hodgson and 50-year-old Alan Pardew. The Championship, often neglected when English managerial talent is mentioned, is full of plenty of local talent but until they step up to the pressures and expectations of the Premiership it would be a massive gamble to give them the top job in the country.
Or so you would think. Jurgen Klinsmann, and his successor Jogi Low have little success at club level but they have had success with the German national team. Frank Rijkaard and Marco van Basten have coached the Netherlands with less success while France often promoted coaches from Clairfontaine with varying levels of management experience.
International management is a different game to club management. The demands are different, the skills needed are different, the job is simply different, as Capello found to his cost and Harry Redknapp, favoured to take over either in the medium or long term, may find out as well. Should we be looking for a different type of manager?
Stuart Pearce is only signed on for the friendly against Holland at the end of the month - too short an experiment to find out whether his exposure to international management, albeit with the U21s, has taught him skills that would make him successful at senior level. Pearce was not a failure at Man City but nor was he a rip roaring success, and with the U21s he has taken England to three successive Euro championships which, like the senior team, was never a guarantee in the past.
Promoting the U21 coach would be a novel approach for the FA, but what about someone like Sir Trevor Brooking or Gareth Southgate? Men who have played for England, suffered the tournament heartbreak, both have some management experience, and both know about the machinations of the FA. They would be company men, toe the line, and perhaps step away from the media glare and with the reduced pressure they may perform better.
How about other ex pros? Alan Shearer? Paul Ince? Tony Adams? Sure, you wouldn't actually want them to take control of England, but why aren't they getting mentioned? Why aren't they getting involved in the international setup as coaches, assistant coaches etc. Maybe the calamity at the FA stops any long term planning, so Noel Blake at the U19s won't step up to the U21s and we don't get that conveyor-belt going.
Perhaps Redknapp being the obvious candidate makes all discussion mute and the expectations of the media and the fans for the next England manager to be the messiah (and when he fails, for the next guy to be the messiah, and so on...) cuts off a lot of potential candidates. But that doesn't mean we should not have the debate. we should be talking about all the managers, exploring all the paths they can take to the England job, and how those paths can be opened up and multiplied.
Even the joke candidates have their uses. The debate is as important as the decision. But with Harry the only man for the job, we will get stuck in the same cycles as before.
Thursday, 9 February 2012
All respect lost for Capello the man
His English was better than the media made out. His results were certainly better. The performances....well, they weren't that good, in fact at times I wondered why I bothered to make the awkward and crowded journey to the anus of London that is Wembley. But at least I had respect for Fabio Capello.
From the days of Football Italia on Channel 4, with his great Milan team getting one-nil up and then playing for the clean sheet, to his titles at real despite all the hysteria around him and then an England debut that saw a 4-3-2-1 formation and a Jermaine Jenas goal. The fall outs with Paolo Di Canio, the van Basten-Gullit-Rijkaard trio, Baresi, Hierro, Rob Green, the names go on.
Fabio had a plan. He was in charge, it was his way or the highway. He had the trophies, the reputation, the personality to get a dysfunctional and under-achieving England team to a semi final or better, and it started so well.
England wanted to control possession. They weren't looking to be Barcelona or Spain incarnate, they still retained their innate Englishness - power, physicality, team work and organisation - but they would actually keep the ball on the floor for more than three seconds. They attempted to play out the back, to show some movement in midfield. Rooney and Gerrard swapped positions, Walcott attacked down the right (sometimes), England were starting to look good.
And then the distractions/excuses. The captain issue. The Wembley fear factor. John Terry/Wayne Bridge. The captain issue. The ball at the World Cup. Wayne Rooney's ankle. The remote training camp. Rob Green's error. Wayne Rooney's post match outburst. Lampard's 'goal' against Germany. Wayne Rooney's red card. John Terry's alleged racist outburst. The captain issue.
Capello had battled through them all, with varying degrees of success, but when the FA stripped John Terry of the captain's armband Capello decided to become a quitter. We can argue whether the FA did the right thing, and Capello will no doubt feel aggrieved he was not consulted, but similarly it can be argued that he had no need to get involved. The FA made a decision, they are responsible for the fall out. Capello just had to select the best team he could and see how well he could do.
If he succeeded against all odds then he could take the plaudits and shove all the foreigner bashing down the media's throats. If he lost he could blame the FA (on top of the balls, the weather, the Premier League season etc etc). But instead he has taken the coward's way out and left England in the lurch.
We will not know the full facts for months no doubt, but the FA's decision was hardly a torpedo in the side of Team England. Capello could have carried on easily - one game against Holland, then the training camp for Euro 2012. It would all soon be over. If the FA had banned Terry from contention would Capello have stayed?
His managerial ability is in no doubt but if I met Capello in the street I would not want to sit down and talk to the man. Perhaps the FA affronted his principles, but for me what could turn out to be Capello's last decision in football was the choice of a coward, and for that I lose all respect for him.
From the days of Football Italia on Channel 4, with his great Milan team getting one-nil up and then playing for the clean sheet, to his titles at real despite all the hysteria around him and then an England debut that saw a 4-3-2-1 formation and a Jermaine Jenas goal. The fall outs with Paolo Di Canio, the van Basten-Gullit-Rijkaard trio, Baresi, Hierro, Rob Green, the names go on.
Fabio had a plan. He was in charge, it was his way or the highway. He had the trophies, the reputation, the personality to get a dysfunctional and under-achieving England team to a semi final or better, and it started so well.
England wanted to control possession. They weren't looking to be Barcelona or Spain incarnate, they still retained their innate Englishness - power, physicality, team work and organisation - but they would actually keep the ball on the floor for more than three seconds. They attempted to play out the back, to show some movement in midfield. Rooney and Gerrard swapped positions, Walcott attacked down the right (sometimes), England were starting to look good.
And then the distractions/excuses. The captain issue. The Wembley fear factor. John Terry/Wayne Bridge. The captain issue. The ball at the World Cup. Wayne Rooney's ankle. The remote training camp. Rob Green's error. Wayne Rooney's post match outburst. Lampard's 'goal' against Germany. Wayne Rooney's red card. John Terry's alleged racist outburst. The captain issue.
Capello had battled through them all, with varying degrees of success, but when the FA stripped John Terry of the captain's armband Capello decided to become a quitter. We can argue whether the FA did the right thing, and Capello will no doubt feel aggrieved he was not consulted, but similarly it can be argued that he had no need to get involved. The FA made a decision, they are responsible for the fall out. Capello just had to select the best team he could and see how well he could do.
If he succeeded against all odds then he could take the plaudits and shove all the foreigner bashing down the media's throats. If he lost he could blame the FA (on top of the balls, the weather, the Premier League season etc etc). But instead he has taken the coward's way out and left England in the lurch.
We will not know the full facts for months no doubt, but the FA's decision was hardly a torpedo in the side of Team England. Capello could have carried on easily - one game against Holland, then the training camp for Euro 2012. It would all soon be over. If the FA had banned Terry from contention would Capello have stayed?
His managerial ability is in no doubt but if I met Capello in the street I would not want to sit down and talk to the man. Perhaps the FA affronted his principles, but for me what could turn out to be Capello's last decision in football was the choice of a coward, and for that I lose all respect for him.
Wednesday, 8 February 2012
Has Capello helped Spurs keep Redknapp?
Fabio Capello's resignation has come as a shock. I am disappointed the man lacked the balls to continue with the England job. What would he have done if John Terry had picked up a season ending injury? Talk about man on a ledge....
Anyway, sod Capello, let's think about the man who is the bookies and media's favourite to take the England job. The man who was acquitted of tax evasion this morning. The only English manager to experience Champions League football since Howard Wilkinson or something daft. The man named Harry Redknapp.
Spurs fans were naturally worried that the man who rescued them from the calamitous reign of Juande Ramos, had built a stellar squad including Rafa van der Vaart, Gareth Bale, Luka Modric et al and achieved Tottenham's best Premiership finish would leave for the England job after Euro 2012. Who would replace Harry? How would the players deal with the loss of their adored manager?
Rumours are already sprouting that Redknapp will take temporary charge of England in Poland and Ukraine. This could be the best scenario for both Spurs fans and Harry. Redknapp could fulfil the dream of managing England at a major tournament. With only four months until the tournament starts he will avoid most of the hassle of being England manager, the media will not have any matches or performances to sink their teeth into, and England could walk into Euro 2012 with the media (save Rob Beasley) on their side. Then when it all goes tits up Harry can return to Spurs, content in the knowledge that he gave it his best shot but international management just wasn't his cup of tea, and the England team lacks the skill that his Tottenham team contains by the barrel load.
Spurs fans meanwhile will keep their successful manager, the players will have that continuity, and with England only playing one friendly before the end of the season (the home game against the Netherlands at the end of February) he will not be absent from the Tottenham training ground for long.
Conversely, what if the FA appoint another caretaker manager and that mean takes England to the semi finals or better? The clamour will be for that man (likely Stuart Pearce) to stay in charge, and Harry stays at White Hart Lane.
Or Redknapp may well turn the temporary job and the FA, feeling burned by that rejection, my not offer the job to Redknapp in the summer.
Either way, Capello's resignation could be the best news Tottenham fans have heard since this morning.
Anyway, sod Capello, let's think about the man who is the bookies and media's favourite to take the England job. The man who was acquitted of tax evasion this morning. The only English manager to experience Champions League football since Howard Wilkinson or something daft. The man named Harry Redknapp.
Spurs fans were naturally worried that the man who rescued them from the calamitous reign of Juande Ramos, had built a stellar squad including Rafa van der Vaart, Gareth Bale, Luka Modric et al and achieved Tottenham's best Premiership finish would leave for the England job after Euro 2012. Who would replace Harry? How would the players deal with the loss of their adored manager?
Rumours are already sprouting that Redknapp will take temporary charge of England in Poland and Ukraine. This could be the best scenario for both Spurs fans and Harry. Redknapp could fulfil the dream of managing England at a major tournament. With only four months until the tournament starts he will avoid most of the hassle of being England manager, the media will not have any matches or performances to sink their teeth into, and England could walk into Euro 2012 with the media (save Rob Beasley) on their side. Then when it all goes tits up Harry can return to Spurs, content in the knowledge that he gave it his best shot but international management just wasn't his cup of tea, and the England team lacks the skill that his Tottenham team contains by the barrel load.
Spurs fans meanwhile will keep their successful manager, the players will have that continuity, and with England only playing one friendly before the end of the season (the home game against the Netherlands at the end of February) he will not be absent from the Tottenham training ground for long.
Conversely, what if the FA appoint another caretaker manager and that mean takes England to the semi finals or better? The clamour will be for that man (likely Stuart Pearce) to stay in charge, and Harry stays at White Hart Lane.
Or Redknapp may well turn the temporary job and the FA, feeling burned by that rejection, my not offer the job to Redknapp in the summer.
Either way, Capello's resignation could be the best news Tottenham fans have heard since this morning.
Monday, 16 August 2010
Let Capello get on with the job
The fall out from the World Cup refuses to go away. The media enjoyed five minutes slating the players, but realising that the players would be around a little longer and any continued onslaught would see the stars boycott interviews, end columns and move to more 'friendlier' papers, they had to stop. Their next move was obvious, and one they have tried before - blame the foreigner!
They fell in love with the Italian after finding the wally with the brolly incompatible. But like any spurned lover, or should we say stalker, they hit back with a vengeance. Capello's problem was he did not play the media game. He was obnoxious, arrogant, and dismissive. He did not care about them, and cared even less about their opinion. That was fine when results were positive but the hacks were sharpening their knives for when it went wrong.
In a sense, Capello only has himself to blame. The title winning manager had ruled with conviction but when it came to naming a 30 man preliminary squad and then a final 23 there was an air of desperation. All the strategic planning went out the window. Suddenly Capello realised that England were primed to get through the qualifying group, but no thought had been given to the finals.
This is certainly not a new phenomenon. England have consistently underperformed in major tournaments, when they have qualified. While Germany accept indifferent qualification results but expect and receive excellent tournament performances, England seem to focus on the opposite. Most teams England face should pose little to no threat, even with third choice keepers, uncapped strikers and backup centre backs.
Instead, Capello played a non-goalscoring striker who he then had to drop, and found that relying on Rooney against determined opposition was inadequate. His slow central midfield pairing of Lampard and Barry, along with an egotistical and erratic Terry, were totally exposed. And the only changes he made were like for like.
Has Capello learnt his lesson? The friendly against Hungary saw a 4-5-1/4-3-3 attempted for the most part. Ironically it was when we switched back to 4-4-2 that we conceded. A few new caps were handed out, and fringe players received game time. But when it comes to the qualifiers against Bulgaria and Switzerland, will Capello continue with the in vogue formation, or switch to the tried and tested (and failed)?
Either way, slating him every five minutes is hardly helping. Such is the psyche of the English media (and too many fans it has to be said) that even a 0-0 half time score in a friendly is met with thousands of boos. England could have played worse and been 2-0 up. What would the fans have done then?
The media has lost respect for him, that is abundantly clear. Now he is simply an easy target. I'm not sure convincing wins in the remaining internationals of the year will satisfy a blood-thirsty press.
If those journalists were true fans they would see the Italian's failings, but they would also give him the support. England have not won anything for a long time. They have not really been close to winning anything for a long time. Maybe its not the manager's fault, maybe the players are not good enough. Either way, getting on their backs is not helping!
They fell in love with the Italian after finding the wally with the brolly incompatible. But like any spurned lover, or should we say stalker, they hit back with a vengeance. Capello's problem was he did not play the media game. He was obnoxious, arrogant, and dismissive. He did not care about them, and cared even less about their opinion. That was fine when results were positive but the hacks were sharpening their knives for when it went wrong.
In a sense, Capello only has himself to blame. The title winning manager had ruled with conviction but when it came to naming a 30 man preliminary squad and then a final 23 there was an air of desperation. All the strategic planning went out the window. Suddenly Capello realised that England were primed to get through the qualifying group, but no thought had been given to the finals.
This is certainly not a new phenomenon. England have consistently underperformed in major tournaments, when they have qualified. While Germany accept indifferent qualification results but expect and receive excellent tournament performances, England seem to focus on the opposite. Most teams England face should pose little to no threat, even with third choice keepers, uncapped strikers and backup centre backs.
Instead, Capello played a non-goalscoring striker who he then had to drop, and found that relying on Rooney against determined opposition was inadequate. His slow central midfield pairing of Lampard and Barry, along with an egotistical and erratic Terry, were totally exposed. And the only changes he made were like for like.
Has Capello learnt his lesson? The friendly against Hungary saw a 4-5-1/4-3-3 attempted for the most part. Ironically it was when we switched back to 4-4-2 that we conceded. A few new caps were handed out, and fringe players received game time. But when it comes to the qualifiers against Bulgaria and Switzerland, will Capello continue with the in vogue formation, or switch to the tried and tested (and failed)?
Either way, slating him every five minutes is hardly helping. Such is the psyche of the English media (and too many fans it has to be said) that even a 0-0 half time score in a friendly is met with thousands of boos. England could have played worse and been 2-0 up. What would the fans have done then?
The media has lost respect for him, that is abundantly clear. Now he is simply an easy target. I'm not sure convincing wins in the remaining internationals of the year will satisfy a blood-thirsty press.
If those journalists were true fans they would see the Italian's failings, but they would also give him the support. England have not won anything for a long time. They have not really been close to winning anything for a long time. Maybe its not the manager's fault, maybe the players are not good enough. Either way, getting on their backs is not helping!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)