Football can be magnificent sometimes. Mere minutes after QPR had entered the dressing room at half time fuming with the injustice of a lineman wrongly deciding that Clint Hill's header had not cross the line, they then get the rub of the green over an offside decision that sees Djibril Cisse equalise against Bolton. In the blink of an eye the discussion moves from Goal Line Technology (GLT) to general refereeing incompetence, but if anything this only goes to show the complexities over GLT.
Fifa has taken its time to come round to the idea of GLT and it was only after the recent International FA board meeting (IFAB) that Fifa gave the green light for two systems, Hawk-Eye (well known to Cricket and Tennis fans) and GoalRef, to undergo further testing with a view to testing them in the 2013-14 season. The English Premier League has indicated they are more than ready to embrace GLT but in analysing the two systems it is easy to see why officials favour the GoalRef option.
Fifa has two main criteria when it comes to GLT. It should be quick - the delay between the ball crossing the line and the ref being notified should be around 1-2 seconds - and it should be 100% accurate. Accuracy is naturally important - there can be no margin for error as allowed under the Hawk-Eye cricket system. The last thing we want is managers pedantically arguing over a 3mm error margin, and a 100% system will stop all argument (one hopes).
The decision relay time is massively important. In today's game at the Reebok, Gary Neville commented that it only took him and his fellow commentator ten to fifteen seconds to see that the ball had crossed the line - less time than it took the pedantic linesmen to insure that the rules of football were followed and corner kicks were taking from the right place. This brings up a key issue of GLT and indeed any kind of technology that assists referee decision making - open play.
Referees and linesmen can take their time insisting the ball is spotted in the right place, that players are the full ten yards behind the ball, or confer with their fellow officials over whether a penalty or free kick was rightly awarded, because the play is dead. In a fast game like football, where the play can switch from one end to the other in a matter of seconds, referees are not afforded the luxury of time and have to make decisions instantly. If the ball, in their opinion, does not go across the line, the defending team can be up the other end and score a goal before people like Gary Neville have had a chance to decide whether the initial effort was a goal.
Also, consider this: what if the attacking team had their shot, it wasn't given, but they were still on the attack in the penalty box? Should the ref stop play, kill all momentum and end the attacking team's chance only to find that the ball did not cross the line? When does the action stop? What happens when it does? The game is too fluid in open play to stop and check decisions.
The Hawk-Eye system uses camera's mounted around the ground and an optical recognition system (i.e. a glorified spot the ball competition) to compute if the ball goes over the line. Two issues arise with a camera system, the first being that there can be so many obstacles in the penalty box that there is a danger that the cameras would not be able to detect a goal when one went in. What if a keeper smothers the ball and with his body obscuring the ball he pulls it back from over the line? Goal Line decisions are relatively rare in football and this scenario is obviously even rarer still, but if it is a possibility it only needs to happen once on the big stage for all confidence in the system to disappear.
The other issue with using cameras, one which makes it unfavoured by officials and thankfully is absent in the Hawk-Eye case, is human interpretation.
Officials fear that the use of cameras for GLT will be the first step on the road to fourth officials hunched over TV screens and managers watching video replays and throwing in protests and challenges. You only need to listen to the interviews after one weekend of football to hear two managers or sets of players disagree vehemently over a seemingly obvious decision, and it does not matter whether the human error is made on the pitch, next to the dugouts or in a TV truck, it will not eliminate even half the wrong decisions and only extend the number of people managers can vent their anger at.
A recent presentation to journalists by the Professional Game Match Officals Board revealed that linesmen get 99% of offside decisions right. On Sky's Sunday Supplement host Brian Woolnough commented how tough their job was after he and his fellow scribes were given a test of three offside decisions and Brian got all three wrong! Stopping to examine camera footage would slow down the game immensely, and if offsides and penalty calls are afforded trial by television, where would it end? We would have micro-management of games to an absurd scale.
So on to the GoalRef system, which uses a magnetic field and an electronic device inside the ballto detect when a goal has been scored. What effect the device could have on the physics of the ball is something that will be tested, as well as what impact the striking on the ball will have on the device. If GoalRef passes these tests then it would be my prefered choice - it doesn't rely on any human error, would not open the door to potential troubling advances by technology, and should give a result that no one could argue with (but no doubt some technophobes will blame whatever system comesinto play, anything to remove the burden from their shoulders).
If it were not for Clint Hill's 'goal' or Cisse's offside equaliser what would Neville, Wilkins and company have talked about? What would Mark Hughes say in his post match press conference? Incidents like these are what football is all about. A bit of good luck here, a bit of bad luck there, it all evens itself out and the big teams get all the big decisions. Football is fluid and it is live and it is exciting, and technology should only be embraced if it is instant and not up to conjecture. Let's not turn football into a mechanic, robotic sport, a game resorted to set pieces all day long. There is already a sport like that anyway - American Football.
Saturday, 10 March 2012
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.
Tuesday, 14 February 2012
Scrapheap for McCarthy
Deposed Wolves manager will find it hard to get back into management
Dear, dear Mick....just when I encouraged you to be more attacking and play two strikers upfront, you go all silly and chuck on three for the Black Country derby. What were you thinking?
The Yorkshireman crumbled under the pressure. After Kevin Doyle scored the winner against QPR last week McCarthy mistakenly thought that he had finally found the winning formula. Attack. Attack attack attack. The three striker system that overcame the West London club and secured a vital three points would be the system to overcame a well drilled West Brom side that was more successful on the road than back at their Hawthorns ground. As a theory, it contained some glaring holes.
Firstly, QPR were down to ten men. Wolves had actually started with their typical 4-5-1 formation and only injury and necessity saw that change. Wolves grabbed a goal straight after the restart, and even at 2-1 it could be said they did not have the game all their own way.
Against West Brom McCarthy's men were exposed from the first whistle. They only went in at half time level thanks to good goalkeeping from Wayne Hennessey and the killer instinct from Steven Fletcher, two players who are unlikely to leave the Premiership anytime soon even if Wolves do.
Once Jonas Olsson made it 3-1 Wolves were always liable to get hit on the counter, but McCarthy can have no complaints for his sacking. As stated in my piece six days ago McCarthy had spent money and accumulated a good squad that was understandably expected to perform better.
But where now for the former Republic of Ireland Manager? At 53 he could be said to be entering the prime of his managerial career but if he wants to get back on to the managerial rollercoaster he will have to step down a level. Steady building does not excite the mind like beating the odds against relegation, or the euphoria of taking a team (or teams) up to the Premiership. Wolves did not go up in a blaze of glory, they did not dazzle in the Premiership, and McCarthy's dour demeanour leaves a lasting impression for all the wrong reasons.
It's harsh to criticise a man who carried himself with a lot of dignity. Responsibility was accepted, bad luck was balanced with good, plaudits handed out to opponents when appropriate, and when the fans got on his back McCarthy allowed them their rights. There is much to admire but not much to find attractive about the ex-Sunderland boss.
That disastrous 2005-06 campaign sticks in the memory, when the Black Cats secured only 16 points in 28 games under McCarthy, as does the falling out with Roy Keane in the World Cup. McCarthy lacks the youthfulness, vigour, and perceived tactical knowledge that appears to be in vogue at the moment. It's easy to forget that he turned round a middling Wolves side that was failing to live up to expectations under Glenn Hoddle. However, that type of job, a job McCarthy would be best suited to, is likely to be offered to a younger man untainted by past failings and one has to wonder whether McCarthy wants another grinding job.
Management is a young man's game these days and a seasoned vet like McCarthy may find it hard to get his foot back in the door. After 20 years as a manager and 25 as a player, including 57 caps for the Republic of Ireland, McCarthy should enjoy some down time and hope his absence makes a chairman's heart grow fonder. Unfortunately for Mick, I don't think he will ever be remembered fondly enough.
Dear, dear Mick....just when I encouraged you to be more attacking and play two strikers upfront, you go all silly and chuck on three for the Black Country derby. What were you thinking?
The Yorkshireman crumbled under the pressure. After Kevin Doyle scored the winner against QPR last week McCarthy mistakenly thought that he had finally found the winning formula. Attack. Attack attack attack. The three striker system that overcame the West London club and secured a vital three points would be the system to overcame a well drilled West Brom side that was more successful on the road than back at their Hawthorns ground. As a theory, it contained some glaring holes.
Firstly, QPR were down to ten men. Wolves had actually started with their typical 4-5-1 formation and only injury and necessity saw that change. Wolves grabbed a goal straight after the restart, and even at 2-1 it could be said they did not have the game all their own way.
Against West Brom McCarthy's men were exposed from the first whistle. They only went in at half time level thanks to good goalkeeping from Wayne Hennessey and the killer instinct from Steven Fletcher, two players who are unlikely to leave the Premiership anytime soon even if Wolves do.
Once Jonas Olsson made it 3-1 Wolves were always liable to get hit on the counter, but McCarthy can have no complaints for his sacking. As stated in my piece six days ago McCarthy had spent money and accumulated a good squad that was understandably expected to perform better.
But where now for the former Republic of Ireland Manager? At 53 he could be said to be entering the prime of his managerial career but if he wants to get back on to the managerial rollercoaster he will have to step down a level. Steady building does not excite the mind like beating the odds against relegation, or the euphoria of taking a team (or teams) up to the Premiership. Wolves did not go up in a blaze of glory, they did not dazzle in the Premiership, and McCarthy's dour demeanour leaves a lasting impression for all the wrong reasons.
It's harsh to criticise a man who carried himself with a lot of dignity. Responsibility was accepted, bad luck was balanced with good, plaudits handed out to opponents when appropriate, and when the fans got on his back McCarthy allowed them their rights. There is much to admire but not much to find attractive about the ex-Sunderland boss.
That disastrous 2005-06 campaign sticks in the memory, when the Black Cats secured only 16 points in 28 games under McCarthy, as does the falling out with Roy Keane in the World Cup. McCarthy lacks the youthfulness, vigour, and perceived tactical knowledge that appears to be in vogue at the moment. It's easy to forget that he turned round a middling Wolves side that was failing to live up to expectations under Glenn Hoddle. However, that type of job, a job McCarthy would be best suited to, is likely to be offered to a younger man untainted by past failings and one has to wonder whether McCarthy wants another grinding job.
Management is a young man's game these days and a seasoned vet like McCarthy may find it hard to get his foot back in the door. After 20 years as a manager and 25 as a player, including 57 caps for the Republic of Ireland, McCarthy should enjoy some down time and hope his absence makes a chairman's heart grow fonder. Unfortunately for Mick, I don't think he will ever be remembered fondly enough.
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?
Suarez begins the end of his Liverpool career
Countdown begins on Uruguayan's exit from English football
Luis Suarez does not get it. It really is as simple as that. As fine a footballer as he is, the Liverpool number seven does not comprehend the behaviour expected from a professional footballer, especially one in England, and that is why only a year after he made the move to Merseyside the countdown to the end of his Liverpool career has begun.
His racist comment to Patrice Evra at best showed ignorance of English culture. That could and should have been written off as a misunderstanding. Liverpool's defiance was repulsive to common decencies, their unwillingness to accept the punishment and move on a mistake, and Kenny Dalglish's victim playing disgraceful. The Scotman's stance went beyond the kind of partisan attitude that we normally expect from tribal football - it was just plain wrong.
How much Suarez was involved in Dalglish's comments is hard to say. The former Ajax man felt hard done by but whether Suarez compelled his manager to speak out on his behalf or whether it was a misguided attempt from Dalglish to support his man, we cannot know. What we can do is examine Suarez's behaviour since the first Evra incident and it does not flatter the Uruguayan.
Predictably Suarez faced a certain amount of abuse from Fulham fans at the game at Craven Cottage on December 5th. Suarez reacted by showing the finger at the Fulham fans as he departed the pitch. He then escaped the spotlight during his eight game ban, only to return against Tottenham with a kick to Scott Parker's midriff and the kind of histrionics that we come to expect from the South American. And then there was the game against United.
Not shaking Patrice Evra's hand saw any sympathy or understanding for Suarez completely evaporate. There was also a petulant boot into the dugouts after the half time whistle was blown. While Suarez later apologised (apparently under pressure from the club's owners) one has to wonder why Suarez felt Evra was to blame for the eight match ban the Liverpool player received, and why Suarez did not draw a line under the episode from Anfield in November.
I cannot see a way back for Suarez. Clearly he feels no personal responsibility or wrong doing. His apologies have not gone far enough nor to the right people. His initial attempt amounted to the classic non-apology apology ('I'm sorry its your fault you are angry') while his latest admission of guilt has mainly confined itself to the damage he has done to Liverpool FC rather than Patrice Evra.
The lack of respect for the opposition, as shown by the biting of a PSV player while he was playing for Ajax, his constant diving and play acting, complaining and gestures, the joy when Uruguay overcame Ghana after Suarez handballed on the line, and the incidents with Evra, does not look like changing anytime soon. The pressure from players, managers, pundits and fans will only increase, and everything Suarez does will be under the microscope. Suarez is unlikely to change and eventually he will move on. He might blame Liverpool's lack of Champions League football, trophies, cup finals, or the old favourite unworthy wages, but he will move on.
Suarez does not get English football culture and I doubt he ever will. Only when he seals a move away will we start to understand just how uncomfortable he found his time here. The clock is ticking on his time in England and although Suarez may blame everyone but himself, we all know who is to blame.
Luis Suarez does not get it. It really is as simple as that. As fine a footballer as he is, the Liverpool number seven does not comprehend the behaviour expected from a professional footballer, especially one in England, and that is why only a year after he made the move to Merseyside the countdown to the end of his Liverpool career has begun.
His racist comment to Patrice Evra at best showed ignorance of English culture. That could and should have been written off as a misunderstanding. Liverpool's defiance was repulsive to common decencies, their unwillingness to accept the punishment and move on a mistake, and Kenny Dalglish's victim playing disgraceful. The Scotman's stance went beyond the kind of partisan attitude that we normally expect from tribal football - it was just plain wrong.
How much Suarez was involved in Dalglish's comments is hard to say. The former Ajax man felt hard done by but whether Suarez compelled his manager to speak out on his behalf or whether it was a misguided attempt from Dalglish to support his man, we cannot know. What we can do is examine Suarez's behaviour since the first Evra incident and it does not flatter the Uruguayan.
Predictably Suarez faced a certain amount of abuse from Fulham fans at the game at Craven Cottage on December 5th. Suarez reacted by showing the finger at the Fulham fans as he departed the pitch. He then escaped the spotlight during his eight game ban, only to return against Tottenham with a kick to Scott Parker's midriff and the kind of histrionics that we come to expect from the South American. And then there was the game against United.
Not shaking Patrice Evra's hand saw any sympathy or understanding for Suarez completely evaporate. There was also a petulant boot into the dugouts after the half time whistle was blown. While Suarez later apologised (apparently under pressure from the club's owners) one has to wonder why Suarez felt Evra was to blame for the eight match ban the Liverpool player received, and why Suarez did not draw a line under the episode from Anfield in November.
I cannot see a way back for Suarez. Clearly he feels no personal responsibility or wrong doing. His apologies have not gone far enough nor to the right people. His initial attempt amounted to the classic non-apology apology ('I'm sorry its your fault you are angry') while his latest admission of guilt has mainly confined itself to the damage he has done to Liverpool FC rather than Patrice Evra.
The lack of respect for the opposition, as shown by the biting of a PSV player while he was playing for Ajax, his constant diving and play acting, complaining and gestures, the joy when Uruguay overcame Ghana after Suarez handballed on the line, and the incidents with Evra, does not look like changing anytime soon. The pressure from players, managers, pundits and fans will only increase, and everything Suarez does will be under the microscope. Suarez is unlikely to change and eventually he will move on. He might blame Liverpool's lack of Champions League football, trophies, cup finals, or the old favourite unworthy wages, but he will move on.
Suarez does not get English football culture and I doubt he ever will. Only when he seals a move away will we start to understand just how uncomfortable he found his time here. The clock is ticking on his time in England and although Suarez may blame everyone but himself, we all know who is to blame.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)