1. "Come on England!"
How can any reasonable human being not hate everything to do with the way we support England? People hanging flags from their windows or attaching them to cars. Tabloid newspapers rehashing World War II with lame, offensive humour every time we're drawn against Germany. The ecstasy of victory and agony of defeat suddenly becoming crucial to national self-esteem. People talking about "the mood of the camp." England's Brave John Terry, possibly the most unsupportable man to ever have represented his country. Post-mortems that last for weeks and yet always reach the same conclusion: the players simply aren't good enough. Even people like me, who rebel against this common cause and support whichever team England are facing. These three words - and all they entail - make fools of us.
2. An international tournament without South American and African teams is a waste of everyone's time
The truth is that modern international football tournaments are almost always a letdown. Think about it: since Euro 96, which competition has stuck in your memory as a great sporting event? Certainly nothing that has taken place in the 21st century. If you don't believe me, think about the victors, which include probably the worst Italian and Brazilian sides to ever win anything. Face it: the few great games are vastly outweighed by interminable dreck that punishes a person for taking an interest in the first place. But at least at the World Cup there's always one or two South American teams with genuine flair, and one or two African teams capturing the hearts of neutrals as they chase the continent's first ever World Cup, in both cases playing exciting football. Meaning we get to enjoy spectacles such as Uruguay vs Ghana at the quarter-final stage of the 2010 tournament, an instant classic that had just about all the drama you could hope for. Who was the non-partisan viewer supposed to root for this time round?
3. Spain are the new Greece
On that same note: when Greece won Euro 2004, it was pretty much mandatory to laud their achievement: massive underdogs overcome the odds to lift their first ever international trophy. It wasn't mandatory to actually enjoy their achievement, though, nor was it possible, given that their tactics essentially comprised of boring the opposition into submission and nicking a single goal somewhere along the way.
When Greece adopted this approach, it was understandable; after all, their squad was entirely lacking in quality. Spain, however, have any number of word class players in their ranks, including a midfield that at Barcelona outpass and outplay almost every team they go up against AND score an abundance of goals in the process. Whilst Spain's Euro 2008 success felt like just desserts for a great footballing nation, their progress through the 2010 World Cup was essentially one massive prolonged yawn, and by the end I was hoping Holland would butcher their way to victory. Despite their very best efforts to do exactly that, Spain proved triumphant, and in the process validated their approach to the game.
It would be unfair to say that Spain are like watching paint dry. I think of it more like staring at a metronome for 90 minutes. Which of course is an equally dull way to spend one's time. Never again do I want to subject myself to sitting in front of the television as they eke out a 1-0 victory against a side they could put five past if they were willing to shoot a little more.
4. Almost all pundits and commentators in this country are awful
Let us consider that statement in greater depth. Naming a favourite out of hosts Gary Lineker and Adrian Chiles is like Sophie's choice, if instead of her two children she had to pick between a sack of shit and a bottle of piss. Alan Hansen gave up trying years ago, shortly after "you can't win anything with kids" destroyed his professional credibility forever. Roy Keane is too filled with contempt for all mankind to offer anything in the way of insight. Lee Dixon: if by any chance you're reading, being described as "the best of a bad bunch" really isn't a compliment. And the parade of unemployed or unemployable managers on display is like walking through an animal sanctuary: it breaks your heart just a little, especially since you know that most of them have no chance of finding a new home.
Dreadful though they may be, none of the above are the worst offender. That honour is shared between Alan Shearer and Mark Lawrenson. Can you picture anyone sat at home as Shearer offers his patented brand of talking a lot and saying nothing whatsoever in the dullest voice in recorded history and thinking "that's some spot on analysis, Alan"? As for Lawrenson, his asides on commentary often paint him as a man who has not only lost touch with the modern world, but is slowly losing his sanity. When he insults Twitter users, or cracks jokes with racist or homophobic undertones, remember that your license fee is paying for him to do so.
In the battle of the networks, ITV "wins" by virtue of the fact that a) it doesn't employ Alan Shearer; b) it doesn't employ Mark Lawrenson; and c) at least adverts truncate the amount of time the viewer has to spend listening to jibbering inanities delivered by idiots. But the only true winner is the person who opts out.
5. Between live blogs and Twitter, actually watching football is pointless
Despite my refusal to watch any of the tournament, I've still retained a passing interest in it. Not enough to read the infinite number of think-pieces it has inspired, but certainly enough to follow the BBC and Guardian live blogs. For the uninitiated, they provide minute-by-minute coverage and analysis, with plenty of humour thrown in too. I'm free to check in on them as and when I please, and read over what's happened when I've not been paying attention, all the while doing more productive things with my time.
To supplement that, I have wonderful Twitter, and the people who dedicate themselves to cracking jokes. Enjoy shots at Spain not naming a recognised striker in their team, jibes at the obvious futility of England's efforts, or ribs at the cameramen and their propensity to spend a rather disproportionate amount of time lingering on shots of attractive Sweden fans? Twitter has you covered. It's difficult to imagine that any of the actual football could've provided more entertainment than, say, the Betfair Poker Twitter account, a surrealist masterpiece that described the Spain-Portugal match as a "bleak, humourless restaging of Waiting for Godot" and claiming that an iPad wielding Joe Hart was preparing for the penalty shootout against Italy "by watching a DVD of season 2 of Breaking Bad." Or how about News Manc taking the piss out of UEFA's practically unfathomable system for group qualification: "If Denmark manage a victory by two or more goals over Germany and the Dutch beat Portugal, Tottenham still only go into the Europa League." I haven't watched a minute of the tournament, and yet I feel confident in saying that nothing on the pitch topped the online humour it inspired.
Showing posts with label England. Show all posts
Showing posts with label England. Show all posts
Sunday, 1 July 2012
Friday, 2 March 2012
Despite defeat, Pearce may still be the best man to lead England forward
I was about halfway through writing a glowing testimonial to Stuart Pearce's handling of his role as England caretaker manager Wednesday afternoon when I realised that were his side to lose to Holland, any such piece would instantaneously be rendered null and void. When Ashley Young equalised late on, I celebrated in the belief that my endeavours had not gone to waste. Arjen Robben had other ideas, however, destroying my carefully crafted words with his heavily deflected goal. So it goes.
Football is a results game, and if no-one was clamouring for Pearce to take over before Holland came to Wembley, the 3-2 defeat may well have damaged his case irreparably. Yet there were plenty of positives to be taken from the performance. Scott Parker excelled as captain, leading from the front rather than simply resorting to pointing often and shouting loudly, the template for many of those who followed before him. Daniel Sturridge had little over half the game to make his mark, and did so impressively, furthering not just his case for inclusion in the European Championship squad but as one of the first names on the teamsheet. None of the younger players looked overawed by the occasion. And a major plus point in favour of Pearce was the fact that the changes he made after England went two goals down had a positive enough effect that England were able to draw level, albeit briefly. Putting things into perspective, defeat against a Holland side that finished runners-up at the last World Cup is nothing to be ashamed of, and should not lead to panic.
Let's consider the man who is most likely to land the role. Harry Redknapp has naturally been the subject of a fair amount of discussion as far as his tactical nous - or lack thereof - is concerned, with some proclaiming him to be naive in that area whilst others insist that he only pretends to be. Whichever stance you take, his stock wasn't helped by Tottenham's 5-2 defeat at Arsenal. Ignoring the scoreline, it was the manner of the performance that was worrying, with his side somehow taking a 2-0 lead before capitulating, making the much maligned likes of Theo Walcott and Tomas Rosicky look like world beaters in the process. Redknapp's attempts to influence the game - such as his introduction of Sandro and van der Vaart at half-time - had a negative impact, and the defensive ineptness shown by Tottenham's back four (all regular starters) was more profound than any of England's failings on Wednesday night.
The success of tactically astute ex-players such as Josep Guardiola and Antonio Conte is evidence of a sea change in the priorities of coaches, of a shift to an approach that is less focused on motivating and more focused on tactics, and formations, and the ability to read the game well enough to make adjustments on the fly. No-one is claiming that Pearce is on the level of Guardiola or Conte, but he does have the advantage of being extremely familiar with England's younger players, having coached most of them at U21 level. The mistakes against Holland appeared to be the temporary aberrations of an unfamiliar and inexperienced back four playing together for the first time, rather than any kind of failing on Pearce's part; the type of errors one would assume a few weeks of training together would eliminate. It seems reasonable to assume that a man who has spent the last five years as part of the England set-up has a better chance of pulling things together at this late stage than a man parachuted into the position at the last minute.
Pearce's own suggestion that he could coach the national side at Euro 2012 but not beyond the tournament is patently ridiculous; either he's capable of doing the job or he's not. The Football Association have clearly been grooming him to eventually lead the senior side since he first joined the England set-up back in 2007, as evidenced by the increased responsibilities they have bestowed upon him. Much like this country's younger generation of players, he both needs and deserves his opportunity sooner rather than later.
Looking at it another way, were Pearce to bomb at the European Championships, would that really be a disaster? If we're honest, England are in the midst of a transitional phase, and cannot be considered serious contenders. Even in the short term, appointing someone new could do more damage than good. If, for example, Redknapp were to get the job, what happens if England fail to make it past the group stages? Could he really claim to be the right man to lead the side forward? If Pearce fails, on the other hand, then it would be reasonable to dismiss him from his duties as both caretaker and U21 manager - thus getting rid of the last person associated with the Fabio Cappello era - and the FA could search for the right man without the need to rush the decision. In other words, with Pearce in charge there would be positives to take from even the worst case scenario.
And the best case scenario? That Pearce fulfils the promise many people see in him, and coaches a young England side to at least the quarter-finals, delivering as much as any of his predecessors and marking the nation out as one that may well be capable of challenging for major honours come 2012. Sound fanciful? Perhaps. But we'll never have a better chance to find out where the truth lies than Poland and Ukraine this summer.
Football is a results game, and if no-one was clamouring for Pearce to take over before Holland came to Wembley, the 3-2 defeat may well have damaged his case irreparably. Yet there were plenty of positives to be taken from the performance. Scott Parker excelled as captain, leading from the front rather than simply resorting to pointing often and shouting loudly, the template for many of those who followed before him. Daniel Sturridge had little over half the game to make his mark, and did so impressively, furthering not just his case for inclusion in the European Championship squad but as one of the first names on the teamsheet. None of the younger players looked overawed by the occasion. And a major plus point in favour of Pearce was the fact that the changes he made after England went two goals down had a positive enough effect that England were able to draw level, albeit briefly. Putting things into perspective, defeat against a Holland side that finished runners-up at the last World Cup is nothing to be ashamed of, and should not lead to panic.
Let's consider the man who is most likely to land the role. Harry Redknapp has naturally been the subject of a fair amount of discussion as far as his tactical nous - or lack thereof - is concerned, with some proclaiming him to be naive in that area whilst others insist that he only pretends to be. Whichever stance you take, his stock wasn't helped by Tottenham's 5-2 defeat at Arsenal. Ignoring the scoreline, it was the manner of the performance that was worrying, with his side somehow taking a 2-0 lead before capitulating, making the much maligned likes of Theo Walcott and Tomas Rosicky look like world beaters in the process. Redknapp's attempts to influence the game - such as his introduction of Sandro and van der Vaart at half-time - had a negative impact, and the defensive ineptness shown by Tottenham's back four (all regular starters) was more profound than any of England's failings on Wednesday night.
The success of tactically astute ex-players such as Josep Guardiola and Antonio Conte is evidence of a sea change in the priorities of coaches, of a shift to an approach that is less focused on motivating and more focused on tactics, and formations, and the ability to read the game well enough to make adjustments on the fly. No-one is claiming that Pearce is on the level of Guardiola or Conte, but he does have the advantage of being extremely familiar with England's younger players, having coached most of them at U21 level. The mistakes against Holland appeared to be the temporary aberrations of an unfamiliar and inexperienced back four playing together for the first time, rather than any kind of failing on Pearce's part; the type of errors one would assume a few weeks of training together would eliminate. It seems reasonable to assume that a man who has spent the last five years as part of the England set-up has a better chance of pulling things together at this late stage than a man parachuted into the position at the last minute.
Pearce's own suggestion that he could coach the national side at Euro 2012 but not beyond the tournament is patently ridiculous; either he's capable of doing the job or he's not. The Football Association have clearly been grooming him to eventually lead the senior side since he first joined the England set-up back in 2007, as evidenced by the increased responsibilities they have bestowed upon him. Much like this country's younger generation of players, he both needs and deserves his opportunity sooner rather than later.
Looking at it another way, were Pearce to bomb at the European Championships, would that really be a disaster? If we're honest, England are in the midst of a transitional phase, and cannot be considered serious contenders. Even in the short term, appointing someone new could do more damage than good. If, for example, Redknapp were to get the job, what happens if England fail to make it past the group stages? Could he really claim to be the right man to lead the side forward? If Pearce fails, on the other hand, then it would be reasonable to dismiss him from his duties as both caretaker and U21 manager - thus getting rid of the last person associated with the Fabio Cappello era - and the FA could search for the right man without the need to rush the decision. In other words, with Pearce in charge there would be positives to take from even the worst case scenario.
And the best case scenario? That Pearce fulfils the promise many people see in him, and coaches a young England side to at least the quarter-finals, delivering as much as any of his predecessors and marking the nation out as one that may well be capable of challenging for major honours come 2012. Sound fanciful? Perhaps. But we'll never have a better chance to find out where the truth lies than Poland and Ukraine this summer.
Thursday, 9 February 2012
An Ignominious End for Fabio Capello?
When I previously wrote about the John Terry situation, I suggested that the FA had four options:
1) Terry is stripped of the captaincy but allowed to play for England.
2) Terry is stripped of the captaincy and banned from selection until the conclusion of the trial.
3) Terry is allowed to play, given that he is innocent until proven guilty.
4) Terry is dropped altogether for "footballing reasons."
Whilst realistically 4) is a bit of a stretch, I'm sure we can all agree that 1) is the least sensible option on the above list, and unsurprisingly that's exactly what the FA opted for. Or so we thought until Wednesday, when it became apparent that the FA had instead selected 5): Terry is stripped of the captaincy against England manager Fabio Capello's wishes but remains available for selection, and "oh, look, we don't have a manager anymore. How about that?"
Having mooted (but not, admittedly, wholeheartedly embraced) the idea that keeping Terry as captain was the right thing to do (in that removing him implies that he has done something wrong, when nothing of the sort has yet been established), I'm going to follow another unpopular path and suggest that the way the affair was handled (and mishandled) left Capello with no choice but to quit. He was clearly right to claim, in the aftermath of his resignation, that the FA damaged his authority, and that taking the Terry decision out of his hands (or not properly discussing the issue with him, at the very least) critically undermined his leadership, which in turn made his position untenable.
He did what any good manager did and fought for his player, defending Terry against those who seem intent to cast him as a guilty party before a verdict has been rendered. In a sense, his loyalty was admirable, and it would be harsh to condemn him for it, as some seem ready to. Would it have been so hard for the FA to stage a proper meeting to discuss the issue, listening fully to Capello's arguments as to why Terry should remain as captain before amicably overruling him and asking him to support the decision? Perhaps such an approach would have prevented his departure.
It's also worth remembering that Capello's win percentage as England manager is better than any of his predecessors. Better than Ramsey, Greenwood, Robson, Venables, and Eriksson, yet in terms of available talent I'd argue that he's had less to work with than most of the managers before him, and that he inherited England's recognised world class players (Ferdinand, Terry, Ashley Cole, Lampard, Gerrard, Beckham) at a point when most of them were in the midst of their inevitable decline.
At the same time, however, it goes without saying that Capello was his own worst enemy, and that choosing to express his displeasure to the media once the decision had been made was arrogant (and unnecessary) folly. The disastrous 2010 World Cup campaign rests largely on his shoulders, and since taking over he's struggled to win over the press and the public. If his principles can be admired, his decision-making skills when under pressure have been exposed as questionable at best; if we applaud his loyalty, we must also ask how much of his stance was born out of stubbornness; and if we acknowledge that progress has been made since the South Africa debacle, we must also admit that none of it has occurred on a stage that truly matters. At this point, a parting of the ways was probably the best for both parties.
1) Terry is stripped of the captaincy but allowed to play for England.
2) Terry is stripped of the captaincy and banned from selection until the conclusion of the trial.
3) Terry is allowed to play, given that he is innocent until proven guilty.
4) Terry is dropped altogether for "footballing reasons."
Whilst realistically 4) is a bit of a stretch, I'm sure we can all agree that 1) is the least sensible option on the above list, and unsurprisingly that's exactly what the FA opted for. Or so we thought until Wednesday, when it became apparent that the FA had instead selected 5): Terry is stripped of the captaincy against England manager Fabio Capello's wishes but remains available for selection, and "oh, look, we don't have a manager anymore. How about that?"
Having mooted (but not, admittedly, wholeheartedly embraced) the idea that keeping Terry as captain was the right thing to do (in that removing him implies that he has done something wrong, when nothing of the sort has yet been established), I'm going to follow another unpopular path and suggest that the way the affair was handled (and mishandled) left Capello with no choice but to quit. He was clearly right to claim, in the aftermath of his resignation, that the FA damaged his authority, and that taking the Terry decision out of his hands (or not properly discussing the issue with him, at the very least) critically undermined his leadership, which in turn made his position untenable.
He did what any good manager did and fought for his player, defending Terry against those who seem intent to cast him as a guilty party before a verdict has been rendered. In a sense, his loyalty was admirable, and it would be harsh to condemn him for it, as some seem ready to. Would it have been so hard for the FA to stage a proper meeting to discuss the issue, listening fully to Capello's arguments as to why Terry should remain as captain before amicably overruling him and asking him to support the decision? Perhaps such an approach would have prevented his departure.
It's also worth remembering that Capello's win percentage as England manager is better than any of his predecessors. Better than Ramsey, Greenwood, Robson, Venables, and Eriksson, yet in terms of available talent I'd argue that he's had less to work with than most of the managers before him, and that he inherited England's recognised world class players (Ferdinand, Terry, Ashley Cole, Lampard, Gerrard, Beckham) at a point when most of them were in the midst of their inevitable decline.
At the same time, however, it goes without saying that Capello was his own worst enemy, and that choosing to express his displeasure to the media once the decision had been made was arrogant (and unnecessary) folly. The disastrous 2010 World Cup campaign rests largely on his shoulders, and since taking over he's struggled to win over the press and the public. If his principles can be admired, his decision-making skills when under pressure have been exposed as questionable at best; if we applaud his loyalty, we must also ask how much of his stance was born out of stubbornness; and if we acknowledge that progress has been made since the South Africa debacle, we must also admit that none of it has occurred on a stage that truly matters. At this point, a parting of the ways was probably the best for both parties.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)