The German Grand Prix at Hockenheim looked set to be a signal of a Ferrari revival, having as they did the top two cars on the circuit, and comfortably so. But by lap 49, the story was all about team order controversy.
Ferrari, in indicating to Felipe Massa that he was to let team-mate Fernando Alonso past, broke the FIA's Rule 39.1, in place since Ferrari ordered Rubens Barrichello to allow Michael Schumacher to pass him virtually on the finishing line in Austria, in 2002. That rule states:
"Team orders which interfere with a race result are prohibited".
Ferrari broke the rule, so were fined $100,000. A pathetic amount to a motoring superpower like Ferrari. The cynics who point to favouritism towards the Italian setup by the FIA have hardly been won over by that decision. And we now know that that punishment is final - no further sanctions are to be taken. Surely switching Alonso and Massa's points tallies would be appropriate, or taking those points away - either from this race or the next - would demonstrate much more effectively that no team can get away with a blatant breach of rules such as this.
That there is the rule is undisputed, but should it be there? Listening to David Coulthard after the race ended, I couldn't help but think he was making commendable points on the issue. F1 is a team sport just as it is about the individual driver. And often the lines are blurred. Ferrari will have looked at the performances of Alonso and Massa on the track and, crucially, their positions in the drivers' championship. Alonso has 123 points to Massa's 85. With eight races to go, Alonso is obviously in the better position to challenge Lewis Hamilton, Jenson Button, Mark Webber and Sebastian Vettel for the title.
To take an example from a sporting event just finished, the Tour de France - another sport combining team and individual contests - we often see similar goings-on. If Andy Schleck had had a team-mate with him when his chain came off on Stage 15, there is no doubt what would have happened. The lower-placed team-mate would hand Schleck his bike so he could go on and chase Contador. Who knows how the Tour might have finished then?
In this case, as at Hockenheim, it is a strategic decision made by the participants or team management. Management, in any sport, has the advantage of being able to see the 'bigger picture', so makes decisions accordingly. Is it unfair? Sometimes. Does it spoil the excitement? Sometimes. But to look at the 'bigger picture', perhaps Ferrari's albeit illegal decision is in the interests of this F1 season in the long run. Alonso's win moved him closer to his rivals in the championship - it is truly a five-man contest. Would we ever say that four competitors fighting for victory, no matter what sport, was better than five of them? There is the potential for more drama, more edge, more permutations.
What I wish to clarify at this point that Ferrari should not have done what they did - because it broke the rules which are just the same for a Ferrari, McLaren or Hispania; and it could have been handled much better. The handing of responsibility to a clearly unhappy race engineer is hardly going to promote understanding and good faith on Massa's part. F1 drivers have famously big egos - and their tantrums and sulks are often hugely damaging to the team effort. Look at Hamilton v Alonso in 2007; Raikkonen took full advantage, citing Ferrari's "perfect teamwork" as crucial. Not so rosy now, boys?
Ferrari, as bad as it sounds, have to tell Massa he is number two. For such a talented driver (he so nearly became world champion in 2008, after all), this would be very difficult to take. Massa has to accept that he has not scored enough points this season. The Ferraris have been decidedly off-colour, but Alonso has picked up 38 more points one way or another. He is, at the moment, the better driver. Indeed, he was catching Massa before the lap 49 incident. Would he have caught him? Probably. Then what? A more exciting battle to the finish, yes, but one that Ferrari were very keen to avoid.
The BBC spoke to Christian Horner, Red Bull Team Principal, at the conclusion of the race. He condemned the team order delivered, and said that his Red Bulls would always be allowed to race. And what happened in Turkey? Webber and Vettel, pulling away from the McLarens of Hamilton and Button, fought for first place. Vettel crashed out, Webber limped home behind the McLaren pair, who couldn't believe their luck. It's too early to say, but it might be a definitive turning-point in the season - the McLarens have been impressive ever since that one-two in Turkey, and the Red Bulls have been torn by internal strife.
As Ferrari favoured Alonso in Germany, so did Red Bull Vettel at Silverstone; giving him Webber's front wing infuriated the Australian, who remarked on his imperious victory there: "Not bad for a number two driver." Had Massa won at Hockenheim, he would have been justified in saying exactly the same. The front wing episode was essentially a team order just like Ferrari's yesterday. But because it happened before, not during, the race, it was deemed ok. Hardly fair, though - it wasn't exactly Webber's fault that Vettel needed a new front wing. But Horner decided that it was in the team's interests to risk alienating Webber to give Vettel a better chance of victory. It was a risk that couldn't have gone much less to plan for Red Bull.
So just as Red Bull were shaken by their driver split, Ferrari's imperious display appears to count for little. They might be just as fast in Hungary, but could the psychological impact of the German GP weigh them down? McLaren must be happy enough - they lead the constructors' and drivers' championships - but tensions bubbling within the team have not exploded in a race yet. Watch this space.
Team orders are illegal in F1, fact. But I argue that, while they might in some circumstances spoil the excitement of the moment, they could help promote it in the long run. F1 is just another team sport, where the team is considered above any individual concerns. Are we to stop football managers shouting instructions and advice from their dugouts? Is the cox to become a silent passenger in the rowing boat? Is radio communication between rider and team car in the Grand Tours to be outlawed (and this has been mooted)? Managers and principals are paid to grasp the bigger picture and exert their influence on subsequent play. Team orders are just one part of this, so are not the great crime against racing, or indeed any sport, we might be led to believe.
Sunday, 25 July 2010
Wednesday, 21 July 2010
Tour restday review
World Cup reviews/rants over, it's time to have a look at how le Tour is shaping up. Today is the second and last restday, well-merited I think, so I will examine the various jersey competitions and the likely winners.
A quick note on the team classification - Lance Armstrong's Team RadioShack lead the Spanish team Caisse D'Epargne by 4 minutes 27 seconds. First place is likely to be between them, as third-placed Rabobank lie over 30 minutes back. RadioSchack have been strong (perhaps surprisingly so) in the mountains and with a time-trial to come, I expect them to hold on to best team placing.
As for the white jersey, for best young rider, it would be a major surprise if it was not won by Andy Schleck. The Dutchman Robert Gesink and the Czech Roman Kreuziger are his only realistic competition, the pair of them 4' 53" and 7' 50" behind Schleck respectively. I would say that only injury (or other cause for withdrawal) or a disastrous performance in Saturday's time-trial would deprive Schleck of retaining the white jersey.
The polka-dot jersey, awarded to the rider picking up most points in the mountains, looks like being down to two men, though Damiano Cunego, Sandy Casar and Jerome Pineau (in third, fourth and fifth respectively) would maybe disagree. Currently Anthony Charteau stands on 143 points and Christophe Moreau on 128 points. Whoever wins that jersey, currently in Charteau's possession, will be decided in tomorrow's stage, as there are no more classified climbs for the rest of le Tour.
Stage 17 features one fourth-category climb, two first-cat climbs and one hors-cat climb. Charteau's lead of 15 points looks very vulnerable when we consider that the first man to summit a first-cat mountain will collect 15 points; second will pick up 13 points, third 11 points, and so on. Expect Charteau and Moreau to both get themselves in the inevitable breakaway and try to out-sprint each other for those points - Moreau certainly has to. Charteau cannot afford to be caught slacking; while he does know he only has to defend and limit his losses to Moreau, a loss of concentration and he could find his lead wiped out. One way or another, the classification could be decided by the hors-cat Col du Tourmalet (20 points on offer to the winner). If not, I'd anticipate fireworks from these two alongside the GC shoot-out.
Predict a winner? Moreau has been on better form in recent stages and, aged 39, it is his last Tour - he'll want to go out with a jersey on his back. But if Charteau is alert enough, I think he might just have saved himself up for this one and should be capable of defending his albeit slender advantage.
The green jersey classification, for sprinters, is perhaps even more enthralling. Last year's winner, Norway's Thor Hushovd holds a four-point lead over Italian Alessando Petacchi; Britain's Mark Cavendish, after a disappointing first few stages, is 29 points behind Hushovd. Cavendish is probably out of it, even with 35 points given to the winner of a flat stage such as Stage 18. This is because, even if Hushovd and Petacchi cannot beat him in a straight sprint, they can finish high up the rankings so collect a fair few points (the top 25 all get something). They are also much stronger in the intermediate sprints - these could prove decisive if the gap between the top two (or three) remains close.
Cavendish, having seemingly rediscovered the form that made him best in the world, has a great chance of winning Stages 18 and 20 (even without the highly-effective Mark Renshaw), but Hushovd and Petacchi will ensure they finish in the top ten to stay far enough ahead of him. Petacchi has appeared so far to hold the advantage over Hushovd in sprint finishes (he has won two already, so don't rule him out of making that three), but Hushovd is the better all-round Tour cyclist - he can survive in the medium mountains, allowing him to break out of the peleton for intermediate points. While six points might not seem like much, in such a close race, those might be pivotal.
There are two intermediate sprint spots in each of Stages 17, 18 and 20. Hushovd and Petacchi (and maybe Cavendish, if he's serious in his jersey challenge) will do their best to be at the front to allow them to challenge for the first one tomorrow. Only Hushovd has any chance of getting anything from the second, but with two first-cat climbs to negotiate first, it'd be some surprise. Stage 18 is the big one - all three challengers should go for the two intermediate sprints and then the big finish in Bordeaux. Stage 20, and it may well be decided on that day, is likely to pan out the same way.
While we should not rule out Cavendish, his priority is stage wins, not the green jersey. Between Hushovd and Petacchi, it really is too close to call. I do think that if Petacchi can challenge Hushovd in the intermediate sprints (or at least get a team-mate to do it), he might just have the edge in final sprints to win the competition. Hushovd will fight all the way to keep it though, that is certain.
Last but not least is the General Classification (GC) standings, represented by the famous yellow jersey. My predictions early in the race look pretty shaky. Alberto Contador is in yellow at the moment, 8 seconds ahead of Andy Schleck in second. But Frank Schleck crashed out, Cadel Evans cracked on Stage 9 and has never recovered, Ivan Basso has been anonymous, Bradley Wiggins has just not been at it and Lance Armstrong has simply not been able to cope with a combination of very bad luck and high mountains.
Third spot is likely to fall to either Samuel Sanchez or Denis Menchov (Sanchez is just 13 seconds ahead), though Van den Broeck (in fifth) is not too far behind to be discounted yet. Close as it is, I'd tip Menchov to take third - I've been impressed with him this year and, assuming he doesn't allow Sanchez to steal a big time gap on Stage 17, I reckon Menchov can do enough in the Stage 19 time-trial to claim third spot.
Now, the big one. If Alberto Contador wins the yellow jersey by 30 seconds or less, all eyes will look back to Stage 15, where Andy Schleck lost his chain and his 31-second cushion over Contador. Unfortunate as it was for Schleck, I think Contador was correct to keep going. It is a competition after all. If, in the 89th minute of a football match tied at 1-1, you are in on the goalkeeper and the defender coming at you trips over his shoelace, would you stop? No, the game is to play to the whistle. In this race, Contador was not told to stop by a hypothetical whistle (team orders, or being told to by the race referee), so kept going - he'd have been daft not to, especially as Menchov and Sanchez continued at full pelt.
Having said that, it would be a shame if the race was decided by a mechanical incident. Contador, if he is to end up in yellow, has to show he is a worthy champion (not one booed of the podium as happened on Monday). He hasn't looked in the form that won him the race last year; Schleck's assertion that Contador 'fears' him may not be too inaccurate. That said, he has done well to match Schleck's attacks and minimise any time losses.
Stages 17 and 19 will surely be the ones to decide the final winner. Stage 17 will be mixed in with the battle for polka-dot jersey points. But by the Col du Tourmalet, it will be all about yellow. I'd anticipate a select group featuring Contador, Schleck, Sanchez, Menchov, etc to battle it out on this climb. The top two do need to watch Sanchez and Menchov - the former is only two minutes down on Contador - and any manoeuvring the top two indulge in cannot allow that pair to sneak up the road. For Schleck, second place is the bare minimum, and his team principal will drill that message into him.
Contador just has to defend now. Schleck has to go for it, most likely part of the way up Tourmalet, and hope to crack Contador. If only he still had his brother now, as Team Saxo Bank's supposed advantage over Astana has not materialised thanks to Vinokourov and Navarro in particular. If it comes down to a two-man duel, Schleck looks to have the better form, but only just. If he can catch Contador off-guard, the Spaniard knows not to panic. He is more than capable of keeping any Schleck gains to a minimum. And that should be enough. Because, even if Contador loses yellow tomorrow, he can reclaim it on Saturday. Contador is odds-on to beat Schleck in the time-trial - a gap of 30 seconds, even a minute, is probably closeable. Yet if Schleck gains a minute or more on the Tourmalet, Contador is going to be in trouble. The yellow jersey does strange things to a man; just ask Carlos Sastre in 2008 or, funnily enough, Alberto Contador in 2007. Both times, the climbing specialist limited their losses to the supposed time-trialling specialist (Cadel Evans on both occasions). If Schleck has yellow on his back and a lead of sixty seconds or more, who'd dare rule him out from doing the time-trial of his life?
I said originally that Contador would win the yellow jersey competition; I'm going to stick to that prediction. Otherwise? To recap...
- GC: Alberto Contador (Astana) [Andy Schleck 2nd, Denis Menchov 3rd]
- Sprints: Alessandro Petacchi (Lampre) [Thor Hushovd a very close 2nd]
- Mountains: Anthony Charteau (Bbox Bouygues Telecom) [Christophe Moreau 2nd]
- Youth: Andy Schleck (Saxo Bank)
- Team: RadioShack
All competitions are yet to be decided and are all fairly close, so I could be provedwrong on all counts! My hopes are that the last four days are as exciting and surprising as the first 17, that a drug-free Tour stays just that and that the eventual yellow jersey, be it (in all likelihood) Contador or Schleck, may be a champion worthy of the name.
Full race standings and other information/news can be found here; as ever, comments and questions are always welcome.
A quick note on the team classification - Lance Armstrong's Team RadioShack lead the Spanish team Caisse D'Epargne by 4 minutes 27 seconds. First place is likely to be between them, as third-placed Rabobank lie over 30 minutes back. RadioSchack have been strong (perhaps surprisingly so) in the mountains and with a time-trial to come, I expect them to hold on to best team placing.
As for the white jersey, for best young rider, it would be a major surprise if it was not won by Andy Schleck. The Dutchman Robert Gesink and the Czech Roman Kreuziger are his only realistic competition, the pair of them 4' 53" and 7' 50" behind Schleck respectively. I would say that only injury (or other cause for withdrawal) or a disastrous performance in Saturday's time-trial would deprive Schleck of retaining the white jersey.
The polka-dot jersey, awarded to the rider picking up most points in the mountains, looks like being down to two men, though Damiano Cunego, Sandy Casar and Jerome Pineau (in third, fourth and fifth respectively) would maybe disagree. Currently Anthony Charteau stands on 143 points and Christophe Moreau on 128 points. Whoever wins that jersey, currently in Charteau's possession, will be decided in tomorrow's stage, as there are no more classified climbs for the rest of le Tour.
Stage 17 features one fourth-category climb, two first-cat climbs and one hors-cat climb. Charteau's lead of 15 points looks very vulnerable when we consider that the first man to summit a first-cat mountain will collect 15 points; second will pick up 13 points, third 11 points, and so on. Expect Charteau and Moreau to both get themselves in the inevitable breakaway and try to out-sprint each other for those points - Moreau certainly has to. Charteau cannot afford to be caught slacking; while he does know he only has to defend and limit his losses to Moreau, a loss of concentration and he could find his lead wiped out. One way or another, the classification could be decided by the hors-cat Col du Tourmalet (20 points on offer to the winner). If not, I'd anticipate fireworks from these two alongside the GC shoot-out.
Predict a winner? Moreau has been on better form in recent stages and, aged 39, it is his last Tour - he'll want to go out with a jersey on his back. But if Charteau is alert enough, I think he might just have saved himself up for this one and should be capable of defending his albeit slender advantage.
The green jersey classification, for sprinters, is perhaps even more enthralling. Last year's winner, Norway's Thor Hushovd holds a four-point lead over Italian Alessando Petacchi; Britain's Mark Cavendish, after a disappointing first few stages, is 29 points behind Hushovd. Cavendish is probably out of it, even with 35 points given to the winner of a flat stage such as Stage 18. This is because, even if Hushovd and Petacchi cannot beat him in a straight sprint, they can finish high up the rankings so collect a fair few points (the top 25 all get something). They are also much stronger in the intermediate sprints - these could prove decisive if the gap between the top two (or three) remains close.
Cavendish, having seemingly rediscovered the form that made him best in the world, has a great chance of winning Stages 18 and 20 (even without the highly-effective Mark Renshaw), but Hushovd and Petacchi will ensure they finish in the top ten to stay far enough ahead of him. Petacchi has appeared so far to hold the advantage over Hushovd in sprint finishes (he has won two already, so don't rule him out of making that three), but Hushovd is the better all-round Tour cyclist - he can survive in the medium mountains, allowing him to break out of the peleton for intermediate points. While six points might not seem like much, in such a close race, those might be pivotal.
There are two intermediate sprint spots in each of Stages 17, 18 and 20. Hushovd and Petacchi (and maybe Cavendish, if he's serious in his jersey challenge) will do their best to be at the front to allow them to challenge for the first one tomorrow. Only Hushovd has any chance of getting anything from the second, but with two first-cat climbs to negotiate first, it'd be some surprise. Stage 18 is the big one - all three challengers should go for the two intermediate sprints and then the big finish in Bordeaux. Stage 20, and it may well be decided on that day, is likely to pan out the same way.
While we should not rule out Cavendish, his priority is stage wins, not the green jersey. Between Hushovd and Petacchi, it really is too close to call. I do think that if Petacchi can challenge Hushovd in the intermediate sprints (or at least get a team-mate to do it), he might just have the edge in final sprints to win the competition. Hushovd will fight all the way to keep it though, that is certain.
Last but not least is the General Classification (GC) standings, represented by the famous yellow jersey. My predictions early in the race look pretty shaky. Alberto Contador is in yellow at the moment, 8 seconds ahead of Andy Schleck in second. But Frank Schleck crashed out, Cadel Evans cracked on Stage 9 and has never recovered, Ivan Basso has been anonymous, Bradley Wiggins has just not been at it and Lance Armstrong has simply not been able to cope with a combination of very bad luck and high mountains.
Third spot is likely to fall to either Samuel Sanchez or Denis Menchov (Sanchez is just 13 seconds ahead), though Van den Broeck (in fifth) is not too far behind to be discounted yet. Close as it is, I'd tip Menchov to take third - I've been impressed with him this year and, assuming he doesn't allow Sanchez to steal a big time gap on Stage 17, I reckon Menchov can do enough in the Stage 19 time-trial to claim third spot.
Now, the big one. If Alberto Contador wins the yellow jersey by 30 seconds or less, all eyes will look back to Stage 15, where Andy Schleck lost his chain and his 31-second cushion over Contador. Unfortunate as it was for Schleck, I think Contador was correct to keep going. It is a competition after all. If, in the 89th minute of a football match tied at 1-1, you are in on the goalkeeper and the defender coming at you trips over his shoelace, would you stop? No, the game is to play to the whistle. In this race, Contador was not told to stop by a hypothetical whistle (team orders, or being told to by the race referee), so kept going - he'd have been daft not to, especially as Menchov and Sanchez continued at full pelt.
Having said that, it would be a shame if the race was decided by a mechanical incident. Contador, if he is to end up in yellow, has to show he is a worthy champion (not one booed of the podium as happened on Monday). He hasn't looked in the form that won him the race last year; Schleck's assertion that Contador 'fears' him may not be too inaccurate. That said, he has done well to match Schleck's attacks and minimise any time losses.
Stages 17 and 19 will surely be the ones to decide the final winner. Stage 17 will be mixed in with the battle for polka-dot jersey points. But by the Col du Tourmalet, it will be all about yellow. I'd anticipate a select group featuring Contador, Schleck, Sanchez, Menchov, etc to battle it out on this climb. The top two do need to watch Sanchez and Menchov - the former is only two minutes down on Contador - and any manoeuvring the top two indulge in cannot allow that pair to sneak up the road. For Schleck, second place is the bare minimum, and his team principal will drill that message into him.
Contador just has to defend now. Schleck has to go for it, most likely part of the way up Tourmalet, and hope to crack Contador. If only he still had his brother now, as Team Saxo Bank's supposed advantage over Astana has not materialised thanks to Vinokourov and Navarro in particular. If it comes down to a two-man duel, Schleck looks to have the better form, but only just. If he can catch Contador off-guard, the Spaniard knows not to panic. He is more than capable of keeping any Schleck gains to a minimum. And that should be enough. Because, even if Contador loses yellow tomorrow, he can reclaim it on Saturday. Contador is odds-on to beat Schleck in the time-trial - a gap of 30 seconds, even a minute, is probably closeable. Yet if Schleck gains a minute or more on the Tourmalet, Contador is going to be in trouble. The yellow jersey does strange things to a man; just ask Carlos Sastre in 2008 or, funnily enough, Alberto Contador in 2007. Both times, the climbing specialist limited their losses to the supposed time-trialling specialist (Cadel Evans on both occasions). If Schleck has yellow on his back and a lead of sixty seconds or more, who'd dare rule him out from doing the time-trial of his life?
I said originally that Contador would win the yellow jersey competition; I'm going to stick to that prediction. Otherwise? To recap...
- GC: Alberto Contador (Astana) [Andy Schleck 2nd, Denis Menchov 3rd]
- Sprints: Alessandro Petacchi (Lampre) [Thor Hushovd a very close 2nd]
- Mountains: Anthony Charteau (Bbox Bouygues Telecom) [Christophe Moreau 2nd]
- Youth: Andy Schleck (Saxo Bank)
- Team: RadioShack
All competitions are yet to be decided and are all fairly close, so I could be provedwrong on all counts! My hopes are that the last four days are as exciting and surprising as the first 17, that a drug-free Tour stays just that and that the eventual yellow jersey, be it (in all likelihood) Contador or Schleck, may be a champion worthy of the name.
Full race standings and other information/news can be found here; as ever, comments and questions are always welcome.
Friday, 16 July 2010
Warning: may contain tackles.
Ok, I promise this will be my last blog on football (the World Cup at least) for a while. There are plenty more sporting stories out there!
This is, I suppose, a resumption of where I left off with the last one: broadcasters and the media, with reference to the wider concept of 'playing football the right way'.
Readers of the last blog will know I was a little annoyed by the BBC's coverage of the WC final, particularly for their overwhelming praise of Spain's masterclass in the face of Dutch brutality, calling it a "victory for football". Do they have the right to tell us what is right for football's future?
Alan Hansen was a classy defender in his Liverpool days (not such a success with Scotland) but knew when to put a firm tackle in. Lee Dixon had success with an Arsenal team that strung out dull 1-0 wins - he was also capable of this. Alan Shearer is an interesting case: skillful, committed and lethal in the opposition penalty area. But - yes, it's one game out of many - he put in some 'van Bommel-esque' tackles on the likes of Keane and Silvestre when Newcastle played Man Utd in 2003. United won 6-2. A victory for football, Mr Shearer?
I thought it was clever of them to throw Clarence Seedorf out of the studio for the final, allowing them to tear into the Dutch side without anyone to counter the criticisms (in fairness, Seedorf agreed with a lot of what they said, but was not so damning).
Also, what if the Dutch had been replaced in the final by England or, say, the Ivory Coast? Would Shearer and Dixon be moaning if England had hacked their way to victory, thanks to a solitary Heskey strike (ok, back to the real world now)? Not at all. They would hail Capello's pragmatic tactical approach as a masterstroke. Or Ivory Coast or Ghana, etc. The "victory for football" would be dumped in favour of "the result everyone wanted - finally an African team fulfills a continent's potential", however they had done it.
There will always be bias and opinions in punditry (otherwise it's unspeakably dull). But I think it should be more considered, allowing for differing circumstances and consequences.
Now I move on to the style of game played. The Netherlands were lucky to have eleven men on the pitch at half-time, yes. But in the second half, they largely nullified the Spanish threat without committing such abhorrent tackles - they could have won it through Robben too. Is a team built on defence and then counter-attacking such a sinful thing to have? I don't recall Greece's Euro 2004 victory being labelled a disgrace. That was a team without star individuals who had a solid defensive set-up and looked to score on the counter or from set-pieces. No, they were the valiant underdogs. Italy in 2006 had talented forward players, but their victory was really built on Buffon, Cannavaro, etc at the back. Again, no real complaint.
Even in this World Cup, the Swiss scored an unlikely victory against the Spanish wonders by defending deep, holding firm and hitting Spain on the counter. Yes, their tackling wasn't as ruthless as some of the Netherlands', but the tactical approach was similar. Bert van Marwijk must have looked at the tape of that game and saw how Spain might be beaten, since exciting young Germany had failed.
The problem for the Dutch was that they were not 'underdogs' as such. It would have been no great shock had they won, taking away some of the magic. They also have their own history to deal with. The Dutch of the 1970s revolutionised world football, gaining far more admirers than silverware, though. From the shock defeat of 1974, the Dutch looked to add bite to their game, which brought the 1988 European Championship and also a place in this year's WC final. But success has come at a cost. Journalists and fans look back at the 1974 side and wonder why today's Dutch side can't emulate their style of play. Well, they don't have Johan Cruyff for a start, who backed the Spanish for this one against his countrymen, claiming it was the Spanish who kept alive the spirit of 'total football'.
I think the Dutch have a choice between glorious losers (1998 WC, for example) or unpopular winners - at least with the players they have now. Solid defences and rapid counter-attacks have been the mantra at the clubs of their star men, Sneijder and Robben. It so nearly worked, as it stopped the Spanish playing their beautiful game. How dare they! Surely the Dutch ought to have gone out, attacked, lost 4-1 and everyone would have been happy?
Enough on the Dutch. I'm going to look at the Spanish now, arguing they don't deserve all the praise being showered on them.
Frankly, I found their games against Portugal and Paraguay to be hugely boring. They pass it brilliantly and their technical ability is phenomenal. I could go to a Spanish training session to see that. In a game situation, you want action: hard tackling, pieces of individual brilliance, use of teamwork and, most of all, goals.
Germany scored 16 in this tournament, the Netherlands 12, Spain 8. Who's playing the better football here then? The Spanish might be playing a more technically-advanced game, but it nets a poor goal return. Maybe it's teams playing negative football against them, but with the players they have they should overcome that.
Iniesta, awesome as he is, seems to represent the Spanish team for me. Intelligent, a great passer and the possessor of skills that most can only envy. He should really have been crowned World Footballer of the Year by now. Why not? "He doesn't score enough goals." Simple answer. He just doesn't get the goals his overall play deserves, unlike Messi and Ronaldo. Maybe it's narrow-minded of FIFA to prioritise high-scoring forward players over defenders and midfielders (never mind 'keepers!), but goals win you games, fact.
Barcelona have relied on the likes of Henry, Messi and Ibrahimovic (well, sort of) to get them the goals to win La Liga, albeit supplied by Xavi and Iniesta. A Frenchman, an Argentine and a Swede. But Pedro came through the ranks last season and Villa joined from Valencia just before the WC started. If they start getting hatfuls for Barcelona, Spain's international team may also benefit.
So, overall, I can see why people lavish praise on Spain. If they scored a few more goals, though, perhaps I'd be slower to criticise. Until they do, any comparisons with the Dutch of 1974 or even Brazil of 1970 are unjustified. Moreover, I refute that there is a 'right way' to play the game. Rather, we should respect coaches' decisions to make the best of what players they have to pick from, at least until they can shape a team around their own ideals.
This is, I suppose, a resumption of where I left off with the last one: broadcasters and the media, with reference to the wider concept of 'playing football the right way'.
Readers of the last blog will know I was a little annoyed by the BBC's coverage of the WC final, particularly for their overwhelming praise of Spain's masterclass in the face of Dutch brutality, calling it a "victory for football". Do they have the right to tell us what is right for football's future?
Alan Hansen was a classy defender in his Liverpool days (not such a success with Scotland) but knew when to put a firm tackle in. Lee Dixon had success with an Arsenal team that strung out dull 1-0 wins - he was also capable of this. Alan Shearer is an interesting case: skillful, committed and lethal in the opposition penalty area. But - yes, it's one game out of many - he put in some 'van Bommel-esque' tackles on the likes of Keane and Silvestre when Newcastle played Man Utd in 2003. United won 6-2. A victory for football, Mr Shearer?
I thought it was clever of them to throw Clarence Seedorf out of the studio for the final, allowing them to tear into the Dutch side without anyone to counter the criticisms (in fairness, Seedorf agreed with a lot of what they said, but was not so damning).
Also, what if the Dutch had been replaced in the final by England or, say, the Ivory Coast? Would Shearer and Dixon be moaning if England had hacked their way to victory, thanks to a solitary Heskey strike (ok, back to the real world now)? Not at all. They would hail Capello's pragmatic tactical approach as a masterstroke. Or Ivory Coast or Ghana, etc. The "victory for football" would be dumped in favour of "the result everyone wanted - finally an African team fulfills a continent's potential", however they had done it.
There will always be bias and opinions in punditry (otherwise it's unspeakably dull). But I think it should be more considered, allowing for differing circumstances and consequences.
Now I move on to the style of game played. The Netherlands were lucky to have eleven men on the pitch at half-time, yes. But in the second half, they largely nullified the Spanish threat without committing such abhorrent tackles - they could have won it through Robben too. Is a team built on defence and then counter-attacking such a sinful thing to have? I don't recall Greece's Euro 2004 victory being labelled a disgrace. That was a team without star individuals who had a solid defensive set-up and looked to score on the counter or from set-pieces. No, they were the valiant underdogs. Italy in 2006 had talented forward players, but their victory was really built on Buffon, Cannavaro, etc at the back. Again, no real complaint.
Even in this World Cup, the Swiss scored an unlikely victory against the Spanish wonders by defending deep, holding firm and hitting Spain on the counter. Yes, their tackling wasn't as ruthless as some of the Netherlands', but the tactical approach was similar. Bert van Marwijk must have looked at the tape of that game and saw how Spain might be beaten, since exciting young Germany had failed.
The problem for the Dutch was that they were not 'underdogs' as such. It would have been no great shock had they won, taking away some of the magic. They also have their own history to deal with. The Dutch of the 1970s revolutionised world football, gaining far more admirers than silverware, though. From the shock defeat of 1974, the Dutch looked to add bite to their game, which brought the 1988 European Championship and also a place in this year's WC final. But success has come at a cost. Journalists and fans look back at the 1974 side and wonder why today's Dutch side can't emulate their style of play. Well, they don't have Johan Cruyff for a start, who backed the Spanish for this one against his countrymen, claiming it was the Spanish who kept alive the spirit of 'total football'.
I think the Dutch have a choice between glorious losers (1998 WC, for example) or unpopular winners - at least with the players they have now. Solid defences and rapid counter-attacks have been the mantra at the clubs of their star men, Sneijder and Robben. It so nearly worked, as it stopped the Spanish playing their beautiful game. How dare they! Surely the Dutch ought to have gone out, attacked, lost 4-1 and everyone would have been happy?
Enough on the Dutch. I'm going to look at the Spanish now, arguing they don't deserve all the praise being showered on them.
Frankly, I found their games against Portugal and Paraguay to be hugely boring. They pass it brilliantly and their technical ability is phenomenal. I could go to a Spanish training session to see that. In a game situation, you want action: hard tackling, pieces of individual brilliance, use of teamwork and, most of all, goals.
Germany scored 16 in this tournament, the Netherlands 12, Spain 8. Who's playing the better football here then? The Spanish might be playing a more technically-advanced game, but it nets a poor goal return. Maybe it's teams playing negative football against them, but with the players they have they should overcome that.
Iniesta, awesome as he is, seems to represent the Spanish team for me. Intelligent, a great passer and the possessor of skills that most can only envy. He should really have been crowned World Footballer of the Year by now. Why not? "He doesn't score enough goals." Simple answer. He just doesn't get the goals his overall play deserves, unlike Messi and Ronaldo. Maybe it's narrow-minded of FIFA to prioritise high-scoring forward players over defenders and midfielders (never mind 'keepers!), but goals win you games, fact.
Barcelona have relied on the likes of Henry, Messi and Ibrahimovic (well, sort of) to get them the goals to win La Liga, albeit supplied by Xavi and Iniesta. A Frenchman, an Argentine and a Swede. But Pedro came through the ranks last season and Villa joined from Valencia just before the WC started. If they start getting hatfuls for Barcelona, Spain's international team may also benefit.
So, overall, I can see why people lavish praise on Spain. If they scored a few more goals, though, perhaps I'd be slower to criticise. Until they do, any comparisons with the Dutch of 1974 or even Brazil of 1970 are unjustified. Moreover, I refute that there is a 'right way' to play the game. Rather, we should respect coaches' decisions to make the best of what players they have to pick from, at least until they can shape a team around their own ideals.
Tuesday, 13 July 2010
What can we learn from this World Cup? (Part 2)
Ok, the picking through the entrails of another World Cup continues...
What sorts of players were important? I've already mentioned defensive midfielders, who protected the defence, covered for attacking full-backs (a real feature of the modern game) and stopping the opposition's creative players functioning to full potential. Also the striker(s) tasked with holding the ball up and bringing those behind him (or them) into the action. Who else then?
This was not a vintage World Cup for goalkeeping. The ball has been blamed by many, but there was also plain poor decision-making and judgement by goalkeepers. Some mistakes will go down in fans' nightmares, though it could work the other way round. Just as lack of confidence in the goalkeeper could shatter a team's mental approach to a game, solid goalkeeping could be a huge lift. Arguably the two best goalkeepers in the tournament were those of Spain and the Netherlands, i.e. the two best teams in South Africa. They could, for the most part, be relied on to be solid and assured, boosting their team's performances.
Also, the playmaker. Some teams relied too much on theirs, Brazil and Kaka, Portugal and Ronaldo, France and Gourcuff come to mind. The teams who did well did place importance on the playmaker, giving them freedom to orchestrate attacking play, but their other players stepped up to the plate too. If the Netherland's Sneijder was off-form, Robben or Kuyt would turn it on for the team; for Germany, they had Müller and Schweinsteiger; Spain had Xavi, Iniesta, Alonso, Fabregas...
Essentially, it was important for a team to have a key playmaker (or for Spain, two), but those that went far into the tournament had players who could do the job if needed.
Speaking of Fabregas, there was a clear difference between teams: squad depth. For starting XIs, England and Brazil would be up with Spain and the Netherlands. But substitutes are a key part of any game, for the potential to change games, change approach or replace a subdued player. England's response to going three goals down to Germany was to bring on Emile Heskey. Madness, really, but Capello had little else to choose from. Brazil's replacement for Kaka would be Julio Baptista - good player, but not close to being in the same league. For the Netherlands, however, they had the options of the likes of van der Vaart, Huntelaar and the promising Elia. Spain were even more blessed: Fabregas, Llorente, Silva, Navas, eventually even Torres as a impact sub. Impact was the word, as Fabregas came on to set up Iniesta to win the cup.
We also saw two interesting approaches to playing the game: possession football v counter-attacking football. Spain are the masters of the former; to begin with, it looked like their 'tiki-taka' style would cost them. But it paid off for them in the latter stages, as they bled Germany, then the Netherlands, dry before killing them off with late goals. The style of play is admirable in its ambitiousness and technical ability required to achieve it. It didn't work for all teams, though, as the South American giants of Brazil and Argentina fell to the counter-attacks and opportunism of the Dutch and Germans respectively.
Counter-attacking at pace seemed destined to bring Germany glory. It destroyed England and Argentina. But against Spain, a team with a strong defence and midfielders who could retain possession for very long spells, it hit the rocks. The Dutch too had made use of counter-attacks and set-pieces to knock out Uruguay, who perhaps were better in possession for much of the game.
The argument is not about possession statistics, but what you do with it. Germany and the Netherlands were clinical as times. Or is this wrong? Spain appeared to win themselves the trophy through possession retention. They certainly created lots of chances, but were wasteful on many occasions, almost trying to score 'the perfect goal'. But with a solid defensive lineup and defensive midfielders to screen the back four, they could ask their flair players to keep the ball, tire the opposition out and get the pivotal goal(s), no matter how late in the day. So has there been a move, under Spain, towards 'It's not what you do with the ball, but make sure you keep it. And do score eventually, please'??
This issue brings us to the questions of 'Is there a right way to play the game?' and who exactly can define that 'right way'? From the coverage of the World Cup final, one could be mistaken for thinking there was only one correct way to play football, and any deviations from it ought to be condemned as heresy. I'll leave this point for the next blog (too much to say, too much already said!!), but we have seen in this World Cup some incredible favouritism by media and broadcasters. South Africa, fine, they were hosting it and it was good for the tournament that they performed well; but I don't recall any broadcasters pushing this point too far.
My first real concern was with Uruguay-Ghana. ITV's coverage was inappropriate, in my opinion. I lost a lot of my respect for Clive Tyldesley that evening, as he proceeded to come out with phrases like "It's Uruguay against the continent of Africa tonight" and "Wouldn't it be bad for the tournament if Ghana went out?" What utter rubbish, I thought. Rubbish or not, as broadcaster, you have the responsibility of presenting a balanced view of events to football fans at home. Tyldesley allowed emotional attachment and preconceptions to win out over being impartial. Pundits, fine, they have attachments - Marcel Desailly was justified in his emotional moments. Pundits are there to give opinions and try to speak on behalf of a team; commentators, however, should never be brought into this.
Then the British press (and many others besides) crucified Luis Suarez for the handball that "broke African hearts". It would have been a non-story if Asamoah Gyan had had the composure to score from the spot. I suppose that, for the good of the World Cup, Suarez should have been sent off, lynched there and then, Uruguay's keeper tied to his crossbar for the penalty kick, all of Uruguay's players had their legs broken for the shoot-out when Gyan still contrived to miss, and Ghana awarded the tie anyway, since 'penalties are a wee bit difficult for those poor African players'. Suarez got his punishment, Ghana blew their chance and went out. The favouritism in the media that bordered on ridiculous condescension is no good to African football: if their teams are to be considered worthy at the top table of world football, those already there (though British teams are hardly feasting at the moment...) have to stop treating them like inferiors who 'have done jolly well to have gotten this far'.
The hypocrisy of the media with reference to Uruguay was laughable. As someone pointed out on 606, if John Terry had cleared a goalbound shot off the line with his hand and England had won on penalties, he would have been 'Lionheart Terry', the man taking one for the team and becoming a national hero, his private life forgotten (ok, maybe not the last one). "It's what any player would have done," says Shearer on MOTD, "Good on you, son." But a Uruguayan against the hope of Africa, how very dare he?!
As Uruguay went out to the flair of the Dutch (ha, how that line changed), it was proclaimed as justice done. And the hypocrisy turned full circle on Saturday, as the 'underdogs' Uruguay were heralded against those nasty German types. 'They've done so well to get this far (heard that one before? Oh, and we've forgotten the cheating scumbag Suarez now have we?), it'd be good to see them get third place'. You couldn't make it up.
Apologies for the ranty nature of this blog, but I can't prevent opinions seeping through. As always, please do leave comments or questions.
What sorts of players were important? I've already mentioned defensive midfielders, who protected the defence, covered for attacking full-backs (a real feature of the modern game) and stopping the opposition's creative players functioning to full potential. Also the striker(s) tasked with holding the ball up and bringing those behind him (or them) into the action. Who else then?
This was not a vintage World Cup for goalkeeping. The ball has been blamed by many, but there was also plain poor decision-making and judgement by goalkeepers. Some mistakes will go down in fans' nightmares, though it could work the other way round. Just as lack of confidence in the goalkeeper could shatter a team's mental approach to a game, solid goalkeeping could be a huge lift. Arguably the two best goalkeepers in the tournament were those of Spain and the Netherlands, i.e. the two best teams in South Africa. They could, for the most part, be relied on to be solid and assured, boosting their team's performances.
Also, the playmaker. Some teams relied too much on theirs, Brazil and Kaka, Portugal and Ronaldo, France and Gourcuff come to mind. The teams who did well did place importance on the playmaker, giving them freedom to orchestrate attacking play, but their other players stepped up to the plate too. If the Netherland's Sneijder was off-form, Robben or Kuyt would turn it on for the team; for Germany, they had Müller and Schweinsteiger; Spain had Xavi, Iniesta, Alonso, Fabregas...
Essentially, it was important for a team to have a key playmaker (or for Spain, two), but those that went far into the tournament had players who could do the job if needed.
Speaking of Fabregas, there was a clear difference between teams: squad depth. For starting XIs, England and Brazil would be up with Spain and the Netherlands. But substitutes are a key part of any game, for the potential to change games, change approach or replace a subdued player. England's response to going three goals down to Germany was to bring on Emile Heskey. Madness, really, but Capello had little else to choose from. Brazil's replacement for Kaka would be Julio Baptista - good player, but not close to being in the same league. For the Netherlands, however, they had the options of the likes of van der Vaart, Huntelaar and the promising Elia. Spain were even more blessed: Fabregas, Llorente, Silva, Navas, eventually even Torres as a impact sub. Impact was the word, as Fabregas came on to set up Iniesta to win the cup.
We also saw two interesting approaches to playing the game: possession football v counter-attacking football. Spain are the masters of the former; to begin with, it looked like their 'tiki-taka' style would cost them. But it paid off for them in the latter stages, as they bled Germany, then the Netherlands, dry before killing them off with late goals. The style of play is admirable in its ambitiousness and technical ability required to achieve it. It didn't work for all teams, though, as the South American giants of Brazil and Argentina fell to the counter-attacks and opportunism of the Dutch and Germans respectively.
Counter-attacking at pace seemed destined to bring Germany glory. It destroyed England and Argentina. But against Spain, a team with a strong defence and midfielders who could retain possession for very long spells, it hit the rocks. The Dutch too had made use of counter-attacks and set-pieces to knock out Uruguay, who perhaps were better in possession for much of the game.
The argument is not about possession statistics, but what you do with it. Germany and the Netherlands were clinical as times. Or is this wrong? Spain appeared to win themselves the trophy through possession retention. They certainly created lots of chances, but were wasteful on many occasions, almost trying to score 'the perfect goal'. But with a solid defensive lineup and defensive midfielders to screen the back four, they could ask their flair players to keep the ball, tire the opposition out and get the pivotal goal(s), no matter how late in the day. So has there been a move, under Spain, towards 'It's not what you do with the ball, but make sure you keep it. And do score eventually, please'??
This issue brings us to the questions of 'Is there a right way to play the game?' and who exactly can define that 'right way'? From the coverage of the World Cup final, one could be mistaken for thinking there was only one correct way to play football, and any deviations from it ought to be condemned as heresy. I'll leave this point for the next blog (too much to say, too much already said!!), but we have seen in this World Cup some incredible favouritism by media and broadcasters. South Africa, fine, they were hosting it and it was good for the tournament that they performed well; but I don't recall any broadcasters pushing this point too far.
My first real concern was with Uruguay-Ghana. ITV's coverage was inappropriate, in my opinion. I lost a lot of my respect for Clive Tyldesley that evening, as he proceeded to come out with phrases like "It's Uruguay against the continent of Africa tonight" and "Wouldn't it be bad for the tournament if Ghana went out?" What utter rubbish, I thought. Rubbish or not, as broadcaster, you have the responsibility of presenting a balanced view of events to football fans at home. Tyldesley allowed emotional attachment and preconceptions to win out over being impartial. Pundits, fine, they have attachments - Marcel Desailly was justified in his emotional moments. Pundits are there to give opinions and try to speak on behalf of a team; commentators, however, should never be brought into this.
Then the British press (and many others besides) crucified Luis Suarez for the handball that "broke African hearts". It would have been a non-story if Asamoah Gyan had had the composure to score from the spot. I suppose that, for the good of the World Cup, Suarez should have been sent off, lynched there and then, Uruguay's keeper tied to his crossbar for the penalty kick, all of Uruguay's players had their legs broken for the shoot-out when Gyan still contrived to miss, and Ghana awarded the tie anyway, since 'penalties are a wee bit difficult for those poor African players'. Suarez got his punishment, Ghana blew their chance and went out. The favouritism in the media that bordered on ridiculous condescension is no good to African football: if their teams are to be considered worthy at the top table of world football, those already there (though British teams are hardly feasting at the moment...) have to stop treating them like inferiors who 'have done jolly well to have gotten this far'.
The hypocrisy of the media with reference to Uruguay was laughable. As someone pointed out on 606, if John Terry had cleared a goalbound shot off the line with his hand and England had won on penalties, he would have been 'Lionheart Terry', the man taking one for the team and becoming a national hero, his private life forgotten (ok, maybe not the last one). "It's what any player would have done," says Shearer on MOTD, "Good on you, son." But a Uruguayan against the hope of Africa, how very dare he?!
As Uruguay went out to the flair of the Dutch (ha, how that line changed), it was proclaimed as justice done. And the hypocrisy turned full circle on Saturday, as the 'underdogs' Uruguay were heralded against those nasty German types. 'They've done so well to get this far (heard that one before? Oh, and we've forgotten the cheating scumbag Suarez now have we?), it'd be good to see them get third place'. You couldn't make it up.
Apologies for the ranty nature of this blog, but I can't prevent opinions seeping through. As always, please do leave comments or questions.
Sunday, 11 July 2010
What can we learn from this World Cup? (Part 1)
Having just watched the final, I'm pretty gutted for the Netherlands, as cynically as they played at times. Spain just about deserved their victory, but have not been the great side you might think listening to the so-called experts. More on this later.
First though, what can we take from this tournament? From an organisational and cultural point of view, it was a success. Further indication that countries other than the footballing superpowers can put on a show and enrich the experience for players and fans. But I'll leave this area for those more well-informed.
Looking at the football side of things, excitement and tension mixed with controversy and disappointing standards of play. But South Africa 2010 provides us with some interesting lessons.
Firstly, the importance of a 'winning mentality' or idea of a 'mission'. Team spirit is vital to any side: some had it (Netherlands, Germany, Spain) and others plainly did not (France, England). Brazil should have wiped the Dutch off the pitch with the players they have; spirit meant the Dutch, still in the game, retained belief and Brazil collapsed under the pressure.
A key part of this is down to the manager. They can inspire, educate, encourage or, in some cases, deflate players. Domenech was a disaster. Dunga and Maradona paid for getting the mix of emotion and rationality (i.e. discipline and sound tactics) wrong.
The manager also brings change and continuity. Too many African sides changed coaches in the year(s) or even months before the tournament. As a result, only Ghana progressed from their group, having belief in their manager and themselves. England saw too radical a change in manager style and team set-up. France and Italy paid for not enough change. Domenech should have been fired long ago, while a desperate Italy sought security in Lippi and the likes of Cannavaro and Pirlo.
If we look at the three European sides in the last four, all changed manager quite recently (del Bosque appointed in July 2008, van Marwijk in August 2008 and Löw in July 2006). Yet all three continued where their successful (for the most part) predecessors had left off, be it formations, players used, or footballing ideologies. They brought change where needed, but the continuity that remained allowed a team spirit and way of playing to develop. Look at Sir Alex Ferguson at Manchester United - new players, different coaches, but a footballing vision shaped by him and expressed in the Premiership for almost 25 years.
What about formations? A back four remains the norm, with Chile's back three producing two 1-0 wins and, eventually, a pasting by 'more conservative' Brazil. All of the semi-finalists used two (in Uruguay's case, three) holding midfielders to break up opposition attacks, protecting the defence and setting the creative players on their way. Hence it is not negative strategy, but pragmatic thinking. Having Busquets and Alonso behind them allowed Xavi, Iniesta, Villa and Torres/Pedro/Fabregas the freedom to create opportunities without worrying about defending. Four (or at least three) players given goalscoring as their remit ought to make games more exciting, even if this does not always happen in practice.
So England stuck to 4-4-2. Barry played badly, but should not have been given the task of protecting the back four on his own. Milner, Lampard and Gerrard could only look back as Germany tore their defence apart, perhaps caught in two minds about whether to help at the back or go forward.
Playing a lone striker seems a successful tactic. There is increased pressure, perhaps, but if that striker can hold the ball up, make intelligent runs to distract defenders and bring the likes of Sneijder, Özil and Iniesta into play, they will be treasured. Getting a few goals is a bonus, especially if you can be relied on to take chances. van Persie hardly lit up the World Cup, but his first touch, strength, running and distribution allowed Sneijder and Robben to steal the limelight.
That's enough for now; in part 2 I will discuss players, ways of approaching games and media attitudes.
Again, comments or questions welcome at the bottom. Also, please vote for goalkeeper of the tournament.
First though, what can we take from this tournament? From an organisational and cultural point of view, it was a success. Further indication that countries other than the footballing superpowers can put on a show and enrich the experience for players and fans. But I'll leave this area for those more well-informed.
Looking at the football side of things, excitement and tension mixed with controversy and disappointing standards of play. But South Africa 2010 provides us with some interesting lessons.
Firstly, the importance of a 'winning mentality' or idea of a 'mission'. Team spirit is vital to any side: some had it (Netherlands, Germany, Spain) and others plainly did not (France, England). Brazil should have wiped the Dutch off the pitch with the players they have; spirit meant the Dutch, still in the game, retained belief and Brazil collapsed under the pressure.
A key part of this is down to the manager. They can inspire, educate, encourage or, in some cases, deflate players. Domenech was a disaster. Dunga and Maradona paid for getting the mix of emotion and rationality (i.e. discipline and sound tactics) wrong.
The manager also brings change and continuity. Too many African sides changed coaches in the year(s) or even months before the tournament. As a result, only Ghana progressed from their group, having belief in their manager and themselves. England saw too radical a change in manager style and team set-up. France and Italy paid for not enough change. Domenech should have been fired long ago, while a desperate Italy sought security in Lippi and the likes of Cannavaro and Pirlo.
If we look at the three European sides in the last four, all changed manager quite recently (del Bosque appointed in July 2008, van Marwijk in August 2008 and Löw in July 2006). Yet all three continued where their successful (for the most part) predecessors had left off, be it formations, players used, or footballing ideologies. They brought change where needed, but the continuity that remained allowed a team spirit and way of playing to develop. Look at Sir Alex Ferguson at Manchester United - new players, different coaches, but a footballing vision shaped by him and expressed in the Premiership for almost 25 years.
What about formations? A back four remains the norm, with Chile's back three producing two 1-0 wins and, eventually, a pasting by 'more conservative' Brazil. All of the semi-finalists used two (in Uruguay's case, three) holding midfielders to break up opposition attacks, protecting the defence and setting the creative players on their way. Hence it is not negative strategy, but pragmatic thinking. Having Busquets and Alonso behind them allowed Xavi, Iniesta, Villa and Torres/Pedro/Fabregas the freedom to create opportunities without worrying about defending. Four (or at least three) players given goalscoring as their remit ought to make games more exciting, even if this does not always happen in practice.
So England stuck to 4-4-2. Barry played badly, but should not have been given the task of protecting the back four on his own. Milner, Lampard and Gerrard could only look back as Germany tore their defence apart, perhaps caught in two minds about whether to help at the back or go forward.
Playing a lone striker seems a successful tactic. There is increased pressure, perhaps, but if that striker can hold the ball up, make intelligent runs to distract defenders and bring the likes of Sneijder, Özil and Iniesta into play, they will be treasured. Getting a few goals is a bonus, especially if you can be relied on to take chances. van Persie hardly lit up the World Cup, but his first touch, strength, running and distribution allowed Sneijder and Robben to steal the limelight.
That's enough for now; in part 2 I will discuss players, ways of approaching games and media attitudes.
Again, comments or questions welcome at the bottom. Also, please vote for goalkeeper of the tournament.
Friday, 9 July 2010
Clockwork Oranje?
And so a team playing disciplined rather than spectacular football wins the World Cup, triumphing over one whose exciting and technical attacking game had given the rest of the world food for thought. That was West Germany’s 2-1 victory over the Netherlands in the 1974 final. Might the tables be turned this year?
I should probably make clear that, if you’re looking for an impartial and balanced take on the upcoming final, this isn’t the place for it. I’ll be cheering on the Dutch come Sunday night. As much as I admire the Spanish team and the geniuses that are Xavi and Iniesta, I’ve never been a great fan. Perhaps it was the pain of the 2009 Champions’ League final, or plain jealousy of their plethora of talent available.
That position clear, I’m going to look at how the Dutch might win their first World Cup, having first looked over how they might lose. Oh, and please ignore the octopus.
For Stekelenburg, Spain have Casillas. For Heitinga, Spain have Puyol. For Sneijder, Spain have Iniesta. For van Persie, Spain have Villa. On paper, it should be a whitewash. And Spain, in practice, have the ability to virtually pass a team to death. Their technical ability and understanding is second to none. The Germans who destroyed England and Argentina were made to look very ordinary on Wednesday night, starved as they were of possession. And the Spanish defence was never going to make silly mistakes like Germany’s last two opponents. Spain are strong defensively, embarrassed with riches in midfield and, in Villa, have the tournament’s deadliest striker.
The Netherlands do, however, have hope. Spain lost to Switzerland and then scraped wins over Portugal and Paraguay to get to the final four; none of those sides are of their own class. What did Switzerland do right that many, Germany included, did not? The Swiss got plenty of men behind the ball, disrupted the creative flow through Alonso, Xavi and Iniesta, effected some superb last-ditch defending and, crucially, exploited Spanish mistakes to carve out their own chances – Switzerland were, of course, a post’s width away from scoring a second. To be fair, the Germans defended well for the most part but when Kroos had his chance he missed and Puyol crashed in the winner moments later.
If Spain are to be beaten again, the Dutch will have to be on the top of their game, with the Spanish below par. And they’ll probably need to accept that the Spaniards will have most of the possession. It’s what the Dutch do with the possession they do get that will decide their fate. Germany’s passing on Wednesday missed the sharpness of previous games, so their counter-attacks floundered.
Can the Swiss example be followed? Let’s look at the jobs the various areas of the Dutch team will be tasked with. I’m expecting the Dutch to line up with Stekelenburg in goal, and in front of him van der Wiel, Heitinga, Mathijsen, van Bronckhorst, van Bommel, de Jong, Robben, Sneijder, Kuyt and van Persie in a 4-2-3-1 formation. How about that defence? First of all, Stekelenburg has to offer much greater stability than he did against Uruguay; no defence plays well without confidence in the man behind them. He is capable, as he showed against Slovakia and Brazil for example, of being a world-class goalkeeper; he needs to demonstrate it on the biggest stage – have confidence coming for crosses, be alert for balls played behind his defence and also watch for long-range efforts from the likes of Alonso and Villa. As for the back four, they are not star names but have operated as a unit. I have been impressed by Mathijsen in particular; I feel Heitinga has lost his cool a few times – something the Spanish will punish. An solid partnership is crucial; taking up key positions, marking their men and helping each other out in times of danger. As for van der Wiel and van Bronckhorst, they have been impressive going forward, but have yet to be really tested at their own end. van Bronckhorst has the experience necessary for this game but the young van der Wiel has to stay disciplined enough to know when to join in with attacks and when to hold position, plus remaining strong against Villa, who often drifts to the left side, and Iniesta, who pops up everywhere and anywhere.
I believe the match will be won or lost in the next section of the pitch. Perhaps controversially, I would take van Bommel and de Jong over Busquets and Alonso for the defensive midfield places, considering the roles they are to perform. Undoubtedly van Bommel divides opinion; a cynical and dirty player at times, he is nonetheless effective shutting down opposition attacks. And de Jong is for me a hugely important component in the Dutch team, sorely missed against Uruguay; energetic, determined and a strong tackler, he wins possession and allows Sneijder and Robben to play. These two might not have the creative ability of Busquets and especially Alonso, but I don’t see that as important. Their manager, Bert van Marwijk, will ask the pair to sit in front of the defence, protecting the centre-backs, covering for the full-backs when they venture forward and, crucially, stifling Xavi and Iniesta, even Villa if he drops deeper. A tough task, but the Swiss managed it and it could decide who wins the game. Fail to stop Xavi, Iniesta and Villa and you lose. Minimise their time on the ball and their options with it, and you have a far greater chance.
If you stop the Spanish attackers, you can get at the rest of their team. I’ve already pointed to Busquets and Alonso as fine players but perhaps more about flair than fight. The defence too has looked suspect at times. Ramos looks far more comfortable in the opposition half than his own; his attempt at tackling Özil in the semi-final was clumsy and he was lucky not to concede at least a dangerous free-kick. Pique for me has been poor, especially against Paraguay. And while I would argue Puyol and Capdevila have had decent games overall, there have been mistakes and uncertainties. Behind them, Casillas has been good but not flawless.
If the Dutch work as a cohesive team, bringing the four attacking players back to help win possession, they can exploit these potential weaknesses. Assuming the distribution from de Jong, van Bommel, van Bronckhorst, etc. is up to standard, Sneijder and Robben can create chances. Excellent players as they are, they will never reach the class of Xavi and Iniesta; but they might just be more clinical. Both can score and provide assists from almost nowhere and be inspirations to teammates. Kuyt has been a laudable outlet on either wing, taking on defenders and putting quality balls into the box. It is probably fair to say that van Persie has not reached the standards expected of him, though he is in many ways representative of the Dutch team: not outstanding but getting a job done for the team. He has held the ball up well and aided counter attacks with subtle passing and intelligent movement. If he adds the goalscoring threat he is capable of to his game for the final, he might have an even greater effect.
The Brazil side the Dutch knocked out featured a strong defence, probably superior to Spain’s. The Dutch caused them to panic – they made mistakes and lost their composure, so the Dutch progressed. How exactly van Marwijk inspired that among his players, we cannot know. A repeat performance is not beyond all possibility, though more difficult, as the Spanish monopoly on possession makes a game difficult to dominate as the Dutch did in the second half against Brazil. Yet, if the Netherlands can stay solid at the back, disciplined (that’s you, van Bommel!) and diligent in midfield, forge openings and clinical enough to take the opportunities the Spanish will yield, maybe they can send their exuberant supporters into ecstasy. Following the Swiss model: clockwork Oranje?
- Comments and questions are welcome at the bottom of the page, as well as voting on the likely Golden Boot winner.
Monday, 5 July 2010
Cobbles, crashes and Contador
Yes, it might be three days into le Tour, but the action is really yet to get started. We have had three typical stages, though. A time-trial won by the best in the business, a bunch sprint tarnished by crashes and a transition stage won by a daring breakaway - so a Frenchman in yellow as the race enters France. How fitting.
So, now the riders are just about in France, how are they shaping up? We've already lost some to injury because of cobbles and wet roads (and Mark Cavendish not looking where he was going...) but no big names as of yet.
A closer look at the respective races for the green (sprints) and polka-dot (mountains) jerseys will follow in the next couple of weeks, but I'll start by looking at the contenders for the big prize: general classification, i.e. the yellow jersey.
Spain's Alberto Contador is the overwhelming favourite. He can climb better than anyone else in the race and, unlike most of his climber rivals, can time-trial with the very best. The defending champion, Contador's victory last year oozed class, despite team friction. Team tension should be no problem this year, with Astana doing all they can to get him on that top step of the podium in Paris. His one vulnerability is, conversely, that team. His Astana comrades may be loyal but, on paper at least, look weaker than many of the other Tour squads. If his team-mates falter in the high mountain stages and Contador is left alone, other riders could take advantage. It is perhaps a moot point, though, as Lance Armstrong was more rival than team-mate last year and Contador was rarely troubled.
If team-work can be used against Contador, the men most likely to benefit are the Schleck brothers from Luxembourg. Andy Schleck finished second last year, so would seem to present Contador's biggest challenge, while brother Frank has been on good form this year so far, recently winning the Tour of Switzerland. Both talented climbers, they are close to matching Contador in that respect. Their Saxo Bank team is considered the strongest at the race; plus, their family bond has potential to translate into an effective partnership on the road - if both make it up the mountains, Contador won't have to deal with one Schleck but two of them. Their weakness is undoubtedly the time-trial. Frank has improved from previous years, but both lost time to Contador, Armstrong, et al in the short prologue and could lose more on stage 19. But note: if either has the yellow jersey in their sights, that may prove some crucial motivation.
Italian Ivan Basso has bounced back from a big drug scandal to win this year's Giro d'Italia in impressive style. Having once been Armstrong's main rival, he could threaten Contador: he can time-trial as well as he can climb. But question marks remain over the loyalty of some of his team and, more importantly, has he the energy for another Grand Tour? Aged 32, he might just burn out after giving his all in the Giro - he would be doing very well indeed to keep with Contador and the Schlecks on the high climbs.
Aussie Cadel Evans is the current World Road Champion but finished 29th in last year's Tour. Two second place finishes before that, though, indicate experience in challenging for the top prize and he appears to have become more aggressive in his riding style - his previous conservatism had played into Contador (then Sastre's) hands. He can time-trial well, but may well suffer in the mountains. Add to that a weak-looking team, and Evans is unlikely to really bother Contador.
Bradley Wiggins might hope to boost wounded British sporting pride (at least Hamilton and Button are doing well...). Speaking of wounded, Wiggins' continued participation in the race is under threat as I write: he requires tests after a fall on stage 3. If he can go on, what are his chances? Team Sky look a strong outfit, but we will see how strong in the mountains. Wiggins disappointed in the prologue, a stage he really needed to perform well in. There is one more time-trial for him to use against his less capable rivals in the discipline. However, those rivals know about him now, after he was the surprise package of last year's Tour. Success brings increased pressure, the GC contenders will allow him no freedom and, if push comes to shove, also know they can drop him on the mountains with repeated attacks. Potential is there, but he is unlikely to repeat last year's fourth place.
Lance Armstrong. What can be said about this incredible sportsman, an inspiration to many? Or, alternatively, an arrogant Yank who has fostered drug use in the sport? Whatever your opinion on Armstrong, he is box-office. And it's his last Tour (he says, with a knowing smile). Can he go out on a high? While unlikely to threaten Contador (who is 10 years his junior), Armstrong has unrivalled experience and tacical nous, he can time-trial well (beating Contador by a few seconds in the prologue) and can climb incredibly well for being the 'elder statesman' of the sport. Team RadioShack (Brajkovic, Kloden and Leipheimer in particular) are well equipped to support him and Johan Bruyneel knows all there is to know about the Tour; he also knows about Contador - are there weaknesses to be exploited? Whatever happens, with Lance it's always going to be fascinating to watch.
Right then, time to finish up. I know only fools make predictions without good inside knowledge. But it's hard to see anyone but Contador in yellow come Paris. Yet le Tour is a brilliantly unpredictable race and, if the Spaniard does crack or even drop out for whatever reason, there are capable riders waiting in the wings. Perhaps I've let sentiment cloud my better judgement, but Armstrong's hunger for success in his "last ever Tour" could, maybe, just maybe, see him get on the podium again, fighting one or both of the Schlecks for those places. Basso, Evans and Wiggins are all likely to make the top 10, or at worst top 20. Alongside the usual suspects, I think we'll see a few surprise names come to the fore (Martin? Gerdemann?). As with any Tour, expect thrills and spills. Let entertainment and clean competition be the winners.
So, now the riders are just about in France, how are they shaping up? We've already lost some to injury because of cobbles and wet roads (and Mark Cavendish not looking where he was going...) but no big names as of yet.
A closer look at the respective races for the green (sprints) and polka-dot (mountains) jerseys will follow in the next couple of weeks, but I'll start by looking at the contenders for the big prize: general classification, i.e. the yellow jersey.
Spain's Alberto Contador is the overwhelming favourite. He can climb better than anyone else in the race and, unlike most of his climber rivals, can time-trial with the very best. The defending champion, Contador's victory last year oozed class, despite team friction. Team tension should be no problem this year, with Astana doing all they can to get him on that top step of the podium in Paris. His one vulnerability is, conversely, that team. His Astana comrades may be loyal but, on paper at least, look weaker than many of the other Tour squads. If his team-mates falter in the high mountain stages and Contador is left alone, other riders could take advantage. It is perhaps a moot point, though, as Lance Armstrong was more rival than team-mate last year and Contador was rarely troubled.
If team-work can be used against Contador, the men most likely to benefit are the Schleck brothers from Luxembourg. Andy Schleck finished second last year, so would seem to present Contador's biggest challenge, while brother Frank has been on good form this year so far, recently winning the Tour of Switzerland. Both talented climbers, they are close to matching Contador in that respect. Their Saxo Bank team is considered the strongest at the race; plus, their family bond has potential to translate into an effective partnership on the road - if both make it up the mountains, Contador won't have to deal with one Schleck but two of them. Their weakness is undoubtedly the time-trial. Frank has improved from previous years, but both lost time to Contador, Armstrong, et al in the short prologue and could lose more on stage 19. But note: if either has the yellow jersey in their sights, that may prove some crucial motivation.
Italian Ivan Basso has bounced back from a big drug scandal to win this year's Giro d'Italia in impressive style. Having once been Armstrong's main rival, he could threaten Contador: he can time-trial as well as he can climb. But question marks remain over the loyalty of some of his team and, more importantly, has he the energy for another Grand Tour? Aged 32, he might just burn out after giving his all in the Giro - he would be doing very well indeed to keep with Contador and the Schlecks on the high climbs.
Aussie Cadel Evans is the current World Road Champion but finished 29th in last year's Tour. Two second place finishes before that, though, indicate experience in challenging for the top prize and he appears to have become more aggressive in his riding style - his previous conservatism had played into Contador (then Sastre's) hands. He can time-trial well, but may well suffer in the mountains. Add to that a weak-looking team, and Evans is unlikely to really bother Contador.
Bradley Wiggins might hope to boost wounded British sporting pride (at least Hamilton and Button are doing well...). Speaking of wounded, Wiggins' continued participation in the race is under threat as I write: he requires tests after a fall on stage 3. If he can go on, what are his chances? Team Sky look a strong outfit, but we will see how strong in the mountains. Wiggins disappointed in the prologue, a stage he really needed to perform well in. There is one more time-trial for him to use against his less capable rivals in the discipline. However, those rivals know about him now, after he was the surprise package of last year's Tour. Success brings increased pressure, the GC contenders will allow him no freedom and, if push comes to shove, also know they can drop him on the mountains with repeated attacks. Potential is there, but he is unlikely to repeat last year's fourth place.
Lance Armstrong. What can be said about this incredible sportsman, an inspiration to many? Or, alternatively, an arrogant Yank who has fostered drug use in the sport? Whatever your opinion on Armstrong, he is box-office. And it's his last Tour (he says, with a knowing smile). Can he go out on a high? While unlikely to threaten Contador (who is 10 years his junior), Armstrong has unrivalled experience and tacical nous, he can time-trial well (beating Contador by a few seconds in the prologue) and can climb incredibly well for being the 'elder statesman' of the sport. Team RadioShack (Brajkovic, Kloden and Leipheimer in particular) are well equipped to support him and Johan Bruyneel knows all there is to know about the Tour; he also knows about Contador - are there weaknesses to be exploited? Whatever happens, with Lance it's always going to be fascinating to watch.
Right then, time to finish up. I know only fools make predictions without good inside knowledge. But it's hard to see anyone but Contador in yellow come Paris. Yet le Tour is a brilliantly unpredictable race and, if the Spaniard does crack or even drop out for whatever reason, there are capable riders waiting in the wings. Perhaps I've let sentiment cloud my better judgement, but Armstrong's hunger for success in his "last ever Tour" could, maybe, just maybe, see him get on the podium again, fighting one or both of the Schlecks for those places. Basso, Evans and Wiggins are all likely to make the top 10, or at worst top 20. Alongside the usual suspects, I think we'll see a few surprise names come to the fore (Martin? Gerdemann?). As with any Tour, expect thrills and spills. Let entertainment and clean competition be the winners.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)