Before I get around to answering Amit Varma's question, let me just say that England are not going to win it. I'll just let that thought sink in for you England fans. They simply aren't good enough.
A team whose fortunes live and die with a 20 year old, however talented, cannot seriously be considered contenders for the world's biggest prize. Contrast the Rooney situation with Argentina's handling of Leo Messi and Carlos Tevez. Two of the brightest young talents in Argentina were injured before the tournament began (Messi with a hamstring strain and Tevez with an upset stomach), but there was precious little media frenzy regarding their fitness. Argentina's manager Jose Pekerman did a fantastic job of diverting attention away from Messi and Tevez's unavailability for Argentina's opener, choosing instead to talk about what Crespo and Saviola could do for the team. The result was a convincing victory in their opening match against Cote d'Ivoire. Only when Messi and Tevez were fully fit did Pekerman unleash them on a bewildered Serbia & Montenegro. Now you may say that Argentina have far more options up front than England, but that's England's own fault. A quick glance at the players that were left out of the squad by Eriksson tells the story - Darren Bent, Jermain Defoe and Andrew Johnson are all watching the World Cup on television. Instead, of England's four forwards, two are recovering from long-term injuries, another has never even played in the Premiership, and their only fully fit, experienced striker is a 6 ft 7 in beanpole who - let's face it - is well short of being world-class. Compare that to Argentina's forward line - Messi, Tevez, Crespo, Saviola, Rodriguez, Gonzalez, Palacio. Brazil have taken Ronaldinho, Kaka, Ronaldo, Adriano, Fred and Robinho. All top-class players, and all of them have been proven at their respective clubs.
England's central midfield should be a cause for concern. Frightening on paper, insipid on the field. Steven Gerrard and Frank Lampard are world-class box-to-box midfielders for their clubs, but they just cannot play together unless one of them curbs his natural attacking instincts. At club level, both of them play with a defensive midfielder to provide cover for their forays into the opposition third. Gerrard has Momo Sissoko at Liverpool, and Lampard has Makelele at Chelsea. England have no such cover, as their most defensive-minded player is probably Beckham on the right wing. Until England play a holding midfielder behind Lampard and/or Gerrard, they will continue to look lost on the pitch.
Beckham on the right wing - there's an inspired selection. There are at least two right wingers in England who are miles ahead of Beckham and offer far more to the team going forward. I'm talking about Aaron Lennon and Shaun Wright-Phillips. Lennon is in Germany but is a substitute, while Shaun Wright-Phillips has been out of contention ever since he quit professional football for a bench-warming job at Stamford Bridge. If Eriksson absolutely has to play Beckham (and apart from his free kicks I can't see why he should), then his best position would actually be as the aforementioned holding midfielder, behind Gerrard and Lampard.
England's defence is fine - no problems there, unless Sol Campbell gets a game
My next point is regarding England's style of play. In a nutshell, boring and uninspired. A lot of this has to do with the wrong players being on the pitch, and the squad being short of world-class strikers. The major problem, however, is the presence of Peter Crouch. Don't get me wrong - I think Crouch is a very useful player, but he seems to give Beckham and co. the idea that he's better in the air than he is on the ground. It is mind-numbing to see long ball after hopeful long ball punted up towards Crouch, just because he's huge, all the while knowing that if England kept the ball along the ground and showed some creativity, they might just give Crouch and themselves a better chance of scoring. If they continue to play like this, they'll be ripped apart by the likes of Czech Republic, Argentina, Spain and, needless to say, Brazil.
So, a team that depends on a single, half-fit player to create chances, with a lightweight squad, poor team selection and an outdated style of play is one of the favourites to win. This should be fun to watch.
A team whose fortunes live and die with a 20 year old, however talented, cannot seriously be considered contenders for the world's biggest prize. Contrast the Rooney situation with Argentina's handling of Leo Messi and Carlos Tevez. Two of the brightest young talents in Argentina were injured before the tournament began (Messi with a hamstring strain and Tevez with an upset stomach), but there was precious little media frenzy regarding their fitness. Argentina's manager Jose Pekerman did a fantastic job of diverting attention away from Messi and Tevez's unavailability for Argentina's opener, choosing instead to talk about what Crespo and Saviola could do for the team. The result was a convincing victory in their opening match against Cote d'Ivoire. Only when Messi and Tevez were fully fit did Pekerman unleash them on a bewildered Serbia & Montenegro. Now you may say that Argentina have far more options up front than England, but that's England's own fault. A quick glance at the players that were left out of the squad by Eriksson tells the story - Darren Bent, Jermain Defoe and Andrew Johnson are all watching the World Cup on television. Instead, of England's four forwards, two are recovering from long-term injuries, another has never even played in the Premiership, and their only fully fit, experienced striker is a 6 ft 7 in beanpole who - let's face it - is well short of being world-class. Compare that to Argentina's forward line - Messi, Tevez, Crespo, Saviola, Rodriguez, Gonzalez, Palacio. Brazil have taken Ronaldinho, Kaka, Ronaldo, Adriano, Fred and Robinho. All top-class players, and all of them have been proven at their respective clubs.
England's central midfield should be a cause for concern. Frightening on paper, insipid on the field. Steven Gerrard and Frank Lampard are world-class box-to-box midfielders for their clubs, but they just cannot play together unless one of them curbs his natural attacking instincts. At club level, both of them play with a defensive midfielder to provide cover for their forays into the opposition third. Gerrard has Momo Sissoko at Liverpool, and Lampard has Makelele at Chelsea. England have no such cover, as their most defensive-minded player is probably Beckham on the right wing. Until England play a holding midfielder behind Lampard and/or Gerrard, they will continue to look lost on the pitch.
Beckham on the right wing - there's an inspired selection. There are at least two right wingers in England who are miles ahead of Beckham and offer far more to the team going forward. I'm talking about Aaron Lennon and Shaun Wright-Phillips. Lennon is in Germany but is a substitute, while Shaun Wright-Phillips has been out of contention ever since he quit professional football for a bench-warming job at Stamford Bridge. If Eriksson absolutely has to play Beckham (and apart from his free kicks I can't see why he should), then his best position would actually be as the aforementioned holding midfielder, behind Gerrard and Lampard.
England's defence is fine - no problems there, unless Sol Campbell gets a game
My next point is regarding England's style of play. In a nutshell, boring and uninspired. A lot of this has to do with the wrong players being on the pitch, and the squad being short of world-class strikers. The major problem, however, is the presence of Peter Crouch. Don't get me wrong - I think Crouch is a very useful player, but he seems to give Beckham and co. the idea that he's better in the air than he is on the ground. It is mind-numbing to see long ball after hopeful long ball punted up towards Crouch, just because he's huge, all the while knowing that if England kept the ball along the ground and showed some creativity, they might just give Crouch and themselves a better chance of scoring. If they continue to play like this, they'll be ripped apart by the likes of Czech Republic, Argentina, Spain and, needless to say, Brazil.
So, a team that depends on a single, half-fit player to create chances, with a lightweight squad, poor team selection and an outdated style of play is one of the favourites to win. This should be fun to watch.
5 comments:
Bhavesh...I agree with you about the need to play a defensive midfielder (Carrick) in the middle of the park together with one of Gerrard or Lampard (probably Gerrard).
Defoe (instead of Jenas) and Bent (instead of Walcott) should both have been at the World Cup.
Eriksen's tactics are poor and his selection is flawed...but he has one player that no other national team has, or even comes close to having...and that is Wayne Rooney...
While Gerrard, Lampard, Terry and Rio all contribute to making England a good side, that probably won't win a World Cup...Rooney makes them an unpredicatable quantity...regardless of how fit he is...
Let me ask you this...Would Argentina have won the WC in 86 had it not been for Maradona? That is the sort of influence Rooney has on any side he plays for...Despite being 20 years old and 75% fit...
I don't know too much about the inner workings of football...but I do know enough to tell you that you never ever write off a team with Wayne Rooney in it...He carried a club of Manchester United's calibre and I would not put it beyond him to do the same with England...
Maradona made a huge impact on Mexico 86 because he was fully fit. Similarly, Rooney was immense for Manchester United when he was fully fit. He can't realistically be expected to have the same effect here.
My other concern is that Eriksson is needlessly risking Rooney and by doing so, playing with a young man's career. If Rooney gets injured during the World Cup because he isn't fully fit, who is most affected? Certainly not Eriksson, who will be taking his big pay packet and jetting off to Rome or Madrid or wherever he wants. England, Manchester United, and most of all Rooney will be left to bear the brunt of what happens.
Finally, the main reason I compared Argentina to England was Messi's injury. It may not have been as severe as Rooney's, but Messi is arguably the better player of the two (if only by a small margin). Argentina coped well without him because they had a plan B, and Pekerman was absolutely right in protecting both Messi and Tevez until they were fully fit.
For young men such as Messi and Rooney, there will always be other World Cups. But there may never be another Rooney or Messi.
Another point - I don't think Carrick is the best man for that holding midfield role. His passing and overall attacking play is top-notch, but his tackling leaves a lot to be desired. England's only real options in that position are Owen Hargreaves and Rio Ferdinand. I know Ferdinand is a centre-back, but his style of play is perfect for a deep-lying distributor of the ball. Just my opinion though.
I'd rather play Hargreaves as a defensive midfielder. Jenas' selection in the squad is ridiculous.
I'd like to see Beckham drop back, Hargreaves or Carrick as defensive midfielders and for Gerrard and Lampard to follow (for the lack of a better option) Crouch for poaching. I'm not really impressed by Joe Cole's showboating and England really aren't playing as a team. I'm for a 4-3-2-1 formation switching to a 4-3-3, instead of the 4-4-2. (my post here)
Also, how does Rooney rate as a striker, as opposed to an attacking midfielder, a role he plays for ManU where he flits in and out of the box depending on the situation. More often than not, he's the one who sets up the goals. I don't really rate Owen, so I guess England are in the WC without a striker (Crouch is more of a supporting striker). How about Joe Cole as a striker? He's certainly got the pace and the skill...
That's quite an interesting idea, and it could work, but don't you think you'd be better off with Lennon playing as a right-winger rather than Beckham? If anything, Beckham's only in the side these days because he can tackle a bit and tracks back. He will be wasted as an auxiliary forward.
You're also taking a gamble by playing Peter Crouch as your lone striker. His finishing leaves a lot to be desired, so you'll have to hope that Gerrard and Lampard have their shooting boots on them.
Now Michael Owen's injured, so England's attack looks worse than ever. The problem with the team really lies in the squad selection. Eriksson has left himself with few options up front, instead choosing to fill his squad with some fairly useless central midfielders.
In my book, Rooney can't be classed as a typical No. 9, either, though he is capable of playing that role. He is far more comfortable in a deeper position where he can pick up the ball in midfield and dictate play. He certainly has the talent to play up front on his own, though England would be reducing his effectiveness there.
Post a Comment