Posts Tagged ‘Brazil’

Terry: Petulant child

Terry: Petulant child

Just when you think John Terry might be going gently into the good night, he manages to find a way to put his massive ego slap-bang back in centre stage.

Stripped of the England captaincy, retired from international football and slipping down the pecking order at Chelsea it seemed that JT was in danger of quietly exiting the stage unnoticed.

So what does he do? He has a few trusted stooges put the word around the press corps that he fancies playing again for England. Cue tiresome hysteria.

You’d think that a man who has embroiled English football in a succession of crises – too wearisome to be worth repeating – would have the sense to spare us this latest farrago. Unfortunately, John Terry is too selfish for that.

Like a petulant child Terry flounced out on England back in September. Now he’s let it be known that he fancies a free holiday in Brazil next summer.

In a cowardly move, sadly typical of the man, Terry has not personally said that he is available for selection again. No, he’s put the word out indirectly via his advisers.

Should Roy Hodgson be anything less than effusive about a possible international return, well Terry can stay quietly retired, pretend he’s no idea where the rumours started, and save himself the embarrassment of public rejection.

In all this it’s Hodgson I feel most sorry for. No doubt still smarting from the debacle surrounding Rio Ferdinand’s recent call up, he now has the unenviable task of negotiating another call-up controversy.

Terry has treated a place in the national team as a personal right and not privilege to be earned. Even if it’s merited by form and fitness, Terry should never play for England again.

Written by James Albin

Chelsea fittingly celebrate on the bus they parked in the Champions League. But what’s wrong with that? (Credit: ITN)

Defensive football tactics have been headline news over the last few months mainly due to Chelsea’s Champions League win. Joga Bonito fundamentalists claimed that Chelsea should be stripped of the trophy and banned from future tournaments because of the way they ‘parked the bus’ against Barca and Bayern Munich. And one cheeky wag was moved to change the Champions League wikipedia page to read “Chelsea won the 2012 Champions League final after playing anti-football. The competition has since been devalued and is now deemed meaningless”.

So why all the negativity about negative football tactics? It’s nothing new and surely today, more than ever, winning is the most important thing for any team. The financial pressures on clubs have after all never been greater, as highlighted by the recent demise of Rangers.

Add to this the pressure created by Pep Guardiola’s Barca revolution. He’s changed the face of club football – high possesion, high pressure, with midfielders having more passes than the entire opposition team. In 9 short months Messi scored 50 League goals, that’s more than 13 of the 20 La Liga Clubs managed in total all season. This dominance has forced clubs around Europe to step up their game.

This begs the question: is it better to play open, flowing football against a vastly superior force such as Barca and surely lose, or to shut up shop and hope your forwards take their chances and maybe sneak it? Purists would suggest that the former is the case. With Barca referred to as the best club team ever, should supposedly ‘inferior’ clubs like Chelsea lay down and go out of Europe like the obedient serfs? Clubs must surely give themselves the best opportunity to gain a positive result in every game they play?

Sometimes of course, style of play is influenced by more than the players on the pitch or the coach on the training ground – culture can have a significant bearing on the acceptability of a playing style. Italians are heralded for creating 2 chances, scoring one, then blocking out the opposition for the rest of the game – most recently it brought them great success in the 2006 World Cup. In Brazil, Dunga, the most austere of Brazilian midfielders, was vilified in Brazil for bringing a ‘European’ game to the national side when he was manager – Pele even took time out of his busy product advertising schedule to opening criticise him. Dunga was of course looking to recreate the success he enjoyed as a player in 1994 – another Brazilian team that played with a more defensive line-up, where Dunga was paired in midfield with the equally defensive Mauro Silva let’s not forget. It seems success is a wonderful tonic for a team not pleasing on the eyes of their spectators.

Back in 2004 Greece won the European Championships with a fierce rearguard action, was their title any less sweet to their supporters? Friends in Greece reported car horns, pumping music and cheering well into the next day. Coach Otto Rehhagel, famed for flowing, spectacular football as manager of Werden Bremen said: “No one should forget that a coach adapts the tactics to the characteristics of the available players” – he knew their limitations and played their strengths as any good manager will do.

Another interesting case is that of the three newly promoted premier league teams in 2008-9: West Brom, Hull and Stoke. Their managers were to play different brands of football in the forthcoming season. West Brom’s Tony Mowbray would bring an open, passing, attacking game to the table. To a lesser degree, so too would Hull’s Phil Brown. Stoke’s Tony Pulis had a different plan. He was going to make them difficult, bordering on horrible, to play against.

Delap’s throw-ins drew the most attention but it was their unwavering rearguard that really kept them up, keeping a clean sheet in nearly half of their home games. The Brittania Stadium became a fortress. Stoke and their vociferous fans finished 12th – a staggering achievement for a team bereft of top flight football for 55 years.

West Brom’s position of 20th belied an attractive team whose generous defense was repeatedly unpicked by some of the best players and teams in Europe. Only 3 clean sheets at home and one away proved too much for the team from the West Midlands to cope, despite outscoring 3 of the teams above them.

Hull clung on by the skin of their teeth. Only to go down the season after.

So it seems the sensible teams cut their cloth to suit the players in their shirts. But this decision comes with harsh consequences if unsuccessful. Risk negative play and fail to take your chances and the fans will grow restless and as everyone knows lose the fans and the board start typing up the P45s. Get it right though and you are a hero. No matter what opposition fans or the journalists say, win a trophy or achieve unlikely league security and the fans will sing your name and you’ll be viewed as a success. The only negative then, about a football team’s style of play, is simply if it doesn’t win matches.

Written by Dan Northcote-Smith and Nick Moss (@dnsandnick)

Harry Redknapp, manager of Tottenham Hotspur, ...

Image via Wikipedia

‘Special’ is very subjective isn’t it?

Harry Redknapp has suggested Spurs will sign a special player in January, but not Tevez, so don’t get excited Spurs fans.

The comment does raise a question though, who is this ‘special’ player?

Will Harry Redknapp keep it close to the family, Lampard seems to be out of favour…? Though quite how he fits into a dynamic Spurs midfield I’m not sure.

How about a bit of Torres? He certainly has special hair, could Harry’s man management bring out the best in a player who hasn’t seen form for 2 and a half years?

Or how about Leandro Damiao? Playing at quasi Spurs feeder club Internacional in Brazil, the boy is certainly special.

Then again, Zamora was linked with Spurs in the Evening Standard yesterday and Titus Bramble is certainly ‘special’ in his own way…who knows, ‘special’ is subjective after all.

Who do you fancy Spurs fans?

Scotland versus Holland match at the 1996 Euro...

Image via Wikipedia

International class. It’s a phrase regularly bandied about by armchair pundits. It can be used to bemoan the merits of a particular player “Barry’s never been international class”, or critique the ability of upcoming opponents “Montenegro only have two international class players”. But what exactly does international class mean? Does it actually make sense?

The phrase is loaded with assumptions. First that the qualities needed for international football are fixed, clearly defined and permanent.

Are any of the Scotland team who took on Brazil at the weekend worthy of being mentioned in the same breath as Mackay, Dalglish or Jimmy Johnston? If Scotland cannot find heirs to these honoured sons should they refuse to play another fixture?

Clearly no, but implicit in the phrase is the suggestion that international teams should only be allowed to field players who meet this hazy, ill-defined criteria. I can’t think of an international team in history who’ve been so blessed. Look at any championship winning side and there’s a journeyman, or three, somewhere happy to be pegged to this coat tails of the sides genuinely great players.

Now I’m not pretending there aren’t better or worse players in every team. But if they’re pulling on the jersey for their country they have without question achieved the threshold of being international class.

So why does anyone use the phrase? For me it’s about trying to add a little gravitas to an opinion by invoking this unknown, undefined benchmark of quality. International class? It’s just a snobbish way you of saying you don’t think a player or team are good enough.