|
Post by Macmoish on Jul 10, 2010 0:11:27 GMT
Nothing of QPR Relevance!Independent
Neil Warnock: When I'm England manager there will be changes all right – we'll have a laugh for startersWhat I Learnt This World CupYou need ambitions in life and after watching the World Cup I have a new one. As daft as it sounds I want to be the next England manager. Fabio Capello has got another two years, and after that I reckon they will be looking for an Englishman. There will be hardly any candidates. To be the one I have to get QPR promoted next year and into Europe the following season. I know, I have no international or Champions League experience, but I really don't think that is so crucial. The players have that. What they did not have at the World Cup is any sense of joy. They were too tense. We have good players, we know that, but none of them played to their capability in South Africa. If I was looking to sign a player on their World Cup performances I would not sign anyone from England, yet we know all of them would get into my QPR team. How different might it have been if they were relaxed. After 10 months in the hardest league in the world it wasn't more time away playing friendlies and having altitude training they needed. It was a break, and some time with their families. Players like Wayne Rooney are family men now. There is no way you can take them away for that length of time and not bring some humour into the camp. You have to have a laugh. I think that is something Fabio got wrong, and the language and culture barrier will not have helped him. A manager like Harry Redknapp would have killed the tension and stress with humour. Fabio has his own way of doing things, but he's not had a team of English lads away for a long period before. England just looked like they had no enjoyment, no laughter, no humour. It seemed like a chore. They looked shattered, inept even. 2. Del Bosque was right to axe Torres and will be rewarded I backed Spain at the start and see no reason to change. They have players who are capable of beating you, especially David Villa. He made the difference in the early games when they did not play well. That will have disappointed Vicente del Bosque but they look as if they are coming on to their game now. They have had a massive problem with Fernando Torres not functioning and while it was a bold call to drop him for the semi-final, it was the right one. Capello should have done the same with Rooney. Del Bosque must be delighted, and relieved because he took some stick earlier. I certainly could not have stayed as relaxed as he has on the touchline when they have scored those late goals. Bert van Marwijk has also kept things low-key. The Dutch sneaked up on the tournament, although they had gone 20 games unbeaten which gives you sky-high confidence. And Dutch players are never short on confidence at the worst of times. He's also been smart in booking them into hotels where there are distractions around. That's a lesson England can learn, as is the way their teamwork has shone through. The other coach who has impressed me is Joachim Löw, the German manager. He's been very astute tactically. I thought when they lost to Serbia that the 4-0 win over Australia might have been a flash in the pan but then they put four past England and Argentina and he got the tactics for both matches spot on. Against England Löw played the extra man in midfield, which gave them control and stopped Glen Johnson and Ashley Cole from getting forward. There was always someone to deal with them and stop them bombing on. I know goals do make a difference, and it might have been different had Frank Lampard's shot counted, but Germany should have been out of sight before England scored one. In the second half England played into their hands chasing the equaliser. On paper Argentina's forwards are superb but Germany were so compact at the back. The defence were a strong unit and the midfield gave them such great support that Argentina just could not open them up. They then broke with so much energy. That, I think, comes from the youthfulness of the team. 3. Age teaches you to be brave, to play to win, not to draw It is interesting that the successful managers, those in the last four, have all got experience behind them, Löw being the youngest at 50. None of them were great players, either so it is nice to see some unsung names doing well. Not that I think Diego Maradona and Dunga did much wrong – they came up against good sides. I did enjoy watching Argentina as they brightened up the competition early on when it was shaping to be the worst World Cup in my memory. To start with, most managers were more concerned with not losing than winning. I think that is a matter of age, or rather relative youth. I think that now I'm a bit older I have a different outlook on the game. In the past I would have thought 'That will be a good point here' but now I try to win every game, and I do think the brave ones come to the front. Ghana are a good example. They play with that little bit of naivety, or fearlessness. Africans embrace the game and Ghana epitomised the idea of playing for fun with a smile on their faces. Not that they didn't know what they were doing. I was very impressed with how they kept possession and moved it around under pressure – they really should have beaten Uruguay and made the semi-final, even before the last-minute dramas. With regard to Luis Suarez's handball. I know people said he cheated but I don't go along with that. He broke the rules and he was punished. The solution is to change the rules and award a penalty goal like in rugby. Uruguay were quite positive too, like two other surprise teams in Paraguay and Chile. They were not that open but they had good individuals and allowed them to play. In that respect the South Americans are like the Africans. They still play as if they are on the beach with friends. We have lost some of that in Europe. Maybe it is a society thing. We work hard to try to get everything for our kids – computers, DS and so on – but as I realised during my holiday in Scotland, many of the best things in life cost nothing. Sometimes we lose touch with reality and it can affect you in all sorts of ways, including how you play football. 4. French players will always regret their walk-out England were not the only let-down. Portugal were really disappointing, like England they played with the shackles on. And then there was France and Italy. I've got mates in France. I had to ring them after the debacle with the players refusing to train. I said "Thanks, you've made us look good". The players will regret that walk-out for years. As for Italy, I felt embarrassed for them, and for Marcello Lippi. It's not what you expect when you've won the World Cup. Still, there's sometimes a silver lining. I had to smile at Sven picking up another £2m. He's not done badly financially over the last few years. 5. I'd love Gyan at QPR, does he fancy a move to London? I think it has been a shock to everyone how none of the big names has done well. I have to say, though, I felt at the start there was too much hype about Rooney, and it was probably the same with his equivalents in other countries. We forget how young he is, and Lionel Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo are even younger. There is so much expectation; if he has two or three bad games it is like someone has died. I felt sorry for Rooney because he never looked fit. Instead it has been some of the "lesser" names who have caught the eye, and I include Villa in that. I know he has been scoring goals for years but it is only this summer he has joined a big club in Barcelona. He's carried Spain in front of goal and looks a great buy. Thomas Müller of Germany has done superbly, while Miroslav Klose looked like scoring every game. Michael Owen could have been like that for England if he had been fit – though I doubt Fabio would have taken him. He should have taken Theo Walcott. I would have played him up the middle. The Uruguayan centre-halves did well, and New Zealand battled superbly. For them to be unbeaten is like winning the World Cup. The player I'd sign if I had the chance would be Asamoah Gyan of Ghana. I really liked him. He looked very mobile, full of life, and what guts he had to take the first penalty in the shoot-out. That really showed character. I've nothing but admiration for him. I couldn't believe it when he stepped up. If he fancies London he'd do for me. www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/world-cup/neil-warnock-when-im-england-manager-there-will-be-changes-all-right--ndash-well-have-a-laugh-for-starters-2023078.html
|
|
|
Post by Lonegunmen on Jul 10, 2010 1:47:07 GMT
1] How to act as if one is shot by a high powered rifle.
2] Not only goalkeepers need handle the ball and end up winners.
3] Do not allow that new Addidas ball anywhere near Loftus Road.
4] Book Howard Webb for every QPR game.
5] Don't bother signing any World reknown stars as they are bound to flop when the pressure is on!
|
|
|
Post by londonranger on Jul 10, 2010 2:36:48 GMT
Compulsive talker.
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Jul 10, 2010 6:25:24 GMT
Or more seriously.... Although I do have a vague memory of some board posters disparaging the idea of QPR playing just one up frontThe Guardian - The Question: What have been the tactical lessons of World Cup 2010?Spain have adopted the Barcelona formula, which seems to be the way club football is going This has been the tournament of 4-2-3-1. The move has been apparent in club football for some time; in fact, it may be that 4-2-3-1 is beginning to be supplanted by variants of 4-3-3 at club level, but international football these days lags behind the club game, and this tournament has confirmed the trend that began to emerge at Euro 2008. Even Michael Owen seems to have noticed, which is surely the tipping point. Formations, though, are one thing, their employment something else, and what has been noticeable in South Africa has been the vast range of 4-2-3-1s. Spain, when they finally adopted it against Germany, and stopped trying to squeeze Fernando Torres and David Villa into the same side, fiddled with the line of three, pulling Xavi back and pushing Andrés Iniesta and Pedro forward so it almost becomes 4-2-1-3, which seems to be the route club football is taking. It has had very attacking full-backs and has pressed high up the pitch, essentially using the Barcelona formula. There are those who protest at their lack of goals (no side has reached the final scoring fewer) but they are a classic example of a team that prefers to control the game than to become obsessed by creating chances. Perhaps they at times become mesmerised by their passing, perhaps there is even something attritional about it, wearing opponents down until they make the mistake, but it is beautiful attrition. Those who have protested at the modern Holland, and their supposed betrayal of the heritage of Total Football, which is being painted as the ne plus ultra of attacking football, should perhaps look back at the European Cup finals of 1971-73 when Ajax expressed their mastery by holding the ball for long periods. Frankly, if they ever faced a side who took them on rather than sitting eight men behind the ball, we may see a more overtly attacking Spain. Which brings us to Germany. They too play a 4-2-3-1 and, although Philipp Lahm breaks forward occasionally, theirs is essentially a defensive set-up. Here again goals are the great betrayers; it was bewildering how much praise was heaped on their supposedly fresh, open approach just because they scored four goals in three games. This Germany was superb on the counterattack, and the interaction of the front four of Miroslav Klose, Thomas Müller, Lukas Podolski and Mesut Ozil was at times breathtaking. But this was reactive football. In three games, Germany scored an early first goal – against Argentina and England, it was essentially handed to them – and in those games they ruthlessly took advantage of the space opponents left behind them as they chased an equaliser. England, Argentina and Australia all defended idiotically against them, and were severely punished. In the other three games, teams defended decently against them and the early goal didn't arrive surrounded by watercress on a silver salver. In those games Germany managed one goal, and that a wonder-strike from Ozil. Against Spain their poverty of ideas was such they ended up sending the lumbering centre-back Per Mertesacker forward as an auxiliary striker, an idea so bereft of subtlety that the only time I remember it working was when Dennis Smith once sent Gary Bennett forward for Sunderland against Oxford in 1990. Reactivity, in fact, has been a feature of this World Cup, which is one of the reasons the proactivity of Spain is so welcome. It's probably too early to highlight it as a definite trend, for the world seemed headed in a similar direction in 2004 when José Mourinho's Porto won the Champions League and Greece won the European Championship, only for attacking football to return the next season, but with Mourinho's success with Inter, it may be that the great creative boom of the past decade is drawing to a close. Holland and Argentina both effectively played broken teams, the former in a 4-2-3-1, the latter in a 4-3-1-2. Certain players were clearly designated to defend, others to attack, with very little to link them. The allure of the approach is understandable, for with the limited time available to managers it is difficult to develop sophisticated systems (Spain benefit from the fact that so many of their players play for the same club, and that they have essentially played the same way, with minor evolution, for four years), and simplification is desirable. It can be effective, and the way Nigel de Jong and Mark van Bommel have protected Holland's shaky back four has been admirable, but it can render a team static and reliant on the ability of a couple of individuals (Arjen Robben and Wesley Sneijder; Lionel Messi and Carlos Tevez). And if the forwards do no tracking back at all the system can very easily be unsettled by a breaker from midfield, as for instance Bastian Schweinsteiger showed against Argentina. Even Brazil had an element of reactivity about them, often sitting deep, pressing only when the opponent had crossed halfway, and then hitting the space behind them. They played an angled 4-2-3-1 that had the advantage of getting Robinho into an area other 4-2-3-1s found difficult to counteract. Although they capitulated miserably in the second half against Holland, and although they have an utter disregard for the samba stereotype, they have been arguably the strongest side in the world over the past four years, winning the Copa América, the Confederations Cup and finishing top of Conmebol qualifying. That they and Spain never met feels like one of the great missed games. Then there was Ghana's 4-2-3-1, with the five midfielders packed deep and Asamoah Gyan the lonest of lone strikers, only in bursts breaking free with the sort of passing that suggests they might actually be a force in years to come. Japan played a 4-2-3-1 with a false nine, almost embracing their historical lack of midfield flair (and no, two free-kicks, brilliant as they were, plus a goal on the break against Denmark doesn't suddenly make them a creative force, even if Keisuke Honda offers great hope for the future). The rise of 4-2-3-1 has had knock-on effects. Attacking full-backs have become rarer – and the difference in attitude of the respective pairs of full-back is arguably the major difference between the two 4-2-3-1s that will meet in the final. It had seemed that the advance of lone-central-striker systems would spell the end for three at the back, for who needed two spare men? Well, it turns out that teams intent merely on surviving, playing for goalless draws, do, and that's what Uruguay did against France, North Korea did against Brazil, and New Zealand did on a regular basis. Again, that suggests a preparedness to absorb pressure that it's hard to believe wasn't in some way, if not inspired then at least encouraged, by Inter's success in Barcelona. There was evidence that a technically inferior side could, though discipline and industry, endure a prolonged assault. It is that same battle between proactivity and reactivity that will be fought on Sunday; and for once, it is the Dutch who find themselves cast as the destructive force. www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2010/jul/09/world-cup-2010-tactics-the-question
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Jul 10, 2010 6:32:23 GMT
And the financial cost of the World CupTelegraph/Rian Malan
World Cup 2010: The bill – £6.8 billion. The fantasy of success – priceless
Rian Malan's World Cup Diary: the host nation has enjoyed a thrilling four weeks in the limelight, but Fifa will walk away with the spoils
One of the problems with having 17,000 journalists at World Cup 2010 is that we end up interviewing each other about the deeper meaning of the story we’re covering. In the run-up to the event, foreign hacks expected locals such as yours truly to calibrate the extent of the looming fiasco. This week it’s more like: “Please comment on South Africa’s World Cup triumph, which surely heralds a turning point in your troubled history and a new beginning for all of Africa.’’ These visiting hacks have clearly been swayed by talk that the tournament has attracted more than a million visitors while earning stupendous returns on a quite modest investment. Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London, has picked up this theme, declaring that the World Cup has given South Africa a “priceless” opportunity to show that it can, in extremis, meet construction deadlines, control crime and otherwise stage world-class events in darkest Africa. Boris is generally right, but let’s interrogate the meaning of ''priceless’’ before we succumb to delirium. For a start, how many tourists actually showed up? Fifa initially dazzled us with promises of 483,000 visitors. Last week, Minister of Finance Pravin Gordhan claimed we were likely to hit that target, a spot of wishful thinking topped only by newspaper headlines announcing that the number of tourists arriving here “during the World Cup period” had “topped the one million mark.” In truth, border control stats show 201,856 additional arrivals in the month of June (ie 201,856 more than during the same period last year). Another 30,000 may have come for the semis or be on their way for the final, but we’ll still wind up with well under half the tourists anticipated. If we pull, say, 230,000 visitors in total, their cumulative spending will add up to about £450 million– a third of original predictions. Against this backdrop, it’s hard not to laugh about claims to the effect that World Cup benefits will “more or less” equal expenditure. When hosting the cup was first mooted, we were told it could cost about £1 billion. Earlier this year, local newspapers reported that costs had risen to £3.1 billion. This was considered shocking, until the ruling African National Congress sent out a press release placing the real tally at £6.8 billion – more than twice as high. A fraction of the rise was attributable to surging steel and cement prices, but that can’t even begin to account for the ominous pattern we see here. In 2006, we committed £730 million to building the stadiums. By the time the work was done, costs had doubled (according to the finance ministry) or even trebled (according to the ruling party). Why? The government isn’t saying, but don’t be surprised if a sizeable chunk of this frenzied overspending eventually turns up in Swiss bank accounts. In the end, the only clear winner is Fifa. The sharpies from Geneva convinced our leaders to carry all the risk and lay out all the capital – a grand total, when all is said and done, in the probable region of £10 billion, according to the Swiss accountancy firm UBS. South Africa winds up with 10 new stadiums, some smart new infrastructure and £450 million in tourist cash. Fifa walks off with about £2 billion in tax-free profits [from sponsorship and broadcast and licensing deals] – 50 per cent more than it made at the last World Cup in Germany. The politicians who negotiated this deal clearly gave the farm away. Now they’re laying down a smokescreen, hoping we don’t notice how thoroughly we’ve been diddled. But they needn’t bother, because your average South African doesn’t really care. The fantasy of success is seductive, the outside world’s admiration likewise. We’ve had 24 present and former heads of state here in recent weeks. The celebrity density was so high that even Paris Hilton might have gone unnoticed if she and a friend hadn’t been caught with a marijuana joint outside a post-match party. These things are a big deal in a small country. The reality to which we return next week is almost unbearable – poverty, mass unemployment, foundering services and a state of near-panic among foreign Africans, who have reportedly been warned they’ll be butchered by desperate locals – they claim the immigrants have taken their jobs – once the last tourist leaves. The billions squandered on the cup wouldn’t have solved these problems, but it would have made a dent. If we had known at the outset how much it would cost, would we have gone ahead? The answer isn’t as easy as I once imagined. I initially saw the tournament as an obscene waste, but then I found myself caught up in the primordial business of waving flags, stirring national anthems, and watching our beautiful stadiums glowing like jewels in the African darkness on my television. Boris Johnson is right; such things are almost invaluable. I would just have done it differently. Last month, British journalists asked our tourism minister, Martinus van Schalkwyk, what he’d learned from his dealings with Fifa. “Read the small print,” he quipped. That would have been a good place to start www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/world-cup-2010/7881621/World-Cup-2010-The-bill-6.8-billion.-The-fantasy-of-success-priceless.html
|
|
|
Post by saphilip on Jul 11, 2010 9:34:40 GMT
Rian Malan has abit of a chequered history with SA but a lot of what he says makes sense.
How many fans attended? Well initially FIFA expected close on 500k, but that seemed unrealistic and that was before the recession hit. It was downgraded to less than 250k about 2 months before the WC but initial reports would suggest that around 350k to 400k (maybe more) overseas fans & tourists visited SA before the WC.
So in the end we probably scored from that pint of view - and, although some tourists and media people were victims of petty crime (unfortune for sure), there was none of the mass killings that some of the world media (albeit aimed at the bottom end of the gene pool) predicted.
FIFA's handling of SA in general? Well if you were not sure of my views about FIFA then you will be after this thread.
Let me pull no punches here - I find FIFA a corrupt, greedy and useless organisation. A lot of locals here got increasingly fed up with their dicatorial handling of everything SA (when I last read we were still a sovereign country) - whether it was the hotel & entertaiment industry, local traders & businessmen and general attitude towards South African in general.
We are not not a group of ignorant people living in mud huts, who have to face man eating wild animals every day - and for FIFA to treat us as such was a gross insult.
The saga with the Dutch & SA women in mini skirts was a PR disaster of epic proportions but that was the tip of the iceberg. Local traders near stadiums were asked to remove anything from their windows that hinted at SA WC 2010, local tradesmen (usually the poorest of the poor) found their goods being confiscated & livelihoods destroyed because they were breaking copyright rules (and were much cheaper than FIFA's authorised Made in China junk), while far too many hotels & B&B's burnt their fingers with Match - the "commercial" arm of FIFA, run by Honest Sepp's nephew.
And after today FIFA will never give a damn about us or Africa.
So thanks you FIFA for giving us the opportunity to show the world what we can do, but now please f*ck off and never taint our land again with your corrupt operations.
Did we build too many white elephants? Well let's start with Gautrain and the road infrastructure - particuallry up here in Gauteng province. Yes we needed these upgrade whether we were hosting the WC or not. From that point of view the country benefits.
As for the stadiums - well, let's put it this way, SA basically built 6 new stadiums - and all in time. Port Elizabeth needed a new one, Cape Town will probably in the long term be forced to move away from crowded outdated Newlands to the new one at Green Point, while the National Stadium outside Jo'burg (Soccer City) was definitely needed. But what about the ones in Durban, Polokwane & Nelspruit? Well it depends what SARU, SAFA and other sport organisation do but there are dangers that at least 2 of them at least may prove to be expensive white elephants.
Was it worth it? How do you define worth it because there is more to it than just cash spending vs cash received. The goodwill and excitement generated by this WC also needs to be taken into consideration.
All in all I think it was worth it. For sure we have problems as the above article mentions - and many of them are serious - but I guess you needed to be here to see what the WC brought to SA.
So yes I'm glad we had the chance to host it and to show the rest of the (a sometimes sceptical) world what we could do.
|
|
|
Post by saphilip on Jul 11, 2010 9:47:27 GMT
going back to Warnock's article let's be clear about one thing. Both SGE & SM were criticised for their too relaxed and sometimes too friendly attitude with the England team. Now FC is being criticised for being too strict.
So now we know why England have "underperformed" in recent tournaments. They were either too relaxed or were too tense and we must blame the coaches for that. Huh?
Well hello? What about the players themselves? I suspect we had a case of too many prima donnas, who believed all the hype & BS that the media threw in their direction - but were then found hopelessly wanting when the WC arrived.
I see there seems to be a lot of people mentioning good old "Arry as being the saviour of England now. Again it makes no sense, one decent season at Spurs and anothe good o at Pomopey (ironically now blamed in part for Portsmouth's recent troubles) does not make Redknapp an international coach.
This guy is a coaching mercenary, and if you want any confirmations of my doubts about this guy then ask yourselves this question; Where was 'Arry when it came to replace Steve McLaren and to rebuild the shambles that was the English National team in 2008? How come I never saw him toss his name in the ring, and what makes anybody think he will be any better now?
|
|
|
Post by Markqpr on Jul 11, 2010 10:29:41 GMT
Or more seriously.... Although I do have a vague memory of some board posters disparaging the idea of QPR playing just one up frontThe Guardian - The Question: What have been the tactical lessons of World Cup 2010?Spain have adopted the Barcelona formula, which seems to be the way club football is going This has been the tournament of 4-2-3-1. The move has been apparent in club football for some time; in fact, it may be that 4-2-3-1 is beginning to be supplanted by variants of 4-3-3 at club level, but international football these days lags behind the club game, and this tournament has confirmed the trend that began to emerge at Euro 2008. Even Michael Owen seems to have noticed, which is surely the tipping point. Formations, though, are one thing, their employment something else, and what has been noticeable in South Africa has been the vast range of 4-2-3-1s. Spain, when they finally adopted it against Germany, and stopped trying to squeeze Fernando Torres and David Villa into the same side, fiddled with the line of three, pulling Xavi back and pushing Andrés Iniesta and Pedro forward so it almost becomes 4-2-1-3, which seems to be the route club football is taking. It has had very attacking full-backs and has pressed high up the pitch, essentially using the Barcelona formula. There are those who protest at their lack of goals (no side has reached the final scoring fewer) but they are a classic example of a team that prefers to control the game than to become obsessed by creating chances. Perhaps they at times become mesmerised by their passing, perhaps there is even something attritional about it, wearing opponents down until they make the mistake, but it is beautiful attrition. Those who have protested at the modern Holland, and their supposed betrayal of the heritage of Total Football, which is being painted as the ne plus ultra of attacking football, should perhaps look back at the European Cup finals of 1971-73 when Ajax expressed their mastery by holding the ball for long periods. Frankly, if they ever faced a side who took them on rather than sitting eight men behind the ball, we may see a more overtly attacking Spain. Which brings us to Germany. They too play a 4-2-3-1 and, although Philipp Lahm breaks forward occasionally, theirs is essentially a defensive set-up. Here again goals are the great betrayers; it was bewildering how much praise was heaped on their supposedly fresh, open approach just because they scored four goals in three games. This Germany was superb on the counterattack, and the interaction of the front four of Miroslav Klose, Thomas Müller, Lukas Podolski and Mesut Ozil was at times breathtaking. But this was reactive football. In three games, Germany scored an early first goal – against Argentina and England, it was essentially handed to them – and in those games they ruthlessly took advantage of the space opponents left behind them as they chased an equaliser. England, Argentina and Australia all defended idiotically against them, and were severely punished. In the other three games, teams defended decently against them and the early goal didn't arrive surrounded by watercress on a silver salver. In those games Germany managed one goal, and that a wonder-strike from Ozil. Against Spain their poverty of ideas was such they ended up sending the lumbering centre-back Per Mertesacker forward as an auxiliary striker, an idea so bereft of subtlety that the only time I remember it working was when Dennis Smith once sent Gary Bennett forward for Sunderland against Oxford in 1990. Reactivity, in fact, has been a feature of this World Cup, which is one of the reasons the proactivity of Spain is so welcome. It's probably too early to highlight it as a definite trend, for the world seemed headed in a similar direction in 2004 when José Mourinho's Porto won the Champions League and Greece won the European Championship, only for attacking football to return the next season, but with Mourinho's success with Inter, it may be that the great creative boom of the past decade is drawing to a close. Holland and Argentina both effectively played broken teams, the former in a 4-2-3-1, the latter in a 4-3-1-2. Certain players were clearly designated to defend, others to attack, with very little to link them. The allure of the approach is understandable, for with the limited time available to managers it is difficult to develop sophisticated systems (Spain benefit from the fact that so many of their players play for the same club, and that they have essentially played the same way, with minor evolution, for four years), and simplification is desirable. It can be effective, and the way Nigel de Jong and Mark van Bommel have protected Holland's shaky back four has been admirable, but it can render a team static and reliant on the ability of a couple of individuals (Arjen Robben and Wesley Sneijder; Lionel Messi and Carlos Tevez). And if the forwards do no tracking back at all the system can very easily be unsettled by a breaker from midfield, as for instance Bastian Schweinsteiger showed against Argentina. Even Brazil had an element of reactivity about them, often sitting deep, pressing only when the opponent had crossed halfway, and then hitting the space behind them. They played an angled 4-2-3-1 that had the advantage of getting Robinho into an area other 4-2-3-1s found difficult to counteract. Although they capitulated miserably in the second half against Holland, and although they have an utter disregard for the samba stereotype, they have been arguably the strongest side in the world over the past four years, winning the Copa América, the Confederations Cup and finishing top of Conmebol qualifying. That they and Spain never met feels like one of the great missed games. Then there was Ghana's 4-2-3-1, with the five midfielders packed deep and Asamoah Gyan the lonest of lone strikers, only in bursts breaking free with the sort of passing that suggests they might actually be a force in years to come. Japan played a 4-2-3-1 with a false nine, almost embracing their historical lack of midfield flair (and no, two free-kicks, brilliant as they were, plus a goal on the break against Denmark doesn't suddenly make them a creative force, even if Keisuke Honda offers great hope for the future). The rise of 4-2-3-1 has had knock-on effects. Attacking full-backs have become rarer – and the difference in attitude of the respective pairs of full-back is arguably the major difference between the two 4-2-3-1s that will meet in the final. It had seemed that the advance of lone-central-striker systems would spell the end for three at the back, for who needed two spare men? Well, it turns out that teams intent merely on surviving, playing for goalless draws, do, and that's what Uruguay did against France, North Korea did against Brazil, and New Zealand did on a regular basis. Again, that suggests a preparedness to absorb pressure that it's hard to believe wasn't in some way, if not inspired then at least encouraged, by Inter's success in Barcelona. There was evidence that a technically inferior side could, though discipline and industry, endure a prolonged assault. It is that same battle between proactivity and reactivity that will be fought on Sunday; and for once, it is the Dutch who find themselves cast as the destructive force. www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2010/jul/09/world-cup-2010-tactics-the-question I've been saying this or the christmas tree (4-3-2-1) formation ever since we bought Buzsacky. Play him in that formation and give him a free role and he'll be a different player. Continuing to underutilise his talents by playing him out of position and restricting his movement on the pitch will be another wasted season for both him and us. Forget the two-bob-stepover-greedy-git and build our team around Buzsacky. In him we have the potentially best player in the league, we just have to realise it.
|
|