The Beautiful Groan

Holland are seriously good. You have to love a side that responds to pressure by throwing on more strikers in a ‘you might score, but we’ll score two’ style.

The other three top seeds - Austria, Switzerland and Greece, were abysmal. It is often said that the European Championships have a greater quality of football than the World Cup. Not on this showing.

Spain might look good, but they will bottle it. Would it honestly surprise you if Italy knocked them out on Sunday?

France were dreadful, truly dreadful. From the sulkiness to the laziness, you had Domenech’s ineptness, Makalele’s flailing elbows, no creativity, weaknesses in defence, everything was just all wrong.

Russia are a completely different team with Arshavin available.

Petr Cech really needs to drop the ball more with Chelsea, just for amusement sake.

Sweden are not what they once were. Old, tired, and lacking in ideas against Russia, they were duly dispatched.

There is not a more colourful or more likable manager in international football than Slaven Bilic. Croatia could beat anyone on their day.

Germany always do what is required to qualify. Why they are underdogs against Portugal tonight is beyond me given their history of doing exactly what they are doing now.

Expect some tight quarter finals - there is not a walkover in sight.

England would’ve been dumped out in the group stages had they qualified.

You may have heard about the new scenario UEFA have created when teams who are level on points cannot be split them on goal difference or goals scored. In Group A, this is taking shape with Czech Rep and Turkey both sitting with three points, two goals and three against. If they draw their last match, qualification will be decided on a penalty shoot out.

The full rules can be found here, and explain that under normal circumstances, positions are sorted by points, then goal difference, goals scored, and then a coefficient that will always separate them. However, there is a new clause which creates the penalty shoot out possibility:

“If two teams meeting in one of the last group matches have the same number of points, the same goal difference and the same number of goals, and if this match stands at a draw at the end of normal time, then the ranking of these two teams will be determined by kicks from the penalty spot, provided no other teams within the group have the same number of points on completion of all group matches.”

This situation is also appearing in Group C, thanks to Holland’s fourth goal against France, which left the French with one point, one goal, and four against, just like Italy, who drew with Romania earlier in the day. With them meeting on the final day, a draw would again invoke this clause and produce a shoot out (unless Romania lose and have the same number of points as them).

So, if Romania avoid defeat, and Italy and France draw, Romania will qualify, with Italy and France dead level in third. How do third and fourth get decided? Technically, they will have to play out a shoot out despite the knowledge that they are both already out. That would certainly be a first.

And they would have to do it, for betting purposes alone. For example, I genuinely have a bet on France finishing third in their group. If both games end in a draw, do France come third? Or fourth? Do I win my bet? And who, out of Italy and France, currently sits third? Who sits bottom?

Answers on a postcard…

Holland are awesome when they play as a team

Spain are potentially even more frightening

Both teams, however, are just as capable of being hopeless, and in a cup format, probably neither will win

Especially Spain, who for all their great attacking talent, were poor defensively

Austria, Switzerland and Greece are the worst top seeds in tournament history

Germany are an efficient, well oiled machine, and are deservedly favourites

England were hopeless under McLaren - Croatia look average, Russia awful

Slaven Bilic is a talented and entertaining coach, though

Zlatan Ibrahimovic is world class, so why is he rubbish so often?

Raymond Domenech is a hopeless tactician - two defensive midfielders against a ‘park the bus’ side?

Italy’s defence is pretty woeful without Cannavaro

Freddie Ljungberg is fit again. West Ham fans must be confused to see him run so much

No-one understands the offside rule anymore

If you’ve got an attacking set piece against Holland, be very afraid

Outside Group C, this tournament won’t get going until the knockout stages

Winner: Germany

Twelve years since their last tournament victory, the Germans consider themselves overdue, and their status as favourites is well earned. They’ve got a powerful midfield, a decent defence, and a dangerous strike partnership in Klose and Podolski. They’ve got the simplest of groups, and should cruise through as winners, and play the Czechs or the Swiss in the quarter finals.

Dark Horse: Switzerland

Many are suggesting that Austria and Switzerland are the worst host nations ever to hold a major tournament, but then they said the same about the South Korean side that reached the semis of the World Cup six years ago. For me, Austria are dreadful, but Switzerland are underrated. With a decent defence, Barnetta running the midfield and Frei leading the line, they can surprise a few in front of their own support. I’d be surprised to see them go out early.

Top Scorer: Podolski, Germany

Germany have a habit of scoring plenty in group stages and bullying the smaller teams - witness their 8-0 demolition of Saudi Arabia six years ago. They’re in a weak group, and Podolski showed throughout the qualifying campaign that he knows where the back of the net is.

Early Leavers: France

In a group of death with Holland and Italy, one of the three has to go, and despite widespread predictions of that team being Holland, I could see France having another short lived campaign, much like the two they had prior to the 2006 World Cup. A loss to the Dutch, and a draw against Italy unable to save them perhaps.

What are your predictions?

Euro 2008 is coming up, and predictably, with England not in it, the spotlight has once again come down on the perceived lack of English players in the Premiership. In an article which shows just how statistics can be warped, the BBC claims a ‘dramatic slide’ in those available to Capello.

They begin the article with a graph, showing how the number of English starters has changed over the last eight years. Here it is:

Looks pretty dramatic, doesn’t it? Except when you look closely, you’ll notice that there only appears to be a big drop because of the scale used, with the number of players only ranging from 160 to 208 on the axis. I distinctly remember being taught at school that graphs should not be exaggerated in this way.

But let’s look at the numbers. Five years ago, the number of English starters was 179. This season, 170. Hardly a dramatic drop, nine players in five years. In fact, this year’s drop comes off the back of four years of climbing, despite what the Daily Mail would tell you about ‘forriners taking ah jobs’.

All this completely misses the point. 170 English players is plenty, Capello needs a small fraction of those. It doesn’t matter if there used to be 500 (there never were, incidentally), it isn’t the best players that are missing out, it is those that were never good enough to get near the national side anyway. Those that remain should benefit from playing with quality rather than substandard leftovers.

For England to be successful, the top twenty or so need to be of a high quality, and performing as a team. The former is aptly demonstrated by the fact that there were ten English players in the Champions League final, and the latter is Capello’s job.

There are no excuses. If England fail, it is not the fault of the clubs, it is the fault of the players (who are good enough), and the management team. No-one else.

Sometimes you read an article or a newspaper column and nod along, agreeing with the good points being made. Sometimes you don’t agree with the arguments, but understand the point of view.

And sometimes you read a column and wonder how on earth such moronic opinions could ever earn someone a pay packet for writing them. Come on down, Paul Parker.

I’ve long since disagreed with most of his columns, which are generally written to provoke, in the same way that so much of NewsNow is taken up with dramatic and misleading headlines. But this article takes the proverbial biscuit, coming up with ’solutions’ to the England debacle.

Here are his genius ideas:

1. Pick the right man for the job

Couldn’t agree more. We all know McLaren wasn’t the right man, the next choice must be a wise one. So Parker, in his infinite knowledge, makes his choice:

“Alan Shearer may be a 16-1 outsider, but he certainly gets my vote. I appreciate that he is inexperienced in terms of managing a team, but the players he will be working with do not need any more coaching - they are already good enough.”

England need a strong manager, someone who makes tough decisions and says things as he sees them. Shearer, judging from his punditry, has a backside full of splinters from all the fences he sits on. He is dull, uninspiring, and would pander to the media.

As for the notion that the players are ‘already good enough’, Parker must be living in the same deluded world as some of these so-called ’superstars’. Was he not watching on Wednesday night?

2. Limit the number of foreigners in the game

Ah, here we go again. Never mind the fact that these foreigners have added so much to the English game, taught the homegrown players skill and craft, and changed the style with which football in this country is played, Parker and his band of Little Englanders insist on blaming them for the shortcomings of the national team.

This argument is so transparent that it is incredible it is given any credence, yet it is repeated ad nauseatum as if nothing could be more obvious.

There are 355 English players registered with the twenty Premiership clubs. Granted, most of these are reserves, but there are still plenty in and around the respective first teams. It is a much misrepresented fact that foreigners have pushed Englishmen out of our top teams, when in reality, they have mostly replaced the Welsh, Scottish and Irish. When you begin to examine the figures, they show quite clearly that there are still plenty of homegrown players available at the top, not the sharp decline the press would have you believe.

And so what if it is more difficult for a journeyman player to make it in the Premiership? They are not the sort of player England looks to. If the number of English regulars reduces from 100 to 50, how does that matter? Those that miss out are those not good enough, and the top talents still make it, benefiting from playing with the best players from overseas, rather than the inadequate also-rans.

The only way a top club can harm the English national team is by buying the top talent and not playing them. Yet Chelsea, for their treatment of Shaun Wright-Phillips, are vilified far less than Arsenal, whose lack of English players therefore does not affect the national side one iota.

Steven Gerrard’s comments about reducing the number of foreign players in the league are ludicrous when you look at the Liverpool squad, complete with average players from overseas, while xenophobic and lazy opinions such as Parker’s are borne simply of a desperation to blame anyone but our own.

I thought Britain was proud of being multicultural and open?

3. Address the silly money in today’s game

Good luck with that one - football is a massive business. Television companies make extraordinary sums from their coverage, and thus pay top dollar for the privilege. With that money flowing through the game, the players are right to feel, as the product, that they deserve a large cut of it. It is the simple law of supply and demand.

Besides, there is a myth in the country that footballers are the richest sportsmen on the planet. Have you seen the salaries of top baseball and American football players recently?

“Money changes everything and when huge rewards are laid on a plate for players, it is all too easy to become idle”

The gap between the salaries of the top players, and those behind them, is astronomical. So conversely, the financial reward of being at the top is surely a great motivation for getting there?

4. Scrap academies

For his final point, Paul Parker finally and completely loses the plot.

“Scrapping academies can only have a beneficial effect in the future. Kids of 10 or 11 do not want to be forced into playing or training three times a week; they love the game because they love winning and playing with their mates”

Does this not say everything about the character of footballers in this country? His argument that players should not actually be trained to play football, but should lark about with friends and learn next to nothing, is ludicrous. Players from abroad are honing their skills at this crucial early age, learning technique and precision. Ours are running around like headless chickens, being taught to ‘give it 110%’.

If ‘kids of 10 or 11′ want to make it as top class footballers, they have to be willing to train or play three times a week. And if they truly love the game, surely they’ll love getting better at it?

“By forcing them to train at academies in a regimented atmosphere, all the fun is taken out of the game; how then are they supposed to develop into top players?”

How exactly will they turn into top players if the don’t train? And surely a down to earth young footballer wouldn’t lose interest in the game simply because someone was teaching them how to pass the ball along the ground instead of hoofing it up to their tallest friend?

And then, as a coup de grace, Parker concluded as follows:

“I used to train once a week when I was a kid - the likes of Matt Le Tissier did the same, and he turned out alright”

Holding Matt Le Tissier up as an example of a footballer with the right attitude, who reached the peak of his abilities because he never lost enthusiasm for the game?

As I remember it, Le Tissier was one of the most naturally gifted footballers to grace these shores in decades, but never fulfilled his massive potential because, quite honestly, he couldn’t be bothered.

If his is the attitude we want to instill in our young players, we’d better get used to the mediocrity we saw this week.

I’ve listened a lot of people’s opinions on who should become the next England manager, and their reasoning behind their choices, and I’m left to ask one question:

Why is the automatic assumption made that the requirements for club and international management are the same?

Let’s look at a couple of the names that I’ve heard come up.

Harry Redknapp

Various people have suggested Redknapp as a viable candidate, based on his success story with Portsmouth. Now I think he’s doing a tremendous job at Fratton Park - he has turned a struggling Premiership side into one that will probably be playing in Europe next season. Since their great escape in the Premiership 18 months ago, they have only amassed more points than anyone outside the ‘Big Four’.

But what is this success based upon? From what I can see, Redknapp is a master wheeler-dealer, a genius in the transfer market who assembles a powerful and athletic squad, with no small sprinkling of skill, on a relatively modest budget.

But as an international coach, he would be stuck with the players he has. He couldn’t effectively trade them in for bargain models as he does at his club.

Arsene Wenger

Bear with me here, but I don’t think Wenger would be a successful England manager. Firstly, the expectations on him would be huge based upon his record at Arsenal, expectations which would be almost impossible to achieve.

But think about how Wenger operates. He scours the world for a certain type of player - quick, athletic, strong in body and mind, intelligent, articulate - and signs them at an early age. Then, he and his team train them in the Arsenal way, before giving them a chance to prove themselves on the biggest stage. And because his initial judgement is generally so accurate, many of these players become superstars.

But he wouldn’t be able to do any of that for England. He would be unable to find even a couple of teenagers fitting the mould he is after, he would not be with them for long enough to mould them into his way of thinking, and on the most part, those players available to him lack precisely the attributes he values so highly. That’s why there are so few Englishmen around the Arsenal first team.

How many young England stars come across in interviews as intelligent and modest, down to earth and responsible?

And how many put their excessive diamond studs back in their ears for the cameras, struggle to string a sentence together, and then drive home in their Bentleys?

How many of them love possession of the football and are capable of playing the open attractive football Wenger would crave? These English players reach 17-18 with less skill and finesse than most of the 14 year olds Wenger sees at club level, and they’re supposed to be the great hope of the nation?

Wenger would find international management incredibly frustrating in comparison to the free reign he has now, to mould the best players he can find into the footballing dream he strives for. He is wise not to touch the job with a bargepole.

So who would be good?

When choosing an international manager, you are not looking for a man with the ability to spot a cheap diamond in the transfer market. You do not need a man who can sell players at their peak price and replace them for 20% of the cost.

You need a tactician, a motivator, a manager who can react to the game unfolding in front of him with clever substitutions, a man who recognises young talent in the country and introduces them at the right time. A man who instinctively knows how to get the best out of players on an individual basis, and how to construct a team from a bunch of individuals used to opposing each other.

When a manager joins a struggling club, and dramatically improves their fortunes without dipping into the transfer market, they have potential at international level. Such managers are usually at smaller clubs, with success based upon the notion that the team is so much greater than the sum of its parts. Unfortunately, many of those managers, by their very definition, are not working with the sort of ego you get around the England setup.

So what do you need? In essence, a manager who can get the best out of average players, but will not tolerate ego and underachievement. He must be his own man, unafraid to drop the players who, despite their celebrity status, aren’t performing.

In other words, the FA were stupid to turn down Martin O’Neill when he was available and interested.

Today, he ruled himself out of the race. So the search must go abroad, because no matter how much the Daily Mail promote their Little Englander notions, there is simply no-one else with the required attributes anywhere in Britain.

Fabio Capello is interested, experienced and bloody minded. He can cope with egos, having managed the dysfunctional Real Madrid to success, and he wouldn’t flinch at the prospect of axing the famous names.

So in what new and creative way will the FA mess this one up?

The shortest managerial reign in England’s history came to it’s inevitable end this morning as Steve McLaren was unanimously fired by the FA.

Watching last night was a surreal mix between an extremely painful yet hilarious experience. All the time, while being gutted that we’d miss out next summer, I had that comforting feeling that at least McLaren hadn’t got away with it. This had been such a disaster from the start that we surely could not delude ourselves any longer.

Oh yes we could.

Steven Gerrard thinks we played well last night. David Beckham thinks we were unlucky, and most bizarrely, Frank Lampard was awarded man of the match when for the first half, I wasn’t sure whether he was even on the field.

It was the manner of the defeat that made the team a laughing stock, and provided a stark contrast with Croatia, who, although a decent side, are no world beaters. They passed effectively, kept possession, whereas half of the English side were struggling just to get the ball under control.

Bilic was animated, encouraging and instructing his players, while McLaren sat passively under an umbrella, watching cluelessly as his players imploded in front of him, playing a predictable and repeated game of ‘play a few simple passes on the halfway line, then lump it forward’.

England’s only hope now is that this will be looked back upon as a turning point, the moment at which the players realised they aren’t the world beaters they are made out to be, and the FA figured out that the game in this country is in turmoil. The Premiership is thriving, but at the lower levels, and the youth levels in particular, the wrong kind of teaching is taking place. In Spain, fifteen year olds have learnt to love the ball, wanting it and using it effectively. In England, those same players are taught to run around manically and get rid of the ball as soon as possible.

No doubt there will be an analysis of where it all went wrong, and after a couple of days of blaming McLaren and the players, the media will, as ever, convince themselves that the players are still awesomely talented and it is the fault of someone else. Probably the foreigners.

Until then, let’s hope that those Chelsea ’superstars’ play as badly for their club as they did for their country last night. They weren’t alone, in fact only the much maligned Peter Crouch played respectably, but it is incredible to see them look so good most weeks and then so inept last night.

I’m just so glad none of those players are playing for Arsenal week in, week out. They simply aren’t good enough.

Can someone answer me a very simple question - why should anyone feel any differently about the respective talents of Stsve McLaren and the England team now, than they did before Saturday’s surprise win for Israel?

On Saturday, the papers were full of debate about whether McLaren should get sacked, coupled with an analysis of where it all went wrong. Many came to the conclusions that a) McLaren is an average manager who found his level at Middlesborough and should never have been allowed to get the job, and b) our players are perhaps not the collection of world beaters we claim them to be.

The arguments are compelling. McLaren is essentially a poor man’s Sven, ironic given how quickly people wanted rid of the Swede, while Gerrard, Lampard, Terry and Rooney, our most gifted players, look shadows of their club selves playing for the national team, away from the excellent support of their more talented teammates.

It seemed that, at last, English football might look inwards for the problem, rather than finding something or someone else to blame. There would of course be moaning about the plastic pitch and Johnny Foreigner, but the voice of reason would have to win out. And with the experiment of plumping for the best available English manager deemed a complete disaster, maybe sense would finally prevail.

And then, out of nowhere, Croatia and Russia both lost. Suddenly, the players were being talked up again, as one of the favourites for next summer’s tournament.

First off, that smacks of arrogance, as if qualification is already assured, when a point against a very decent Croatian side is still required. But do we not learn? We haven’t got near a final in a long time, and the brand of football we play is uninspiring and not in the slightest bit threatening.

But what confuses me most is that, listening to Five Live, they are now praising McLaren. What for? He has done precisely nothing since those same analysts were against him.

It seems to me that the most impressive thing McLaren has done since be in charge is simply to be in the right place at the right time for his get out of jail free card.

They aren’t very good.

Their European Championship qualifying group really isn’t very hard. Croatia are average, Russia are fairly poor, and no-one else deserves a mention.

Yet after tonight’s defeat in Russia, England will fail to qualify if the Russians beat Israel and Andorra in their final two matches.

The performance was poor, and uninventive. If England were to play in the Premiership, they would be mid table at best.

I’d take foreign talents for our club any day of the week.