England: The Future's Grim

Whilst the English are currently getting all emotionally confused about their World Cup exit, directing all their anger at Luis Suarez for an incident that didn't even effect them, I'm just going to point out some of the issues that I feel led to England's worst World Cup since 1958. This is the third blog I've written about England and this World Cup now, it's a hatrick, a trilogy, and like England matches in the World Cup, I'm doing three and I'm out. This blog sort of continues on from the last one, so if you want to read the previous blogs the links are below.

Rooney. England. Stuff...

England and the World Cup

I'll just start out by pointing out three teams who are excelling at this World Cup; France, Argentina and Colombia. The reason I mention these teams is because they are all performing well despite missing their top players. France left Samir Nasri out of the squad, Argentina left Carlos Tevez out the squad, and Radamal Falcao was forced to miss the tournament through injury. The English could not understand before the tournament the cases with France and Argentina, because as I mentioned in my last blog the English always think it's necessary to play the biggest names rather than the best teams. Samir Nasri didn't fit the team, so he was left out the squad. Carlos Tevez didn't fit the team, so he was left out the squad. Wayne Rooney didn't do anything playing on the left, so England moved their best player out to the right so Rooney could play in the middle. And still be ineffective.

"Left out of the squad friend"

It takes four years to make up for World Cup mistakes, and unfortunately England are now facing that four year wait. For me there is no argument with England to stick with tried and tested players, because these players have never won anything. In the case of Colombia, without Falcao, James Rodriguez has stepped up to the plate and been a revelation at this tournament. Okay, he wasn't exactly unknown, but if Falcao was fit no one would be talking about him. If England would have done what was necessary, and dropped Rooney from the team, Ross Barkley or Raheem Sterling could have been their James Rodriguez. I said it in my last blog, the World Cup is not the time to play it safe, it's the time to take risks. It lasts one month, and then it's gone for four years.

James Rodriguez scoring the goal of the tournament

After giving three examples of teams who have done well at the World Cup without star names, I'll give you an example of three clubs who went out in the group stages: Spain, England and Portugal. And all three of them have the same issue, not knowing when it's time to move on. You can let Spain off, because their players are proven winners, but England had no excuse. The fact the English are even blaming not taking Ashley Cole and not taking John Terry for their failure just shows that things are unlikely to ever change as well, hence the title of this blog.

The other issue I have with that is that I feel England did not under perform at the World Cup because of their defence, they lost games because of their attack. Like Spain and Portugal, England stuck religiously to a 4-2-3-1 formation. This formation is just a defensive managers way of disguising a defensive system as an attacking one. Roy Hodgson is a defensive manager, and he only plays one attacker. Even in the must win game against Uruguay, Hodgson didn't bring on a second striker until the 87th minute. Every substitution Hodgson made at the World Cup was a like for like, in the sense it was one player off and his replacement played in exactly the same position. He can't change a game as he only has one way of playing, but he can always use the reasoning that he played four attackers because of that formation. But 4-2-3-1 just doesn't work like that, the majority of the time Daniel Sturridge was isolated up front. The only game England looked remotely dangerous in was against Italy when Sterling was playing in the middle of the attacking three, and that's just because he's that good, and also his pace meant England could counter attack, which is one of the very few weapons a defensive team has. England were at their very best in the tournament when Sterling and Ross Barkley were both on the pitch against Italy. And that was as brave as Hodgson got, he went back to his defensive ways against Uruguay.

The future

And somehow Roy Hodgson has managed to keep his job. He's lucky, because he's pretty much guaranteed to qualify for Euro 2016 because the amount of teams in the tournament has been extended, so that will buy him some time. But I still think England will only qualify in third place after a play-off. Will England win Euro 2016 though? Not a chance, I imagine they will struggle to get out the group again. And what will the future hold then? Well in four years time I'll probably be writing a new blog about England, writing about how they failed so miserably at Russia 2018, with Rooney as captain.

@adamheath

Suarez In Context

I've seen a lot of people wondering why the Uruguayan FA are so upset about the Suarez decision. Well it's because the Uruguayan's look at the incident in the context of the game of football and not with the sensationalist and agenda driven attitude of the English.

Suarez biting someone is terrible, but the punishment he received is far inflated from anything else that has happened recently in football, and Uruguay can see this. For example, a few seasons ago Pepe of Real Madrid and Portugal kicked another player in anger whilst he was on the floor. At this World Cup Pepe head butted another player. Pepe's punishment was a one match regular red card ban. If previous behaviour is a grounds for Suarez to receive such a punishment, why is the same campaign for suspension not being launched by the English against Pepe? Is kicking someone on the floor and head butting someone not as bad as biting them? Of course, if Pepe had scored two goals to knock out England then head butted someone in the next game, it might have been...

Likewise, Pepe plays for Real Madrid, but no one is telling Madrid they should sell him because of his behaviour. But Real Madrid wouldn't do that anyway, because they're the biggest football club in the world, and they don't sell their players due to public pressure. Especially not pressure from fans of other teams and outside media.

As a Liverpool fan, it kills me to say this, but probably the second biggest football club in the world is Manchester United. Manchester United have had players who were victims of similar media campaigns as Luis Suarez. In the 2006 world cup, Cristiano Ronaldo got Rooney sent off and then winked. This wink, like Suarez bite, was given far more importance than it should have by the English media, and Ronaldo became the subject of a hate campaign with the English media blaming him for the country's exit from the competition. United were being told to sell Ronaldo, the press were reporting that Rooney and Ronaldo would never play together again. But did United buckle under this media pressure? No. Because they're one of the biggest clubs in the world and they don't sell their best players. United rode the storm and kept hold of Ronaldo, Rooney didn't have a problem with playing with him, and he went on to win a few league titles and the European cup with them before being sold for an £80mil record transfer fee.

This isn't the only time United have stuck by players who have brought controversy to the club. They stuck by Cantona when he was banned for karate kicking a fan, and went on to win the double with him. They stuck by Ferdinand when he had a nine month ban for missing a drugs test and he went on to win a fair few league titles and the European Cup with them. They stuck by David Beckham when he was blamed for England's World Cup exit in 1998 after kicking out at Diego Simeone and we all know how he turned out. The biggest clubs don't sell their best players.

Speaking of the David Beckham incident in 1998, this brings me on nicely to my next point. The English always need a scapegoat. However, at this World Cup, there's no one to blame for their terrible performance. There's no sly Portugese who got England's star man sent off, there's no young, stupid boy who got himself sent off in a moment of madness, there's no missed penalties or goalkeeping mistakes. And then what happens, the man who scored the two goals that knocked England out the tournament goes and bites someone. We haven't got a scapegoat so lets put all the attention on that.

The English love a villain. England is the only footballing country in the world that still considers Maradona a villain, and they will even turn on their own as in the case of David Beckham. The Suarez biting incident took place in a game didn't even effect England, yet they're the only ones who are outraged. Even the Italians aren't bothered, because like the Uruguayan's they view what Suarez did in the context of football. Getting Suarez to do what he did is the Italians speciality. In the 2006 World Cup final Zinedine Zidane was pulling the strings, so what do the Italians do? Wind him up until he flips, then capitalise by beating a Zidaneless France. And now in 2014, down to ten men themselves, the Italians pin point Uruguay's biggest threat and get him to lose it. Unfortunately (for them) the ref didn't see it, so they couldn't capitalise against ten men. 

In England, the incident has now been blown out of all proportion. People calling for life bans and the like. As the title of this blog mentions context, well let me give you some: On the BBC news tonight the top three stories were Jimmy Savile for years of paedophilia, Rebekah Brooks for phone hacking, and Suarez for biting. This is supposed to be the pinnacle of British journalism.

Liverpool, yet again, just have to ride the storm with Suarez. There's a fine line between genius and madness, and we have to accept that. Anyone who wants to sell him because of this, well people were saying the same after the last biting incident, but it didn't stop them celebrating his goals that took us to our best Premier League finish in years. People who think they're taking the big club attitude by saying "no one man is bigger than the club" are wrong, the big club attitude is that you don't sell your best players, and you don't bow to media pressure. When you do what the media want you to do, you end up with Roy Hodgson as your manager. And believe me, if we were to sell Suarez, the rest of the country and it's media would just see it as a victory for themselves. And fickle as they are, if we sold Suarez and he started banging them in somewhere else, we'd be getting slated for letting him go.

So Liverpool fans, if you're reading this, don't listen to what fans of other clubs are saying, because if it was announced they're club was signing Suarez they'd soon change their mind on him. They're all just jealous. And John Henry, if you're reading this (which I'm sure you are) now wouldn't be a bad time to come out and say Suarez isn't going anywhere, because it would settle the situation, and it would just be hilarious to see the media crying over it. All the best.

@adamheath

Suarez... Again

Yes, again. It does get annoying, always having to talk about negative things Suarez has done. But I do feel some perspective is needed.

Straight off I will say this isn't a defence. Biting someone is wrong, not in football, not anywhere. He shouldn't have done it, simple as, and he should be punished for it. But I feel there's been an overreaction, and I can't understand the campaign to get Suarez a massive ban.

Last night I posted this tweet. I'll go into more detail about what I meant by it here, because it's hard to explain on twitter:

The way I see it, biting is not a problem in football. Suarez has done it three times, no one else has done it, no one is copying him. Biting isn't a trend that's sweeping across football. The outcome of a football match has never been effected by someone being bitten. When I heard Suarez had bitten Chiellini I didn't think "Italy have been cheated" or "this has ruined the world cup" I just thought "what an idiot he's going to get banned again."

During every match at this World Cup, players are diving, play acting, trying to get opposition players sent off. Basically cheating. Stuff like this, that annoys me more than Suarez biting someone. That ruins the game that I love. Yet no one seems to be bothered about this. If the same vendetta went into getting players banned for stuff like this as it has for Suarez biting we could improve the game of football as a whole.

Banning Suarez for two years or something like that will not improve the game. The game will still be the same because biting isn't an issue in football. There are more important things in my opinion. The only thing it will do is take away one of the most exciting players in football.

If all of this fuss had been over cheating, I'd agree with it because that is ruining the game. If it had been over racism, I'd agree with it because that is ruining the game. If it had been over match fixing or corruption, I'd agree with it because that is ruining the game. But over a bite? Seriously? Ban him for the rest of the World Cup and move on.

@adamheath

England and the World Cup

Even though I've written a couple of blogs about the subject and talked about it quite a lot on twitter, I'm actually not that bothered about international football or England. When the World Cup is on I change between calling them "us" or "we" and calling England "them". Sometimes I feel a connection with them, sometimes I don't. Well, most of the time I don't. It's hard to support a team with players you hate for the rest of the season. However, the current England squad is made up of a lot more players that I actually like than previous ones. With one exception... Rooney.

Gobshite

I don't just dislike Rooney because he's a Manchester United player though, it's because Rooney sums up everything that's wrong with the national team. It would be a lot easier to support England if it felt like they were doing things properly to give themselves the best chance of succeeding, but they just don't.

I've pointed out on many occasions that I don't think that Wayne Rooney is a good player. He definitely isn't the English Messi or Ronaldo that the people of this country make him out to be. One of the biggest problems with England is that they always push the wrong players and turn them into heroes. It's the reason why Paul Gascoigne is an English hero when a far better player than him like John Barnes isn't. Gazza was great, but John Barnes is world renowned. It's the same with Rooney now, he's been elevated to a level in this country but if you ask the rest of the world they just don't think he's that good, he hasn't had an impact on that stage. It's like that scene in Mike Bassett where they're interviewing Pele about who will win the World Cup and no matter how much they hint at it he won't say England. The rest of the world is Pele and England is asking them who they think the world's best players are, and they're going down the list naming Messi, Ronaldo, Ibrahimovic and after about thirty players England is like "what about Rooney?" and the rest of the world is like "Rooney? Well he's okay I suppose."

"Rooney?"

I've already mentioned John Barnes and I'm criticising Rooney, so this may seem like a little bit of Liverpool bias, and that may be the case, but... For the past decade or so the best English player has been by far Steven Gerrard. Unlike Rooney, Gerrard is a player renowned across Europe. At one time even Zinedine Zidane said every top club in Europe would have signed him. Has anyone ever heard of a major European team wanting to sign Rooney by the way? With Gerrard, England should have built the team around him a long time ago. After the 2002 World Cup in fact, I think it became quite clear that Gerrard was the best English player. Yes, Rooney was fantastic at Euro 2004, it was his best tournament in an England shirt, but he wasn't the type of player you could build a team around. 

I can't understand why England didn't spot the potential with Gerrard though. It's like one day the FA were having a meeting about the future of England and they were all in agreement that the team should be built around Gerrard, but then one person was like "but what about Frank Lampard?" And the rest of them said "what about him?" And that one person was like "well he plays in exactly the same position as Gerrard, and he's not as good as him, but why don't we play both of them?" And somehow they were all persuaded, and what followed was a decade of attempting to play two players together in the same team who clearly didn't work and basically cutting the English nose off to spite it's face.

A decade together. Still shite

Rooney and Lampard are like the ugly sisters of football and the rest of the world is Prince Charming. England are trying to sell it's ugly sisters to Prince Charming, but Prince Charming has seen Cinderella Steven Gerrard in the corner and is like "I don't give a shit about them, there's a worldy over there." I've just compared the English football to Cinderella, fuck me right? 

The problem with international football is you don't have enough games to experiment like you do with club football. I'm going to have to do another Liverpool related comparison here, so I'm sorry to any none Liverpool fans but it's just what I know best. When Liverpool signed Robbie Keane, they tried to play him in the team with Fernando Torres. They tried playing the two together up until Christmas but it just didn't work. Robbie Keane was a big name, he cost a lot of money, but he wasn't as good as Fernando Torres, so he was the one who had to go. With England, Lampard is the Robbie Keane to Gerrard's Fernando Torres. However, with international football you don't have the time to keep trying to make it work. Liverpool gave Keane and Torres up until Christmas. If you say that's 19 league games, plus some cup games it's about 25 games to try and make it work. In international football 25 games could be 4 years, you just can't wait that long. They should have cut Lampard from the team a lot earlier.

The reason I make this point is because the World Cup only comes around once every four years. Once it's gone, it's gone. England were making the mistake of playing Gerrard and Lampard together, along with trying to accommodate other players, going out of the World Cup, then waiting four years only to make the same mistakes again! With this World Cup now, there is a lot of talk about whether to play Rooney and other so called experienced players. My first argument is what are they experienced in? They've never won an international tournament and they've failed to qualify for one in 2008. Secondly, once the World Cup is over it's gone for four years. This isn't the time to be thinking "let's play it safe", this is the time to be thinking let's mix it up and see how far we can go.

All of them except Rooney please

Personally, at this World Cup I think England should play Wilshere, should play Barkley, should play Henderson, should play Sterling, should play Lallana and so on. Give these players a chance. One of the most common things you hear at the moment is "the back four picks itself" and that's an absolute blessing. Players like Cahill, Jagielka and Baines fucking deserve their chance after England stuck for years with the three tossers at the back who never won anything. It's just a shame they haven't been forced into the rest of the team picking itself. The only senior player I want to see is Gerrard, and again you may say it's Liverpool bias but I also think he deserves it after the way he's been treated by England. Even at the last World Cup he was playing left midfield to accommodate Lampard, and he should have been captain in 2006 he shouldn't have had to wait as long as he did.

Anyway, that's just a few thoughts about England and the World Cup, and I'll finish by saying I'd be happy to see "us" lift the World Cup if "we" do the right thing at the tournament. But if "they" continue with the same crap "they've" been pulling for the last 15 years I won't have to worry about "them" lifting it anyway.

@adamheath