Tuesday, July 06, 2004
Another thought, in response to what appears to be a general sentiment of "it's sour grapes to denigrate the Greece victory" in Euro 2004. One of the reasons for fearing a descent into very defensive football, as became prevalent from the late 1970s to the mid 90s, is that conceding the first goal becomes increasingly important. This reinforces even more defensive caution and tends to build teams that find it hard to score at all.It seems to me that a true champion should be able to recover from falling behind. Greece did come back from a goal down to Spain and got one back after falling down two to Russia. So, a mixed verdict but I'm sceptical that Greece would have recovered had any of the early chances gone in for either Czech or Portugal. For my money, the team that impressed me the most was Czech. They would have made champions you could feel good about. My picks for a best-of team: Nikopolidis (Greece), Seitaridis(Greece),Campbell(Eng),Ujfalusi(Cz), Cole (Eng), Nedved(Cz), Maniche(Por),Davids(Neth),Zidane(Fr)(not what he was but still all-round one of the best),Baros(Cz),van Nistelrooy(Neth).
Monday, July 05, 2004
While congratulations are in order to the Greek football team and its legions of fans, who are among the best, in terms of knowledge and good-natured passion, on becoming the European champions, this bodes ill for the next trends in football.
Like all other sports, football’s practitioners fall into fads. This is just the sports version of the herd-like behaviour of corporations. Just as businesses have gone through the waves of the Harvard Business School inspired interchangeable cogs theory of management, the Peters and Waterman “excellence” theory, and the “reengineering” theory which is now on the wane, football has seen both evolution and cyclical behaviour. In football there will always be the issue of balance between individualism and adherence to “team concept”. At the same time, the game has evolved as pay and professionalism have advanced, which has seen greater speed, fitness and higher levels of technical skill.
Superimposed on these trends, which have their origins in the very nature of the game and of professional sport in contemporary culture, respectively, have been fads. The most obvious are the “systems”, beloved of the natterers of football small-talk, 4-2-4, 4-4-2, the “diamond” etc.. All BS. Coaches have to go on about it because it’s the language of their employment. Fundamentally, positional play in football is the same as it ever was. It’s determined by the nature of play. All that has changed has been the addition of defenders to the basic back three and greater fitness and substitution leading to the "filling up" of midfield. It’s also why “man-marking” can never be more than a selective option.
The dark trend presaged by the Greek win is that coaches, to stay in or gain employment are going to find is safer to “go Rehhagel”, which will mean emphasizing “team concept” over individual play. (Call me pigheaded but the Greeks were just luckier. While it’s a mistake to dwell on individual incidents, if you look at the Czech and Portugal games combined, it can only be put down to good fortune that Greece conceded no goals. There were about ten high quality chances, despite the efforts of the admittedly excellent Greek defenders. This would normally yield at least two and up to five goals. I will claim some credit for identifying Nikopolidis as the edge: he was solid and Ricardo outright botched the Greek goal. He as also made heavy weather of the only other chances – two- that Greece made. Terrible keeping.) This, in turn, will lead to a new cycle of defence-oriented football,
We’ve been here before. The World Cups of the 1980s through the resurgence of Brazil in 1994 reflected general trends towards defensive soccer. It was sad to see the Brazil teams of that era, despite the odd memorable player, such as Zico and Socrates. Brazil remains the great hope against the Greek trend. Contrary to the misplaced emphasis on individual stars, Brazilian football is based on the overwhelming creation of goal opportunities, which stems from having superior players. ( I actually think, in general, that far from being "clinical finshers" Brazilians flub more chances than anyone else but they create so many that it doesn't usually matter. Check out all the goals Romario missed in '94: but he was a brillant player who created chances on his own. Look at recordings of 2002 for the many flubs by Rivaldo and Ronaldo.) Incidentally, they are “well-organized” and work hard, too, and are as good defensively as anyone else (a good player is a good player, it’s not magic!) but this is neither why they win nor why they are more entertaining than everyone else. Except when they have met teams with even better talent, like the wonderful French team of '98.That Brazil is not immune from fads, which saw them shackle their superior talent to misplaced “systems”, we have already seen. The stakes are high for the 2006 World Cup!
Like all other sports, football’s practitioners fall into fads. This is just the sports version of the herd-like behaviour of corporations. Just as businesses have gone through the waves of the Harvard Business School inspired interchangeable cogs theory of management, the Peters and Waterman “excellence” theory, and the “reengineering” theory which is now on the wane, football has seen both evolution and cyclical behaviour. In football there will always be the issue of balance between individualism and adherence to “team concept”. At the same time, the game has evolved as pay and professionalism have advanced, which has seen greater speed, fitness and higher levels of technical skill.
Superimposed on these trends, which have their origins in the very nature of the game and of professional sport in contemporary culture, respectively, have been fads. The most obvious are the “systems”, beloved of the natterers of football small-talk, 4-2-4, 4-4-2, the “diamond” etc.. All BS. Coaches have to go on about it because it’s the language of their employment. Fundamentally, positional play in football is the same as it ever was. It’s determined by the nature of play. All that has changed has been the addition of defenders to the basic back three and greater fitness and substitution leading to the "filling up" of midfield. It’s also why “man-marking” can never be more than a selective option.
The dark trend presaged by the Greek win is that coaches, to stay in or gain employment are going to find is safer to “go Rehhagel”, which will mean emphasizing “team concept” over individual play. (Call me pigheaded but the Greeks were just luckier. While it’s a mistake to dwell on individual incidents, if you look at the Czech and Portugal games combined, it can only be put down to good fortune that Greece conceded no goals. There were about ten high quality chances, despite the efforts of the admittedly excellent Greek defenders. This would normally yield at least two and up to five goals. I will claim some credit for identifying Nikopolidis as the edge: he was solid and Ricardo outright botched the Greek goal. He as also made heavy weather of the only other chances – two- that Greece made. Terrible keeping.) This, in turn, will lead to a new cycle of defence-oriented football,
We’ve been here before. The World Cups of the 1980s through the resurgence of Brazil in 1994 reflected general trends towards defensive soccer. It was sad to see the Brazil teams of that era, despite the odd memorable player, such as Zico and Socrates. Brazil remains the great hope against the Greek trend. Contrary to the misplaced emphasis on individual stars, Brazilian football is based on the overwhelming creation of goal opportunities, which stems from having superior players. ( I actually think, in general, that far from being "clinical finshers" Brazilians flub more chances than anyone else but they create so many that it doesn't usually matter. Check out all the goals Romario missed in '94: but he was a brillant player who created chances on his own. Look at recordings of 2002 for the many flubs by Rivaldo and Ronaldo.) Incidentally, they are “well-organized” and work hard, too, and are as good defensively as anyone else (a good player is a good player, it’s not magic!) but this is neither why they win nor why they are more entertaining than everyone else. Except when they have met teams with even better talent, like the wonderful French team of '98.That Brazil is not immune from fads, which saw them shackle their superior talent to misplaced “systems”, we have already seen. The stakes are high for the 2006 World Cup!
Thursday, July 01, 2004
A provisional answer to the question "how far can an average team go on luck?" has been provided by Greece, in Euro 2004. As far as the Final. It remains to be seen if their luck will hold on Sunday.
Greece's offence thoughout the tournament has consisted of crosses, crosses and more crosses, most of them from low-probability positions. However, you send over 40 crosses in a match and maybe you'll get lucky once, which is what happened to Greece - right on the stroke of the 15 minute mark of extra-time. (This exaggerates only slightly. Greece have scored only 6 goals, the last two from crosses. One was a penalty conceded recklessly by Ronaldo and another was a long range shot that crept in because of a goalkeeper error.) Of course, this only works if the other team doesn't score. Despite creating at least four high-probability chances the Czechs were out of luck. The roll of the dice works at that end, too.
The Greeks are thoroughly competent pros and hard-working to boot. But so are England, Denmark and many others, including Russia, who beat Greece on a day when the dice didn't run their way. The Greek keeper is the only one in the tournament who appears to be able to handle the ball cleanly, so he's an edge.
Portugal are a much better team, with a fading superstar Figo, a rising potential superstar, Ronaldo and more general ability than Greece. They should win the Final. Even more so that they lost to Greece in the round-robin.
Two other notes. One, I note that the beeb, predictably harps on about the goalscorer "losing his marker". I refer the reader to earlier posts on this but add that this also misunderstands the technique of marking at soccer. The basic rule is you don't let your mark get behind you - i.e. closer to the goal. This is a sound rule but there are going to be occasions when your mark gets to the ball first and scores. It's bound to happen - but not often, and, crucially, far less than if you let the mark get "goalside" of you. That's what happened. No one lost his mark. It was a combination of luck and - give Dellas credit - a piece of skill with the head.
Which brings me to the observation that Koller, despite his size, is a poor header of the ball. He's quite a paradox. He is skilful with his feet, which is amazing. Yet he wins very few clean balls in the air and does very little with it when he wins one. And I'm not using as a yardstick great headers of the ball - like Andy Lockhead, Derek Dougan, Wyn Davies, etc. - but just average solid pros, like almost all of Koller's opponents today.
Greece's offence thoughout the tournament has consisted of crosses, crosses and more crosses, most of them from low-probability positions. However, you send over 40 crosses in a match and maybe you'll get lucky once, which is what happened to Greece - right on the stroke of the 15 minute mark of extra-time. (This exaggerates only slightly. Greece have scored only 6 goals, the last two from crosses. One was a penalty conceded recklessly by Ronaldo and another was a long range shot that crept in because of a goalkeeper error.) Of course, this only works if the other team doesn't score. Despite creating at least four high-probability chances the Czechs were out of luck. The roll of the dice works at that end, too.
The Greeks are thoroughly competent pros and hard-working to boot. But so are England, Denmark and many others, including Russia, who beat Greece on a day when the dice didn't run their way. The Greek keeper is the only one in the tournament who appears to be able to handle the ball cleanly, so he's an edge.
Portugal are a much better team, with a fading superstar Figo, a rising potential superstar, Ronaldo and more general ability than Greece. They should win the Final. Even more so that they lost to Greece in the round-robin.
Two other notes. One, I note that the beeb, predictably harps on about the goalscorer "losing his marker". I refer the reader to earlier posts on this but add that this also misunderstands the technique of marking at soccer. The basic rule is you don't let your mark get behind you - i.e. closer to the goal. This is a sound rule but there are going to be occasions when your mark gets to the ball first and scores. It's bound to happen - but not often, and, crucially, far less than if you let the mark get "goalside" of you. That's what happened. No one lost his mark. It was a combination of luck and - give Dellas credit - a piece of skill with the head.
Which brings me to the observation that Koller, despite his size, is a poor header of the ball. He's quite a paradox. He is skilful with his feet, which is amazing. Yet he wins very few clean balls in the air and does very little with it when he wins one. And I'm not using as a yardstick great headers of the ball - like Andy Lockhead, Derek Dougan, Wyn Davies, etc. - but just average solid pros, like almost all of Koller's opponents today.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)