Posts
Two of the best teams (indeed one of them the Champions) from Euro 2008 competed in this World Cup qualifier and there was a lot that this game told us about how these teams have progressed (or regressed) since.
Fatih Terim rarely had the luxury of fielding the same squad twice in Euro ’08 and hence the team that played had a touch of familiarity with a face unknown to casual observers thrown into the mix. Mehmet Aurelio, Nihat, Tuncay, Senturk and friends had wowed us all throughout the European showpiece event and they put up a commendable performance against the continental champions in their backyard. In fact, so equal were they in ability and threat to their hosts, that they will be furious that one moment of defensive madness was what led to Spain’s 1-0 win and will be kicking themselves for it.
Both teams lined up in 4-4-2s but how they utilized their personnel had significant differences. Turkey played a more conventional game with Tuncay providing the width on the right and Arda Turan charging down the left. Emre and Aurelio manned the centre of the pitch while Nihat and Sneturk formed the attacking duo. Three of the four in midfield that Spain employed were central midfielders and that is exactly how they played. Xavi, Senna and X Alonso all had a range of passes and were commanding in their roles but were all responsible for relatively small parts of the pitch. Cazorla kept alternating between right and left as the only wide man and Torres and Villa were expected to provide a bundle of goals in front of this strong lineup. A big change for Spain was that their central defensive pairing consisted of Albiol and Piquet and while Marchena had never looked too spectacular for his national team, a personality like Puyol is always going to be missed.
Spain’s win last year was hardly a surprise because not only did they have the best eleven players, but they also had the best functioning team that played with a lot of fluidity and rarely let the opposition trouble them. That was achieved under Luis Aragones, a man imminently difficult to like as much for his personality as for his management skills up until that time. Now, the eminently more affable Del Bosque is in charge who comes across as much more of a winner than Aragones and yet seeing the Spanish team play under him, one was often found to be missing the free flowing Spain of Aragones’ days.
With three players all preferring to stay in deep midfield positions, the fullbacks spent a lot of time pushing forward trying to provide the width. The Turks stayed back in numbers and cut off the long cross field passes made by Alonso, Xavi and Senna and managed to isolate Villa and Torres effectively. In fact, so little threat was posed by the two great strikers that the game was dying for a change in tactics.
Turkey waited patiently to win the ball at the back and then tried to hit on the counter whenever they could. With the Spanish fullbacks spending most of their time upfield, both Arda Turan and Tuncay found enough space to charge forward and bring Nihat and Senturk in the play, often using Emre and Aurelio effectively as link up men. If they were not able to break down the Spanish defense, it was largely down to the fact the Senna and Alonso served as backup defenders for most of the game and the Turkish strikers while being dangerous enough, probably were not in the league to navigate through the obstacles in front of them.
The goal was conceded in the second half in a phase of two minutes of bad defending by the Turks. A long ball played to Torres was held up masterfully by the ace striker and though three defenders tried to take it away from him, he held it long enough to earn a free kick right on the right edge of the opposition box. This was the first lapse that allowed for a set-piece on a dangerous place, but it was pale in comparison to how poor they were in clearing Xavi’s free kick. Xavi floated an inviting ball to the far post and Sergio Ramos was found completely unmarked for a simple tap into goal. Only, Ramos scuffed it and played it right across goal which could potentially have provided two defenders the opportunity to clear the danger. Instead they were both found wanting and the ball reached Piquet who made no mistake with his tap-in (which was quite ferocious for a tap in I must add). Terim was furious and I am sure the players would all be equally disappointed with the effort as after this, though Spain improved with some change in tactics, they did not really come really close to scoring another.
If the championship winning Spanish side had looked good playing in a 4-4-2, they were irresistible when a Villa injury had forced them to go with five in midfield. When Villa was substituted for Mata, the change made Spain more effective. Ramos had been a constant threat on the right but Capdevilla though matching Ramos in energy and ambition had not caused the same amount of trouble to the Turks and hence Mata’s presence on the left added an extra dimension to the Spanish attack. Later David Silva came on for a tiring Cazorla and he provided a similar impetus on the right. Turkey continued to be organized and difficult to break down, but after Silva came on they were pressured enough at the back to find very few chances of going forward.
It ended one nil and Spain managed to sneak it past some very tough opposition. Individually, the players all put in good performances with Sergio Ramos being my man of the match. Though the strikers did not rattle the opposition enough, it is fair to say that a large part of it was down to the good work put in by the entire Turkish team. They will be rightly pleased with the three points and nothing about their results in the qualifiers indicates that they are anywhere lesser than the team that was all conquering last summer. Yet looking at them play last night, it was difficult not to think that something was missing from their armory.
To my mind, the biggest flaw yesterday seemed to be in having not two but three similar players in the middle of the park. Had Xavi been trying to play in the hole behind the strikers, it could have been a different game, but as it was, they seemed to all be playing for the same ball and looking for the same passes ever so often. With Iniesta and Fabregas both being available soon enough for selection, the problem of abundance in that area is only going to grow for Del Bosque. His challenge will be in making hard decisions in keeping some of them on the bench and identifying players who will take some of the load off the full backs as well as be able to get the strikers into play more often.
As for Turkey, they continue to be the team that consistently adds up to more than the some total of its parts. Their performance against Spain confirmed that they are quite capable of rubbing shoulders with the big boys and last year’s run to the semis was not a freak occurring. The goals that Nihat, Senturk and Tuncay score will be critical in ensuring their progress and for the sake of the World Cup, I hope they managed to find those magical strikes again and again and again. They didn’t last night, but maybe if the law of averages means that they miss out on a few games, they picked a good occasion to let it happen.
Showing posts with label WC 2010. Show all posts
Showing posts with label WC 2010. Show all posts
Sunday, March 29, 2009
England v Slovakia, Friendly, March 28
A lot of the pre-game distractions consisted of debating the merits and demerits of including a rarely training, starting-one-game-a-week Ledley King in the England squad. When the dust settled and Ledley was well home for the friendly against Slovakia, Capello’s England still had a job to do, irrespective of who the individuals gracing the team sheet were. The night ended 4-0 for the hosts at Wembley and while the really serious matter for England has to wait till Wednesday, a number of valuable lessons were learnt that will hold them in good stead when the mood turns to competitive from friendly.
It’s a funny situation to be in, but Capello’s only major selection problems are for positions where he has an abundance of talent, namely the centre of midfield. For all other positions, he either has distinctly superior first choice players (centre backs, left back and one striker) or enough non-exceptional ones who may be switched one for the other depending on fitness, form and strategy (goal, right back, right and left midfield when Joe Cole is not available and the other striker).
The Missing Centre Back
Given Rio’s unavailability and King’s return, Upson came in to support Terry as the second centre back and while the English defense was rarely stretched, it was evident that the Hammer’s defender (or for that matter almost anyone else) will be a backup option only. The real toughie for Capello is to spot and identify at least two potential back-ups who would be able to fill in, in case one or both of his first choice pair are unavailable for competitive games and most importantly for the tournament itself, assuming England get there. Upson is gaining valuable experience but he seems a little slow and prone to being pressured into errors. King can be in the World Cup squad if Rio and John are both fit and available, but if calamity strikes and a player who can start every game has to be identified, then I suspect, Capello’s search is still on.
The Lampard-Gerrard Question
The Lampard-Gerrard question was for once effectively answered in the positive, though I am not sure it has been answered once and for all. Lampard had clear instructions to reign in his attacking instincts to a certain extent and Gerrard though chalked in for the left, was allowed the freedom to roam into the centre like he does for his club. The fact that Rooney does not mind going wide (and deep) allowed this approach to work and the two complemented each other like ballroom dancers for some of that first half. Carrick missed out from the starting eleven but from a team point of view, his and potentially Hargreaves’ availability for the midfield, portents very well for England and Capello. If Capello did achieve anything significant in that first half, it was proving that Lampard and Gerrard could be played together, though I suspect he could have replaced Lampard with Carrick and the game would not have known.
The real point of interest for me would be to see, if Lampard can play the role that Gerrard played effectively enough. Joe Cole is often injured and Downing has good positional sense, but with skills that could be clearly bettered. If Lamaprd can do the job that Gerrard did, then it allows Capello to have better players on the pitch in case Gerrard is unavailable for a game or two. However, that is a question that has not been answered yet and hence, I do not expect to see Capello take that option anytime soon even if an unwanted injury to Gerrard may cry for something more impactful than Downing on that left.
The Target Man and the Striker
Emil Heskey has the role of non-scoring striker in Capello’s plans and though he did score England’s opener, his later miss was enough indication that he can be the target man but rarely the finisher. Heskey is probably the best available option against teams when playing the ball on the ground will not always be the smartest thing to do and England are forced to hoof the ball up, but when the game is easily kept in the opposition third, I would prefer to see someone more clinical. Of course, Carlton Cole or Peter Crouch are not necessarily comparable to some of the greatest finishers in the game, but I would rate both higher than Heskey on that count and I also feel, that the team is begging for Michael Owen’s return to fitness and form. At his best, he will score many against light weight teams and though an opposition like Spain may dictate that Heskey starts ahead of him, against the likes of Slovakia (or even Ukraine) it is the Owen kind of player who is needed more than an ox like worker.
Beckham or the Little Three
The right side of midfield is one that is the most open to interpretation and strong feelings. The great Brian Glanville has been openly critical of Capello for handling Beckham cap after cap in substitute appearances, but for once I am compelled to differ from my favorite football writer’s opinions. Lennon showed pace and the ability to get behind the defense and that is a trait we can expect to see from SWP and Walcott as well. However, all three are miles behind the quality that Beckham brings to crosses and time and again it has been evident that if you need strikers to be set up from the right, then you need David Beckham to be playing there. For a moment assuming that the trio of Walcott, Lennon and SWP are interchangeable based on form and fitness, I would tend to prefer Beckham over the other three as with the current Milan loanee, you can be guaranteed of mayhem being caused in the opposition box through well taken set pieces and precise crosses. With the other three you are guaranteed fancy footwork and lots of speed, but the level of impact can vary significantly from game to game, and selecting them is more of a lottery than the dependable ex-captain.
Rooney at Work
Gerrard’s substitution at half time did allow the Liverpool captain some rest ahead of Wednesday, but personally I was disappointed to miss the opportunity of seeing the Rooney-Gerrard pairing operating from the left, supported by Beckham on the right. Rooney’s own approach to the game changed significantly once Gerrard was gone and he tended to play more down the centre, thereby taking away a very potent threat that England had posed for much of the first half from the left.
Rooney was justifiably the man of the match and apart from his two goals, he contributed significantly by dictating how England played in the opposition third. When Gerrard was around, he looked to link up with Gerrard and either created opportunities for the Liverpool man to get behind the fullbacks, or did so himself while letting Gerrard assume the role of creator. Then, in the second half, he chose to collect the ball in the centre and distribute it to Downing or Beckham, almost choosing which of his support men he wanted to come into play. If there is one complaint that I have with his performance yesterday, it is of his reluctance to pass the ball to Beckham when the right sided midfielder was free and wide and well placed to deliver a precise cross. Very often Rooney chose to go with Downing who was invariably better marked or lacked the tools to do much with those opportunities. On other occasions he looked to bring the play narrow by choosing the ask Beckham to run for the ball in the box, thereby exposing Beckham’s lack of speed.
On Defending
After refusing to be more than obstacles till the very early injury to Heskey, Slovakia got a little more into the game and worked hard to keep possession. When they got the ball they tried to come close to the man in possession and always provide passing options to team mates, but invariably when they reached the business end of the field, they found their passing options cut off. Lacking the pace in their legs, the physical presence of their opponents and the precision in their passing, they invariably handed over the ball to England sooner rather than later and England’s composure out of possession was commendable.
There was no desperation to get the ball back the moment it was lost and nothing stupid was done throughout the game. There was the odd error, but by and large they were always well covered. Against mightier opposition they would need to maybe ensure that even the odd slip here and there (one by Upson when he almost let the ball run free in the box and once after a corner when no one came to close the ball down after a variation was played) is cut out as it could prove costly. However, on the whole, England’s approach to defending and regaining the ball when out of position was admirable and I would not be surprised if they become a very hard team to beat even when playing against the best.
Individuals
Gerrard and Rooney were the highlights of the evening and it was easy to single them out. Having said that, almost every England player was shown in a positive light in what was a great team performance. Lampard was amazing in the manner in which he curbed his game and did the job that was expected of him. Both he and Barry (and later on Carrick) kept distribution simple and made very few errors while using the odd opportunity to make a defense splitting pass perfectly. Lennon, who could have done better in offence, was great when it came to defense and his positioning as well as timing of closing down on the opposition were brilliant and won a number of balls back for England.
Ashley Cole was not devastating but played his part in supporting Gerrard and Rooney. Glen Johnson did not take every opportunity available to him to make forward runs, but he compensated for that with a composed defensive performance and some good balls to his attackers over the opposition. Terry and Upson were largely comfortable and David James was attentive on the few occasions he was required to be. Clearly the goalkeeping question will be preying on Capello’s mind, but till an alternative emerges who is fulfilling Capello’s requirements for selection (i.e. a Ben Foster playing every week?) I suspect he will disregard James’ age and the reputation for calamity and stick with him as first choice.
In spite of missing a sitter after scoring a first where he didn’t know too much about the finish, Heskey had an awesome first fifteen minutes and he was in scoring positions on more occasions in that time, than some others would have been over a full ninety. Cole was comparatively silent over his twenty minutes or so, but the Slovak defense had got a little more organized by the time he came in and though England were always dangerous, Cole really did not get enough of a chance to stamp his authority. Crouch did the job he does and had Terry not off-sided his goal bound effort, his match ratings would have been significantly higher, by the time he limped off with injury as well.
What Next
A lot will depend on the extent of injuries that his strikers suffered on the day, but if even one of them is fit enough to start, I expect exactly the same from Capello and England against Ukraine. I also expect that to be more than sufficient for a win, which may or may not be similar in terms of margin but could be exactly the same in terms of comfort. Of course, my pick would be to have Beckham start on the right but I don’t think that is going to happen.
If the strikers are all out with injuries, then Lampard could play behind lone striker Rooney, like they did for the last few minutes of this one. With Rooney’s natural game taking him to many parts of the field other than the opposition box, Lampard would then have to be on the top of his game in terms of his ability to run into the box as well as dominate in the air against a physically strong Ukrainian side. Also, in this case, maybe a Lennon would be a more definite pick ahead of a Beckham, as quick passing and keeping the ball at the feet in the box may prove more useful then looking for headers.
Another three points would put England very comfortably on the road to qualification and that is the least the Capello’s regime is being expected to deliver. From a longer term perspective, there is clearly room for a better keeper, a truly great striker apart from Rooney and maybe even a far more potent right back. Backup players for all positions apart from the centre of midfield could be an issue and if England do qualify, their fate could depend heavily on how many of their first choice players are able to stay fit.
But that is getting a little ahead of ourselves. For now, the only important game is to be played next week and for once, it is easier to predict an English win than a botch up. What has improved since the McClaren era is that England now play like a sum total of the quality of their players and you would expect them to win every game where they enter with superior personnel. That will not be the case against the likes of Brazil and Spain, but next week, it’s all about being better than Ukraine.
It’s a funny situation to be in, but Capello’s only major selection problems are for positions where he has an abundance of talent, namely the centre of midfield. For all other positions, he either has distinctly superior first choice players (centre backs, left back and one striker) or enough non-exceptional ones who may be switched one for the other depending on fitness, form and strategy (goal, right back, right and left midfield when Joe Cole is not available and the other striker).
The Missing Centre Back
Given Rio’s unavailability and King’s return, Upson came in to support Terry as the second centre back and while the English defense was rarely stretched, it was evident that the Hammer’s defender (or for that matter almost anyone else) will be a backup option only. The real toughie for Capello is to spot and identify at least two potential back-ups who would be able to fill in, in case one or both of his first choice pair are unavailable for competitive games and most importantly for the tournament itself, assuming England get there. Upson is gaining valuable experience but he seems a little slow and prone to being pressured into errors. King can be in the World Cup squad if Rio and John are both fit and available, but if calamity strikes and a player who can start every game has to be identified, then I suspect, Capello’s search is still on.
The Lampard-Gerrard Question
The Lampard-Gerrard question was for once effectively answered in the positive, though I am not sure it has been answered once and for all. Lampard had clear instructions to reign in his attacking instincts to a certain extent and Gerrard though chalked in for the left, was allowed the freedom to roam into the centre like he does for his club. The fact that Rooney does not mind going wide (and deep) allowed this approach to work and the two complemented each other like ballroom dancers for some of that first half. Carrick missed out from the starting eleven but from a team point of view, his and potentially Hargreaves’ availability for the midfield, portents very well for England and Capello. If Capello did achieve anything significant in that first half, it was proving that Lampard and Gerrard could be played together, though I suspect he could have replaced Lampard with Carrick and the game would not have known.
The real point of interest for me would be to see, if Lampard can play the role that Gerrard played effectively enough. Joe Cole is often injured and Downing has good positional sense, but with skills that could be clearly bettered. If Lamaprd can do the job that Gerrard did, then it allows Capello to have better players on the pitch in case Gerrard is unavailable for a game or two. However, that is a question that has not been answered yet and hence, I do not expect to see Capello take that option anytime soon even if an unwanted injury to Gerrard may cry for something more impactful than Downing on that left.
The Target Man and the Striker
Emil Heskey has the role of non-scoring striker in Capello’s plans and though he did score England’s opener, his later miss was enough indication that he can be the target man but rarely the finisher. Heskey is probably the best available option against teams when playing the ball on the ground will not always be the smartest thing to do and England are forced to hoof the ball up, but when the game is easily kept in the opposition third, I would prefer to see someone more clinical. Of course, Carlton Cole or Peter Crouch are not necessarily comparable to some of the greatest finishers in the game, but I would rate both higher than Heskey on that count and I also feel, that the team is begging for Michael Owen’s return to fitness and form. At his best, he will score many against light weight teams and though an opposition like Spain may dictate that Heskey starts ahead of him, against the likes of Slovakia (or even Ukraine) it is the Owen kind of player who is needed more than an ox like worker.
Beckham or the Little Three
The right side of midfield is one that is the most open to interpretation and strong feelings. The great Brian Glanville has been openly critical of Capello for handling Beckham cap after cap in substitute appearances, but for once I am compelled to differ from my favorite football writer’s opinions. Lennon showed pace and the ability to get behind the defense and that is a trait we can expect to see from SWP and Walcott as well. However, all three are miles behind the quality that Beckham brings to crosses and time and again it has been evident that if you need strikers to be set up from the right, then you need David Beckham to be playing there. For a moment assuming that the trio of Walcott, Lennon and SWP are interchangeable based on form and fitness, I would tend to prefer Beckham over the other three as with the current Milan loanee, you can be guaranteed of mayhem being caused in the opposition box through well taken set pieces and precise crosses. With the other three you are guaranteed fancy footwork and lots of speed, but the level of impact can vary significantly from game to game, and selecting them is more of a lottery than the dependable ex-captain.
Rooney at Work
Gerrard’s substitution at half time did allow the Liverpool captain some rest ahead of Wednesday, but personally I was disappointed to miss the opportunity of seeing the Rooney-Gerrard pairing operating from the left, supported by Beckham on the right. Rooney’s own approach to the game changed significantly once Gerrard was gone and he tended to play more down the centre, thereby taking away a very potent threat that England had posed for much of the first half from the left.
Rooney was justifiably the man of the match and apart from his two goals, he contributed significantly by dictating how England played in the opposition third. When Gerrard was around, he looked to link up with Gerrard and either created opportunities for the Liverpool man to get behind the fullbacks, or did so himself while letting Gerrard assume the role of creator. Then, in the second half, he chose to collect the ball in the centre and distribute it to Downing or Beckham, almost choosing which of his support men he wanted to come into play. If there is one complaint that I have with his performance yesterday, it is of his reluctance to pass the ball to Beckham when the right sided midfielder was free and wide and well placed to deliver a precise cross. Very often Rooney chose to go with Downing who was invariably better marked or lacked the tools to do much with those opportunities. On other occasions he looked to bring the play narrow by choosing the ask Beckham to run for the ball in the box, thereby exposing Beckham’s lack of speed.
On Defending
After refusing to be more than obstacles till the very early injury to Heskey, Slovakia got a little more into the game and worked hard to keep possession. When they got the ball they tried to come close to the man in possession and always provide passing options to team mates, but invariably when they reached the business end of the field, they found their passing options cut off. Lacking the pace in their legs, the physical presence of their opponents and the precision in their passing, they invariably handed over the ball to England sooner rather than later and England’s composure out of possession was commendable.
There was no desperation to get the ball back the moment it was lost and nothing stupid was done throughout the game. There was the odd error, but by and large they were always well covered. Against mightier opposition they would need to maybe ensure that even the odd slip here and there (one by Upson when he almost let the ball run free in the box and once after a corner when no one came to close the ball down after a variation was played) is cut out as it could prove costly. However, on the whole, England’s approach to defending and regaining the ball when out of position was admirable and I would not be surprised if they become a very hard team to beat even when playing against the best.
Individuals
Gerrard and Rooney were the highlights of the evening and it was easy to single them out. Having said that, almost every England player was shown in a positive light in what was a great team performance. Lampard was amazing in the manner in which he curbed his game and did the job that was expected of him. Both he and Barry (and later on Carrick) kept distribution simple and made very few errors while using the odd opportunity to make a defense splitting pass perfectly. Lennon, who could have done better in offence, was great when it came to defense and his positioning as well as timing of closing down on the opposition were brilliant and won a number of balls back for England.
Ashley Cole was not devastating but played his part in supporting Gerrard and Rooney. Glen Johnson did not take every opportunity available to him to make forward runs, but he compensated for that with a composed defensive performance and some good balls to his attackers over the opposition. Terry and Upson were largely comfortable and David James was attentive on the few occasions he was required to be. Clearly the goalkeeping question will be preying on Capello’s mind, but till an alternative emerges who is fulfilling Capello’s requirements for selection (i.e. a Ben Foster playing every week?) I suspect he will disregard James’ age and the reputation for calamity and stick with him as first choice.
In spite of missing a sitter after scoring a first where he didn’t know too much about the finish, Heskey had an awesome first fifteen minutes and he was in scoring positions on more occasions in that time, than some others would have been over a full ninety. Cole was comparatively silent over his twenty minutes or so, but the Slovak defense had got a little more organized by the time he came in and though England were always dangerous, Cole really did not get enough of a chance to stamp his authority. Crouch did the job he does and had Terry not off-sided his goal bound effort, his match ratings would have been significantly higher, by the time he limped off with injury as well.
What Next
A lot will depend on the extent of injuries that his strikers suffered on the day, but if even one of them is fit enough to start, I expect exactly the same from Capello and England against Ukraine. I also expect that to be more than sufficient for a win, which may or may not be similar in terms of margin but could be exactly the same in terms of comfort. Of course, my pick would be to have Beckham start on the right but I don’t think that is going to happen.
If the strikers are all out with injuries, then Lampard could play behind lone striker Rooney, like they did for the last few minutes of this one. With Rooney’s natural game taking him to many parts of the field other than the opposition box, Lampard would then have to be on the top of his game in terms of his ability to run into the box as well as dominate in the air against a physically strong Ukrainian side. Also, in this case, maybe a Lennon would be a more definite pick ahead of a Beckham, as quick passing and keeping the ball at the feet in the box may prove more useful then looking for headers.
Another three points would put England very comfortably on the road to qualification and that is the least the Capello’s regime is being expected to deliver. From a longer term perspective, there is clearly room for a better keeper, a truly great striker apart from Rooney and maybe even a far more potent right back. Backup players for all positions apart from the centre of midfield could be an issue and if England do qualify, their fate could depend heavily on how many of their first choice players are able to stay fit.
But that is getting a little ahead of ourselves. For now, the only important game is to be played next week and for once, it is easier to predict an English win than a botch up. What has improved since the McClaren era is that England now play like a sum total of the quality of their players and you would expect them to win every game where they enter with superior personnel. That will not be the case against the likes of Brazil and Spain, but next week, it’s all about being better than Ukraine.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Italy v Montenegro, October 15, World Cup Qualifier
This was my first look at Italy post the Euro '08 shambles and this game saw Italy under Lippi reach a run of 30 unbeaten games which puts him at par with the legendary Vittorio Pozzo and though Lippi has one World Cup lesser to his credit, the achievement is still remarkable. The Italian performance though, was anything but remarkable.
This Italian team is not the same one as Doandoni's European misfits. Amelia in goal, Dossena at left back, Pepe at right mid-field, de Natale on the left, Aquilani as number 10 and Gillardino as the striker were all either not in the squad or were starting from the bench just a few months ago. Add to that the return of captain Cannavaro to the back four and this was a new team all right.
I haven't bothered to do any research on this but three players from the Euro team who impressed me most were all missing and if it was not because of injury, then I cannot understand why. Grosso and Camoranesi had provided the team with some spark and Pirlo had showed glimpses of why he is a great player but all three were gone.
Anyway, the game kicked off and in no time it was apparent that Montenegro would struggle to get anything out of this. Three or four times in the first seven minutes, Italy threatened to score but were just about kept out. Not so in the eighth minute. One of Aquilani, de Rossi or Gattuso (not sure which one at all) played the ball wide right to Pepe from the centre of the field and the Montenegrin left back panicked and dived on to the ball rolling it towards Pepe and removing himself out of the equation. Pepe crossed to Gillardino who thought he could finish it. The goalkeeper parried the shot and it fell nicely for the oncoming Aquilani who finished it with ease. Another day, another goalkeeper, it may have not been so, but Italy had looked good for the lead up until then.
Following that opener, the Italians were strangely subdued. They defended deep and allowed the opposition to come to the box which was quite unnecessary as on the evidence of what had been seen so far, they could easily have won all the battles in midfield and hardly allowed the visitors a sight on goal if they so wished. Instead they sat back and invited trouble.
Montenegro were playing something like a 4-3-3 and had clearly identified Dossena as the weakest link. They played the ball wide right when they got the chance and one such move led to a cross that should have ended in goal but was blocked off the line by Zambrotta.
When Montenegro did score it was on the counter, which was strange because it was one of the rare occasions when Italy did have so many men forward. And the goal itself must have made Lippi tear out his grey hair.
Vucinic had the ball and carried it to the edge of the Italian box with a couple of team mates in support. Doing defensive duty were Chiellini, Cannavaro and one more with Chiellini the player on Vucinic. Then when he reached the edge of the box, the Montenegro skipper seemed for a moment to have run out of ideas and could not find a pass to his team mates and you thought that the counter was over, till he suddenly played the ball a little wide on the left, made space around Chiellini and shot into goal. No way should Chiellini have allowed him to create that space and get that shot, especially as he seemed to have his man well covered.
Italy again went on the offensive and regained their lead soon after, with Aquilani's shot (from de Natale's cross) getting deflected into goal. And there were no more goals after that so, Italy won 2-1 on the night.
The Italian's preference for defending deep is something I have already mentioned, but their approach to attack was something that baffled me as well. Player-on-player they seemed far superior and I expected them to play the ball through mid field, have full backs forward and generally keep the ball in the attacking third all the time, but that was far from what happened. Every time the Italians started a move, you saw Gattusso or de Rossi approach the centre line (the other stayed back) and then try and pick out one of the four players in the opposing half with a longish pass. With the wide men really wide and with Aquilani placed somewhere near the edge of the box, there was no flow in the play and whether the possession turned into attack was dependent upon the quality of the pass and the opposition's defence.
The fullbacks and the second midfielder did eventually get forward but it would only be if their teammates had managed to collect the ball and keep it there for some time. Then when the ball was lost, they would all go and collect again around Amelia and wait for the opponents to arrive with the ball.
I expected the second half to be different. I expected the Italians to fight for every ball in mid-field and defend up front rather than at the back but it did not happen. By the time, I returned from my grilled fish and risotto dinner (consumed in the hotel restaurant at breathtaking speed at half-time), Dossena had been substituted (for Bonera) but that was about the only thing that changed for the Italians.
And while they were never, for the remainder of the game under any serious threat, I just could not understand why they left the possibility of the threat open. Montenegro managed to spend much more time in attack than the quality of their players and play deserved and I hoped a free-kick or a defensive error would lead to an equalizer to change the Italian approach. Vucinic was their main man and if something was to happen, it would have to be him but on some occasions he fell just short. When he was substituted in injury time he received a very well deserved applause from the visiting fans and he acknowledged them with some dejection at not having completed the job, but by then he must have been tired enough to drop dead.
And so Pozzo's record was equalled. Lippi is undoubtedly a great manager and their approach reflected exactly what we have always heard and expect from an Italian team. I'm not convinced though, that he has the team to pull it off against tougher opponents though. The defence is not looking good enough to withstand a continuous onslaught from a more accomplished team and the target man and the wide men may also lack the ability to create much without additional support. If the strategy remains the same, he needs a stronger man up front, more creative players on the wide and defenders who can play every minute of all games like Zambrotta. Or, he could keep more or less the same players, be willing to expose his defence just by letting the fullbacks go up in support, look at shorter passes and maybe a more creative approach. But either ways, he needs a new striker!
This Italian team is not the same one as Doandoni's European misfits. Amelia in goal, Dossena at left back, Pepe at right mid-field, de Natale on the left, Aquilani as number 10 and Gillardino as the striker were all either not in the squad or were starting from the bench just a few months ago. Add to that the return of captain Cannavaro to the back four and this was a new team all right.
I haven't bothered to do any research on this but three players from the Euro team who impressed me most were all missing and if it was not because of injury, then I cannot understand why. Grosso and Camoranesi had provided the team with some spark and Pirlo had showed glimpses of why he is a great player but all three were gone.
Anyway, the game kicked off and in no time it was apparent that Montenegro would struggle to get anything out of this. Three or four times in the first seven minutes, Italy threatened to score but were just about kept out. Not so in the eighth minute. One of Aquilani, de Rossi or Gattuso (not sure which one at all) played the ball wide right to Pepe from the centre of the field and the Montenegrin left back panicked and dived on to the ball rolling it towards Pepe and removing himself out of the equation. Pepe crossed to Gillardino who thought he could finish it. The goalkeeper parried the shot and it fell nicely for the oncoming Aquilani who finished it with ease. Another day, another goalkeeper, it may have not been so, but Italy had looked good for the lead up until then.
Following that opener, the Italians were strangely subdued. They defended deep and allowed the opposition to come to the box which was quite unnecessary as on the evidence of what had been seen so far, they could easily have won all the battles in midfield and hardly allowed the visitors a sight on goal if they so wished. Instead they sat back and invited trouble.
Montenegro were playing something like a 4-3-3 and had clearly identified Dossena as the weakest link. They played the ball wide right when they got the chance and one such move led to a cross that should have ended in goal but was blocked off the line by Zambrotta.
When Montenegro did score it was on the counter, which was strange because it was one of the rare occasions when Italy did have so many men forward. And the goal itself must have made Lippi tear out his grey hair.
Vucinic had the ball and carried it to the edge of the Italian box with a couple of team mates in support. Doing defensive duty were Chiellini, Cannavaro and one more with Chiellini the player on Vucinic. Then when he reached the edge of the box, the Montenegro skipper seemed for a moment to have run out of ideas and could not find a pass to his team mates and you thought that the counter was over, till he suddenly played the ball a little wide on the left, made space around Chiellini and shot into goal. No way should Chiellini have allowed him to create that space and get that shot, especially as he seemed to have his man well covered.
Italy again went on the offensive and regained their lead soon after, with Aquilani's shot (from de Natale's cross) getting deflected into goal. And there were no more goals after that so, Italy won 2-1 on the night.
The Italian's preference for defending deep is something I have already mentioned, but their approach to attack was something that baffled me as well. Player-on-player they seemed far superior and I expected them to play the ball through mid field, have full backs forward and generally keep the ball in the attacking third all the time, but that was far from what happened. Every time the Italians started a move, you saw Gattusso or de Rossi approach the centre line (the other stayed back) and then try and pick out one of the four players in the opposing half with a longish pass. With the wide men really wide and with Aquilani placed somewhere near the edge of the box, there was no flow in the play and whether the possession turned into attack was dependent upon the quality of the pass and the opposition's defence.
The fullbacks and the second midfielder did eventually get forward but it would only be if their teammates had managed to collect the ball and keep it there for some time. Then when the ball was lost, they would all go and collect again around Amelia and wait for the opponents to arrive with the ball.
I expected the second half to be different. I expected the Italians to fight for every ball in mid-field and defend up front rather than at the back but it did not happen. By the time, I returned from my grilled fish and risotto dinner (consumed in the hotel restaurant at breathtaking speed at half-time), Dossena had been substituted (for Bonera) but that was about the only thing that changed for the Italians.
And while they were never, for the remainder of the game under any serious threat, I just could not understand why they left the possibility of the threat open. Montenegro managed to spend much more time in attack than the quality of their players and play deserved and I hoped a free-kick or a defensive error would lead to an equalizer to change the Italian approach. Vucinic was their main man and if something was to happen, it would have to be him but on some occasions he fell just short. When he was substituted in injury time he received a very well deserved applause from the visiting fans and he acknowledged them with some dejection at not having completed the job, but by then he must have been tired enough to drop dead.
And so Pozzo's record was equalled. Lippi is undoubtedly a great manager and their approach reflected exactly what we have always heard and expect from an Italian team. I'm not convinced though, that he has the team to pull it off against tougher opponents though. The defence is not looking good enough to withstand a continuous onslaught from a more accomplished team and the target man and the wide men may also lack the ability to create much without additional support. If the strategy remains the same, he needs a stronger man up front, more creative players on the wide and defenders who can play every minute of all games like Zambrotta. Or, he could keep more or less the same players, be willing to expose his defence just by letting the fullbacks go up in support, look at shorter passes and maybe a more creative approach. But either ways, he needs a new striker!
Monday, October 13, 2008
England v Kazakhstan, October 11, WC Qualifier
In front of a packed Wembley crowd, spurred by the 4-1 win over Croatia in Zagreb, England were faced with Kazakhstan, ranked lowly but with lofty ambitions. For the first two minutes the visitors passed the ball around in the English half but after that the game settled into the expected pattern. Which was the Kazakhs defending deep and in numbers and the English looking to find a path for the ball into goal.
England had lined up in a 4-3-3 with Barry in the holding role and the Lampard - Gerrard pair entrusted with the task of dictating the play from mid-field. Heskey played as the lone striker with his back to the goal for most of the game. Walcott was on the right and to my surprise, Rooney lined up on the left. Even with the same set of players I would have expected Rooney to play just behind Heskey, especially as it is fairly obvious that the strong man Wigan striker is definitely not a big goal threat.
To me this formation suggested that England were to build their attacks through the centre. Gerrard and Lampard would play the ball wide and Walcott and Rooney would either
· Beat the defence and play the ball into the box for the oncoming Lampard/Gerrard, or
· Cross the ball to Heskey who would then nod it into the path of the oncoming Lampard/Gerrard
Wes Brown at right back and Ashley Cole at right back were of course to get forward as well to create extra pressure from the flanks all of which should have culminated with deft passes on the ground or crosses in the air into the box.
As the first half was played, England showed little evidence of managing either of the two routes to goal. The Kazakh backline was organized and deep and never let the ball and the man get pass them. This resulted in Rooney and Walcott seeing a lot of the ball but not really being able to create a play with it. Walcott was especially involved but without impact and Rooney seemed wasted on the left. All that England could manage in terms of attempts were some speculative shots from Lampard and though Gerrard was not getting forward like he would have been expected to, it is a fact that there wasn’t much space provided for him to run into balls. Heskey did the job he was supposed to, but so limited is his role in scope that it has little meaning if the forward men around him can’t create chances.
As for Kazakhstan, they did their job at the back and sowed some good movement, but it was clear that they were slower, weaker and less technically gifted than England. Anytime they tried something which required some level of skill (a through pass, a long ball) they would get outrun and outpowered and lose the ball.
Which led to some very interesting discussions at half time. I was convinced the game was England’s for the taking. Firstly, you could expect the Kazakhs to tire as the game progressed and secondly and more importantly, England would definitely be testing them with a weapon they had left untouched throughout the first half – the cross. I expected Beckham to come on for Walcott as the first change, though the other question was the need to have Barry against this opposition. There was hardly any shielding that the back four had needed and even though Barry’s absence would leave spaces for the Kazakhs to attack, even two centre backs looked well and truly sufficient to handle anything that their opponents could try and create.
Capello did take off Barry to put in Wright Philips on the left. The idea was to move Rooney to the centre but Rooney seemed to move to the right until the breakthrough finally came. While Wright Philips was lovely, it wasn’t really the change that led to the first goal. It was a good proper cross from Frank Lampard into the box which found Rio Ferdinand who was left unmarked to head into a near empty goal with no defenders covering the posts. That it came from a corner which was won from a SWP effort was a coincidence. The fact that it was England’s first good cross of the game and it got them a goal was not a coincidence.
They got three more goals from crosses. One more from a Lampard free kick which resulted in an own goal. Then one from Brown (this cross from the right, the other two had been from the left) which found Rooney. Then one more when Rooney finished after a Beckham (on for Walcott) cross late in the game could not be defended by the visitors. The last goal was Defoe latching on to a Heskey pass and beating the defence to score, but by then Kazakhstan were just too tired and seemed to have no legs.
The moment of the match though was a blooper. Ashley Cole played the strangest of defensive passes right into the feet of the Kazakh striker who showed calm and composure to score the visitors’ only goal from the resulting one-on-one. It made the score 2-1 then, but that was all to change and it finished 5-1 for England.
While England did score all five goals in the second half, I don’t think it was the change in formation that mattered so much. I think had they tried the option of crossing in the first half, maybe they would have seen some result. Yes having Rooney in the centre did help to convert them but then the first two came from set-pieces and it was strange that the English width had not tried that route before.
Mathew Upson’s performance was going to be a matter of interest for England and as it turned out we did not find out much about his potential at this level. Neither did we get any convincing answer about the Lampard-Gerrard pairing. Two thoughts on this. First that if Heskey is the target man, a second striker needs to play because he is not going to be a goal threat. That means Rooney can’t be sticking on the left and that means Joe Cole or in his absence Ashley Young or Downing or whoever. Second, the holding midfielder can be dispensed with against the minnows like Andorra and Kazakhstan. It is only then that Lampard-Gerrard can play as the central midfield pair. If the manager is going to take it as a challenge to always play Gerard and Lampard together then against a good team (say Croatia etc.), one of them will have to take the Joe Cole role with Hargreaves or Barry partnering the other. But then Joe Cole is the best player in that position for England and Walcott, SWP and Beckham or Bentley all are good for the right (with different types of impact).
So what’s the summary? When the opposition is playing with 10 men in defence, play Lampard and Gerrard together, else not. Another thought – against the minnows play Crouch instead of Heskey as he can win the balls AND be a goal threat.
Good win for the English though. Looking good to qualify and Capello delivering just like you would expect him to. Clearly a very wise and free thinking manager willing to do his thing and play a game over two halves. McLaren would never have done the things he has – not the least keeping Heskey in the playing eleven and leaving Owen at home.
England had lined up in a 4-3-3 with Barry in the holding role and the Lampard - Gerrard pair entrusted with the task of dictating the play from mid-field. Heskey played as the lone striker with his back to the goal for most of the game. Walcott was on the right and to my surprise, Rooney lined up on the left. Even with the same set of players I would have expected Rooney to play just behind Heskey, especially as it is fairly obvious that the strong man Wigan striker is definitely not a big goal threat.
To me this formation suggested that England were to build their attacks through the centre. Gerrard and Lampard would play the ball wide and Walcott and Rooney would either
· Beat the defence and play the ball into the box for the oncoming Lampard/Gerrard, or
· Cross the ball to Heskey who would then nod it into the path of the oncoming Lampard/Gerrard
Wes Brown at right back and Ashley Cole at right back were of course to get forward as well to create extra pressure from the flanks all of which should have culminated with deft passes on the ground or crosses in the air into the box.
As the first half was played, England showed little evidence of managing either of the two routes to goal. The Kazakh backline was organized and deep and never let the ball and the man get pass them. This resulted in Rooney and Walcott seeing a lot of the ball but not really being able to create a play with it. Walcott was especially involved but without impact and Rooney seemed wasted on the left. All that England could manage in terms of attempts were some speculative shots from Lampard and though Gerrard was not getting forward like he would have been expected to, it is a fact that there wasn’t much space provided for him to run into balls. Heskey did the job he was supposed to, but so limited is his role in scope that it has little meaning if the forward men around him can’t create chances.
As for Kazakhstan, they did their job at the back and sowed some good movement, but it was clear that they were slower, weaker and less technically gifted than England. Anytime they tried something which required some level of skill (a through pass, a long ball) they would get outrun and outpowered and lose the ball.
Which led to some very interesting discussions at half time. I was convinced the game was England’s for the taking. Firstly, you could expect the Kazakhs to tire as the game progressed and secondly and more importantly, England would definitely be testing them with a weapon they had left untouched throughout the first half – the cross. I expected Beckham to come on for Walcott as the first change, though the other question was the need to have Barry against this opposition. There was hardly any shielding that the back four had needed and even though Barry’s absence would leave spaces for the Kazakhs to attack, even two centre backs looked well and truly sufficient to handle anything that their opponents could try and create.
Capello did take off Barry to put in Wright Philips on the left. The idea was to move Rooney to the centre but Rooney seemed to move to the right until the breakthrough finally came. While Wright Philips was lovely, it wasn’t really the change that led to the first goal. It was a good proper cross from Frank Lampard into the box which found Rio Ferdinand who was left unmarked to head into a near empty goal with no defenders covering the posts. That it came from a corner which was won from a SWP effort was a coincidence. The fact that it was England’s first good cross of the game and it got them a goal was not a coincidence.
They got three more goals from crosses. One more from a Lampard free kick which resulted in an own goal. Then one from Brown (this cross from the right, the other two had been from the left) which found Rooney. Then one more when Rooney finished after a Beckham (on for Walcott) cross late in the game could not be defended by the visitors. The last goal was Defoe latching on to a Heskey pass and beating the defence to score, but by then Kazakhstan were just too tired and seemed to have no legs.
The moment of the match though was a blooper. Ashley Cole played the strangest of defensive passes right into the feet of the Kazakh striker who showed calm and composure to score the visitors’ only goal from the resulting one-on-one. It made the score 2-1 then, but that was all to change and it finished 5-1 for England.
While England did score all five goals in the second half, I don’t think it was the change in formation that mattered so much. I think had they tried the option of crossing in the first half, maybe they would have seen some result. Yes having Rooney in the centre did help to convert them but then the first two came from set-pieces and it was strange that the English width had not tried that route before.
Mathew Upson’s performance was going to be a matter of interest for England and as it turned out we did not find out much about his potential at this level. Neither did we get any convincing answer about the Lampard-Gerrard pairing. Two thoughts on this. First that if Heskey is the target man, a second striker needs to play because he is not going to be a goal threat. That means Rooney can’t be sticking on the left and that means Joe Cole or in his absence Ashley Young or Downing or whoever. Second, the holding midfielder can be dispensed with against the minnows like Andorra and Kazakhstan. It is only then that Lampard-Gerrard can play as the central midfield pair. If the manager is going to take it as a challenge to always play Gerard and Lampard together then against a good team (say Croatia etc.), one of them will have to take the Joe Cole role with Hargreaves or Barry partnering the other. But then Joe Cole is the best player in that position for England and Walcott, SWP and Beckham or Bentley all are good for the right (with different types of impact).
So what’s the summary? When the opposition is playing with 10 men in defence, play Lampard and Gerrard together, else not. Another thought – against the minnows play Crouch instead of Heskey as he can win the balls AND be a goal threat.
Good win for the English though. Looking good to qualify and Capello delivering just like you would expect him to. Clearly a very wise and free thinking manager willing to do his thing and play a game over two halves. McLaren would never have done the things he has – not the least keeping Heskey in the playing eleven and leaving Owen at home.
Friday, September 12, 2008
Sep 10 qualifiers, WC 2010
Caught glimpses of stuff happening here and there. Some thoughts on what I saw:
France v Serbia: Two splendid goals from Henry and Anelka helped France to a 2-1. However, having seen Henry in recent internationals I still think France will be better served with a newcomer who wants to get involved more and stand by my stance that Henry should retire from internationals and return only if France are in serious trouble. Of course, he is Henry and he can (and hopefully will) prove me wrong. The flip side is that the win gives Raymond Domenech more breathing space. And while I’m all for managers having longevity (and definitely one who has taken the team to the final of the last World Cup), Domenech’s decisions and lack of ideas makes one feel that France would definitely have better alternatives around.
Portugal v Denmark: This match for me summarized Carlos Queiroz’s last spell as manager – of Real Madrid. The Galacticos had an excellent first six months playing some of the most beautiful football I have ever seen, and then suddenly (after the Champions’ League loss to Monaco) collapsed just as the season finished. Portugal were much the same. Dominant and beautiful till they allowed the Danes to equalize. After that they struggled. And while a penalty let them go into the final 5 minutes with a one goal lead, there was a feeling that the game was far from over. When Denmark equalized in injury time, you did think that the night was done, only for a second Danish injury time goal to leave the hosts beaten 2-3. If Queiroz has self-doubts, he didn’t let it show after the game, even affording a smile for the press. But lack of finishing and catastrophic defending against the long ball and crosses (a trait shared by almost all teams on the day) cost them heavily.
Croatia v England: As I struggled to watch an unauthorized internet video stream of the game on a really poor internet connection in my hotel room, Theo Walcott and England had another one of those nights which will give them goose bumps many years hence (like 5 goals against Germany in Munich). And while I’m in no position to put in my two cents on the performance, I do have the pleasure of enjoying the wild swing in reaction from the media and fans alike. Hats off to Fabio Capello though, his genius never in doubt...but this was an occasion to deliver. A defeat would have forever had him compared to Steve Mclaren (an insult given what the man has achieved in life) but victory and the manner of it has suddenly made a nation sceptical after the cagey but ‘job done’ win over Andorra believe in ‘their’ man. Bilic has now faced some music but that again is a testament to the times rather than the man’s abilities and it would be as interesting to observe how the Croats bounce back as it would be to see if England sustain the momentum.
France v Serbia: Two splendid goals from Henry and Anelka helped France to a 2-1. However, having seen Henry in recent internationals I still think France will be better served with a newcomer who wants to get involved more and stand by my stance that Henry should retire from internationals and return only if France are in serious trouble. Of course, he is Henry and he can (and hopefully will) prove me wrong. The flip side is that the win gives Raymond Domenech more breathing space. And while I’m all for managers having longevity (and definitely one who has taken the team to the final of the last World Cup), Domenech’s decisions and lack of ideas makes one feel that France would definitely have better alternatives around.
Portugal v Denmark: This match for me summarized Carlos Queiroz’s last spell as manager – of Real Madrid. The Galacticos had an excellent first six months playing some of the most beautiful football I have ever seen, and then suddenly (after the Champions’ League loss to Monaco) collapsed just as the season finished. Portugal were much the same. Dominant and beautiful till they allowed the Danes to equalize. After that they struggled. And while a penalty let them go into the final 5 minutes with a one goal lead, there was a feeling that the game was far from over. When Denmark equalized in injury time, you did think that the night was done, only for a second Danish injury time goal to leave the hosts beaten 2-3. If Queiroz has self-doubts, he didn’t let it show after the game, even affording a smile for the press. But lack of finishing and catastrophic defending against the long ball and crosses (a trait shared by almost all teams on the day) cost them heavily.
Croatia v England: As I struggled to watch an unauthorized internet video stream of the game on a really poor internet connection in my hotel room, Theo Walcott and England had another one of those nights which will give them goose bumps many years hence (like 5 goals against Germany in Munich). And while I’m in no position to put in my two cents on the performance, I do have the pleasure of enjoying the wild swing in reaction from the media and fans alike. Hats off to Fabio Capello though, his genius never in doubt...but this was an occasion to deliver. A defeat would have forever had him compared to Steve Mclaren (an insult given what the man has achieved in life) but victory and the manner of it has suddenly made a nation sceptical after the cagey but ‘job done’ win over Andorra believe in ‘their’ man. Bilic has now faced some music but that again is a testament to the times rather than the man’s abilities and it would be as interesting to observe how the Croats bounce back as it would be to see if England sustain the momentum.
Finland v Germany, WC 2010 Qualifiers, Sep 10
This ended 3-3 with Klose thrice having to get the Germans level after the Finns had gone ahead. It could have been different had he not missed the chance for the fourth, which came when the score was nil-nil as he stunningly shot a simple header wide.
It was the most unusual of games. A game of defending any cross or lobbed ball poorly, a game of crossing well and heading the ball home brilliantly. It also had a goal that came from a bicycle kick but which really was a goal because of bad goalkeeping.
Credit to the Finns for scoring thrice and really taking the game to the Germans. In fact they had a few chances to score a fourth and a fifth themselves. And it was great to see the fans celebrate even after it ended in a draw in spite of thinking what could have been. Hope to see more of them and learn more of them.
But what's become of the Germans? Yes, they have that fighting spirit intact and it is too ealry to press the panic button for a team that just ended a major as the Runner-up. And yes with or without Ballack they have goals in them...if it is not Podolski, then its Klose. Schweinsteiger, Hitzspelsberger and of course Ballack have a few in them as well. But their defence is a nightmare, especially for a team that will be expecting a near championship run in South Africa 2010 (it will be 20 years since their last WC trophy and they would think it's about time).
I thought at Euro that the Metzelder Mertesacker combination was the weakest link in the German team. Guess what...they got worse. Two guys called Tasci and Westermann had the central defensive roles and they were bad. At least Metzelder tried to push forward like a libero, these guys were doing...well nothing. But none where as bad as Lahm. There has to be a strong case for Lahm to be playing in midfield in stead of the back four. He gets caught out of position and while he is fast, often sees attackers go past him. And let's not even begin mentioning his performance against the crosses. A disaster. Fritz as right back was surely an improvement over Friedrich. He gets forward more often and that encourgaed Shweinsteiger to attack from the flanks becuase he knew he had support.
Enke in goal after the Lehmann era's end, was not great either. And letting that bicycle kick get into goal is not something that Ollie Kahn (commenting in German on whatever channel I was watching on) would have allowed. Not Jens Lehman either. I was surprised that Lehman had been first choice for Euro and after looking at Enke am still left surprised that there are no better German goal keepers in the Bundesliga or elsewhere. Maybe, he had an off day. We'll see.
It will be great to see the Germans play the Russians (if I get the chance to see it of course). This is the Euro semi-final that should have been (had not Russia already played Spain in the group stages?). I expect goals in that one. mmmmm....
Russia v Wales, WC 2010 qualifiers, Sep 10
I checked in to my hotel in Paris having returned from a three day trip to Spain and switched on the Tv to find that the stars of Euro '08 were fifteen minutes into hosting the Welsh for this one. Before I could get over the excitement of having the chance to once again witness the free flowing Hiddink boys in action, Semak fouled Gareth Bale quite stupidly in the area to concede a penalty (BBC in its live text updates described the foul as 'clattered' I discovered later...not true).
Bale tried to slot it into the corner but kept the hight confortable enough for the keeper who dived to his right and saved. Akinfeyeev has to be amongst the best keepers in the wrold and based on what I have seen of goalkeepers in the last few months, at present I rate him second only to the great Iker Casillas. Given that he is young and has a long career ahead, I completely expect him to be seen at a big spending club in the more prominent leagues of Europe in the next few seasons.
With the commentary in German, it was difficult to identify all the players at all the times and without internet access till after the final whistle, I was left with no knowledge of the Welsh team. Not that it mattered...till half time at least.
Russia were soon back on track and the Welsh conceded a penatly immediately afterwards replicating almost precisely the Russian effort. And up stepped Pavulychenko...he of Spurs and did the job. It wasn't the greatest penalty ever and a more fortunate goalkeeper would have stopped it. But he didn't and Russia were in the lead.
For the next twenty minutes or so, till the half ended, one struggled to spot the ball at Welsh feet. The Russian magic was back and the familiar faces of the Euro semi-finalists were doing the thing. But while they dominated completely, they did not score for two reasons - Wales kept their shape and defended well and for large periods the Russians seemed happy to dominate feeling almost secure about the fact that they would get a second whenever they needed it.
At half-time I started freshening myself up after a tiring day of travel and almost assured of a Russian win myself, turned three fourths of the eye away from the telly. The game seemed to have gone off the boil as well and though Wales seemed more determined and the Russians less so, there seemed to be no danger of a upset.
Until we got to see an absolutely atrocius piece of defending. I'm not quite sure who the three Russians were on the left corner of the box...maybe Anyukov, Semak and one more but they did nothing as Bale took the ball went through them almost to the by-line. They stood and watched. And then as Bale crossed, I am not sure who the two or three Russians were who stood and watched Joe Ledley prod the equalizer.
And while this did wake the Russians up, they struggled to find the rythm of the first half. Their winner came late through a brilliant lobbed cross from the left from Arshavin which should have been headed home by Zyrianov. He found the keeper but Russia were fortunate enough that it fell to Pogrebnyak, brought in as a sub for the off color Semak and he scored. 2-1 at full time and heavy weather in wet weather made of the exercise by the Russians.
Some thoughts...Pavulychenko showed that his Euro display was clearly true to his real self. He's a guy who will get into great positions and miss many. And then he will once in a while create space and produce astonishing shots on goal (and still miss). I think he could be great with Spurs and create a lot of trouble to the opposition though he may depend on form for goals. Modric to create, Pav to be there to exploit the situation and force the save and if Bent can be ready to pounce, Berba may be a happy but not necessarily missed memory at WHL.
Arshavin, priced out of the transfer market thanks to his own success, perhaps now is convinced that he is a star. Make no mistake, he indeed is one. So much of what is dangerous in Russian attacks comes from this guy. Before he crossed for the goal, there was another exquisite lob for Pavulychenko who had he been in the Germany Finland game, would have scored. The problem it seemed was that he was either trusting his team mates too little or over estimating his own ball skills, contriving to give away the ball while trying to take on defenders when not needed.
And Guus...the brilliant Guus. Like Wenger a champion of flowing attractive football. True, twice in the Euro and in the second half here, his team went off the boil, but he can get them to entertain is without a question. And while Wenger is happy moulding players into the style he wants, Guus does it with players already moulded into different styles and gets them to play his way. Saw it with Holland in '98, saw it with PSV when they made the semis of the CL a few years back and seeing it now with Russia. Billionaire owners take note of Guus, he is the guy who can make your superstars play the beautiful game. Guus take note of billionaire owners, they may turn you from the semi final man into the Gold winner.
Bale tried to slot it into the corner but kept the hight confortable enough for the keeper who dived to his right and saved. Akinfeyeev has to be amongst the best keepers in the wrold and based on what I have seen of goalkeepers in the last few months, at present I rate him second only to the great Iker Casillas. Given that he is young and has a long career ahead, I completely expect him to be seen at a big spending club in the more prominent leagues of Europe in the next few seasons.
With the commentary in German, it was difficult to identify all the players at all the times and without internet access till after the final whistle, I was left with no knowledge of the Welsh team. Not that it mattered...till half time at least.
Russia were soon back on track and the Welsh conceded a penatly immediately afterwards replicating almost precisely the Russian effort. And up stepped Pavulychenko...he of Spurs and did the job. It wasn't the greatest penalty ever and a more fortunate goalkeeper would have stopped it. But he didn't and Russia were in the lead.
For the next twenty minutes or so, till the half ended, one struggled to spot the ball at Welsh feet. The Russian magic was back and the familiar faces of the Euro semi-finalists were doing the thing. But while they dominated completely, they did not score for two reasons - Wales kept their shape and defended well and for large periods the Russians seemed happy to dominate feeling almost secure about the fact that they would get a second whenever they needed it.
At half-time I started freshening myself up after a tiring day of travel and almost assured of a Russian win myself, turned three fourths of the eye away from the telly. The game seemed to have gone off the boil as well and though Wales seemed more determined and the Russians less so, there seemed to be no danger of a upset.
Until we got to see an absolutely atrocius piece of defending. I'm not quite sure who the three Russians were on the left corner of the box...maybe Anyukov, Semak and one more but they did nothing as Bale took the ball went through them almost to the by-line. They stood and watched. And then as Bale crossed, I am not sure who the two or three Russians were who stood and watched Joe Ledley prod the equalizer.
And while this did wake the Russians up, they struggled to find the rythm of the first half. Their winner came late through a brilliant lobbed cross from the left from Arshavin which should have been headed home by Zyrianov. He found the keeper but Russia were fortunate enough that it fell to Pogrebnyak, brought in as a sub for the off color Semak and he scored. 2-1 at full time and heavy weather in wet weather made of the exercise by the Russians.
Some thoughts...Pavulychenko showed that his Euro display was clearly true to his real self. He's a guy who will get into great positions and miss many. And then he will once in a while create space and produce astonishing shots on goal (and still miss). I think he could be great with Spurs and create a lot of trouble to the opposition though he may depend on form for goals. Modric to create, Pav to be there to exploit the situation and force the save and if Bent can be ready to pounce, Berba may be a happy but not necessarily missed memory at WHL.
Arshavin, priced out of the transfer market thanks to his own success, perhaps now is convinced that he is a star. Make no mistake, he indeed is one. So much of what is dangerous in Russian attacks comes from this guy. Before he crossed for the goal, there was another exquisite lob for Pavulychenko who had he been in the Germany Finland game, would have scored. The problem it seemed was that he was either trusting his team mates too little or over estimating his own ball skills, contriving to give away the ball while trying to take on defenders when not needed.
And Guus...the brilliant Guus. Like Wenger a champion of flowing attractive football. True, twice in the Euro and in the second half here, his team went off the boil, but he can get them to entertain is without a question. And while Wenger is happy moulding players into the style he wants, Guus does it with players already moulded into different styles and gets them to play his way. Saw it with Holland in '98, saw it with PSV when they made the semis of the CL a few years back and seeing it now with Russia. Billionaire owners take note of Guus, he is the guy who can make your superstars play the beautiful game. Guus take note of billionaire owners, they may turn you from the semi final man into the Gold winner.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)