finally... that england post mortem...
yeah. england post mortem. 3 months after the bloody world cup ended. muahaha.
england. the home of football. yet so woefully dismal in recent displays that makes one sit up and wonder 'what the hell went wrong?'. with names like beckham, gerrard, rooney, owen, lampard, ferdinand, terry, neville, cole, you'd be forgiven for wondering how a team with so many big names can fail to progress past the quarterfinals. and in such sputtering and unenviable fashion to boot. even with all the bluster and bullishness about winning football's grandest prize, england failed to deliver. why? there's no one bogeyman here, so let's go through them...
the first one in the firing line should be sven goran eriksson. i don't care what the england fa says. the crux of being the england manager, no matter what good service he has rendered, is that the results he produced certainly did not match up to the standards that england should have been achieving. some point out that sven did churn out some great results, like the 6-0 against jamaica, quarterfinal places in 2 world cups and euro 2004. however, england have never really fired on all cylinders. and when established and more than capable players start wandering around the football pitch like lost sheep, one should naturally place the blame on the shepherd managing the sheep. sven was never a manager who made players into stars. instead, he chose to use stars with an unyielding but blind faith, as in the case of david beckham. whilst the oft criticised former skipper is not in my firing line for failure at world cup 2006, there were periods of time when he was obviously not up to the mark, especially when compared with the then on song and manchester city right winger shaun wright-phillips. however, despite constant calls for SWP's inclusion in the starting line up, sven refused to drop his captain. and even when he did try to experiment, he never placed beckham on the bench and chose to play him in a central holding role, where poor becks turned in even more forgettable performances.
even the swede's logic must be questioned at times. playing central defenders in holding midfield roles is an absolutely ridiculous notion considering how many capable and available players who have been especially trained in that specific role, which stemmed from the issue of playing steven gerrard and frank lampard as a central midfield axis which never ever worked out the way it should have.
and it also seems to me that sven's a strange relationship with the media. he insists he would haul beckham off whenever he ceased being productive to the team, yet never did even when becks was totally underperforming. yet somehow i get this vibe that he would try his best to prove his point, like hauling becks off in a friendly and putting on aaron lennon or when he decided to gamble on young theo walcott when the press were branding him as "too conservative". yet he lived up to the conservative tag as poor theo never played a single game in germany as eriksson refused to take the risk of letting the youngster loose even as michael owen struggled to prove his effectiveness. a gamble that ended up a rotten egg on his face.
and as manager, you definitely have to make sure you're tactically sound enough to deal with any situation, even the loss of a star player. losing wayne rooney in protugal for the euro 2004 and in the initial stages of wc 2006 showed that there was no obvious plan b, as eriksson tried formation after formation to see which would function best. i'm sorry, but when your team is playing for the biggest possible moment in football, you should be prepared for whatever comes your way. england had no form and shape whatsoever.
and in retrospect, england really has the players to match italy. assuming beckham and lampard made way, there's a wealth of centre backs with more than capable midfield players that could mimic the style italy played. rio ferdinand, terry and carragher/gary neville are capable of matching up to nesta/materazzi,cannavaro and gianluca zambrotta, with ashley cole playing the marauding wing back akin to fabio grosso. in midfield? gattuso's grit and tackling is mirrored in owen hargreaves' energetic holding role. michael carrick's visionary passing and intelligent intercepting isn't much different from andrea pirlo's classy midfield playmaker role. even the lack of a proper left-sided midfielder was a problem addressed by the italian side by the usage of a left wing back supported by a right footed player in the shape of de rossi and perrota, which england had been doing with joe cole's inclusion in the team. gerrard could maraud down the right flank in the vein of mauro camoranesi or even take up totti's talismanic role behind the striker, though i suppose that role is still filled best with a fully fit wayne rooney. and to finish the line up, a fit-again michael own or the now in form peter crouch could definitely fill the shoes of luca toni playing the targetman. surely eriksson could've seen the potential of such a lineup?
whilst the coach has to take most of the blame, the players too must be chided for overconfidence that bordered on cockiness. they had so much belief that they dared claim that the world cup could be won on the basis of a 6-0 hiding of jamaica. they were so confident, yet failed to deliver. players like gerrard failed to step up, and even more disappointingly, reliable players like frank lampard failed to live up to expectations. they didn't gel. and with the distractions brought about by the media circus generated by the now infamous WAGs, it's easy to understand why they're so disjointed on the pitch. footballers are human too.
and to have that media circus, you have to have the media. ultimately, they are the ones responsible to why england have failed to reach those starry heights. simply because english football is over-exposed and that the english media overhypes things. if tony blair can come out and say "look, i don't care how lousy they are when play together. gerrard and lampard are two worldclass midfielders, so it is natural that they must play. even if they can't play together." and have it published in the media, imagine how much pressure it places on the manager to drop them if they were not playing well. as an observer, i think it would be easy to drop an underperforming player like lampard or beckham. but imagine hearing the bloody prime minister say that it's ok to have so-and-so in the squad. would you dare make the change that could potentially throw your gameplan off? unfortunately, the british media always seems to work against england. felipe scolari was turned off by the invasion of his privacy when he was a candidate to take over the then soon-to-be vacant post of manager. in the end, all the hype, all the allegations, all the scandals prove to be detrimental to the team. it was easy to drop beckham and swap him off for aaron lennon, but would it be so easy to have dropped lampard when he was underperforming at that point of time? now after everything has been done and dusted, critics have begun attacking lampard. but in the end, england is going to have to endure another 4 year wait to even have a whiff of the world cup trophy.
england. the home of football. yet so woefully dismal in recent displays that makes one sit up and wonder 'what the hell went wrong?'. with names like beckham, gerrard, rooney, owen, lampard, ferdinand, terry, neville, cole, you'd be forgiven for wondering how a team with so many big names can fail to progress past the quarterfinals. and in such sputtering and unenviable fashion to boot. even with all the bluster and bullishness about winning football's grandest prize, england failed to deliver. why? there's no one bogeyman here, so let's go through them...
the first one in the firing line should be sven goran eriksson. i don't care what the england fa says. the crux of being the england manager, no matter what good service he has rendered, is that the results he produced certainly did not match up to the standards that england should have been achieving. some point out that sven did churn out some great results, like the 6-0 against jamaica, quarterfinal places in 2 world cups and euro 2004. however, england have never really fired on all cylinders. and when established and more than capable players start wandering around the football pitch like lost sheep, one should naturally place the blame on the shepherd managing the sheep. sven was never a manager who made players into stars. instead, he chose to use stars with an unyielding but blind faith, as in the case of david beckham. whilst the oft criticised former skipper is not in my firing line for failure at world cup 2006, there were periods of time when he was obviously not up to the mark, especially when compared with the then on song and manchester city right winger shaun wright-phillips. however, despite constant calls for SWP's inclusion in the starting line up, sven refused to drop his captain. and even when he did try to experiment, he never placed beckham on the bench and chose to play him in a central holding role, where poor becks turned in even more forgettable performances.
even the swede's logic must be questioned at times. playing central defenders in holding midfield roles is an absolutely ridiculous notion considering how many capable and available players who have been especially trained in that specific role, which stemmed from the issue of playing steven gerrard and frank lampard as a central midfield axis which never ever worked out the way it should have.
and it also seems to me that sven's a strange relationship with the media. he insists he would haul beckham off whenever he ceased being productive to the team, yet never did even when becks was totally underperforming. yet somehow i get this vibe that he would try his best to prove his point, like hauling becks off in a friendly and putting on aaron lennon or when he decided to gamble on young theo walcott when the press were branding him as "too conservative". yet he lived up to the conservative tag as poor theo never played a single game in germany as eriksson refused to take the risk of letting the youngster loose even as michael owen struggled to prove his effectiveness. a gamble that ended up a rotten egg on his face.
and as manager, you definitely have to make sure you're tactically sound enough to deal with any situation, even the loss of a star player. losing wayne rooney in protugal for the euro 2004 and in the initial stages of wc 2006 showed that there was no obvious plan b, as eriksson tried formation after formation to see which would function best. i'm sorry, but when your team is playing for the biggest possible moment in football, you should be prepared for whatever comes your way. england had no form and shape whatsoever.
and in retrospect, england really has the players to match italy. assuming beckham and lampard made way, there's a wealth of centre backs with more than capable midfield players that could mimic the style italy played. rio ferdinand, terry and carragher/gary neville are capable of matching up to nesta/materazzi,cannavaro and gianluca zambrotta, with ashley cole playing the marauding wing back akin to fabio grosso. in midfield? gattuso's grit and tackling is mirrored in owen hargreaves' energetic holding role. michael carrick's visionary passing and intelligent intercepting isn't much different from andrea pirlo's classy midfield playmaker role. even the lack of a proper left-sided midfielder was a problem addressed by the italian side by the usage of a left wing back supported by a right footed player in the shape of de rossi and perrota, which england had been doing with joe cole's inclusion in the team. gerrard could maraud down the right flank in the vein of mauro camoranesi or even take up totti's talismanic role behind the striker, though i suppose that role is still filled best with a fully fit wayne rooney. and to finish the line up, a fit-again michael own or the now in form peter crouch could definitely fill the shoes of luca toni playing the targetman. surely eriksson could've seen the potential of such a lineup?
whilst the coach has to take most of the blame, the players too must be chided for overconfidence that bordered on cockiness. they had so much belief that they dared claim that the world cup could be won on the basis of a 6-0 hiding of jamaica. they were so confident, yet failed to deliver. players like gerrard failed to step up, and even more disappointingly, reliable players like frank lampard failed to live up to expectations. they didn't gel. and with the distractions brought about by the media circus generated by the now infamous WAGs, it's easy to understand why they're so disjointed on the pitch. footballers are human too.
and to have that media circus, you have to have the media. ultimately, they are the ones responsible to why england have failed to reach those starry heights. simply because english football is over-exposed and that the english media overhypes things. if tony blair can come out and say "look, i don't care how lousy they are when play together. gerrard and lampard are two worldclass midfielders, so it is natural that they must play. even if they can't play together." and have it published in the media, imagine how much pressure it places on the manager to drop them if they were not playing well. as an observer, i think it would be easy to drop an underperforming player like lampard or beckham. but imagine hearing the bloody prime minister say that it's ok to have so-and-so in the squad. would you dare make the change that could potentially throw your gameplan off? unfortunately, the british media always seems to work against england. felipe scolari was turned off by the invasion of his privacy when he was a candidate to take over the then soon-to-be vacant post of manager. in the end, all the hype, all the allegations, all the scandals prove to be detrimental to the team. it was easy to drop beckham and swap him off for aaron lennon, but would it be so easy to have dropped lampard when he was underperforming at that point of time? now after everything has been done and dusted, critics have begun attacking lampard. but in the end, england is going to have to endure another 4 year wait to even have a whiff of the world cup trophy.
greg last trudged in on 9/21/2006 01:20:00 am
0 comments
steve irwin was simply revolutionary. whenever i watched documentaries on the old channel 12, i always found it hard to stay interested or even awake at anyone else's voice other than david attenborough's. but steve irwin's approach to documentary simply took those boring wildlife shows and injected so much vivacity and life into them that blew everyone else out of the water. his antics and exagerrated manner did wear on at times, but i believe he was a pioneering figure in helping make documentaries fun to watch. his understanding of animals was a pleasure to watch when translated on screen, showing one stuff to do with the most unapproachable of animals never thought possible.