BBC Blog Network

User Profile

The Professor

Listed below are comments made by The Professor between Wednesday, 14th October 2009 and Saturday, 5th December 2009.

«Newer
Older»

England get luck of the draw 05:06am on 05 Dec 2009 At 04:33am on 05 Dec 2009, Lagellerotumblero wrote:

Lots of people are saying France have an easy group. That's laughable. The HOSTS themselves, then Mexico, who aren't pushovers...maaaaybe Uruguay, they have a decent player in Forlan, but France don't have it easy. Mark my words.

_________________________________________

Writing hosts in capital letters doesn't make them any scarier; South Africa are a team that failed to qualify for January's African Cup of Nations (meaning they're worse than a lot of African teams that AREN'T even going to the World Cup) and have had half a dozen managers in four years because results have been so bad. Even with the crowd behind them, a crazy atmosphere, it's not enough.
Kind of hilarious that you've highlighted by far the worst team to show France don't have an easy group. Being hosts will pile pressure on the team needing it least. Then there's the others: Mexico are always flattered by FIFA rankings - if you don't believe me, just look at their results at the last 3 world cups. They aren't terrible (like South Africa) but they aren't great. Uruguay - not a bad side, but not anywhere near France's standard. Like you said, they have Forlan.
Think people are judging France on their play against the Irish, but that was without Ribery - and he is THE player in their team. It'd be like judging England without Rooney, or Brazil without Kaka.
I'll put it simply - it's tight judging between Mexico & USA, but Algeria are better than SA and it'd again be tight between Uruguay & Slovenia. Which means France DO have an easy group, because you have to remember THEY WEREN'T SEEDED! Or do you honestly think their group is as tough as, oh, I don't know, Portugal's?!
England get luck of the draw 00:20am on 05 Dec 2009 I'm finding the comments that England have the easiest group quite staggering. The team with the easiest group, so obvious it beggars belief, is Spain - Switzerland, Honduras, Chile. And France, considering they weren't seeded, have been given a kind draw too - South Africa, Mexico, Uruguay.
There appears to be a lot of ignorance as to the merits of the teams in our group - the person who commented on the FIFA rankings made some very valid points. You can't judge the USA team on their performance at Germany 06 because they were placed in a Group of Death - Italy, Ghana & Czech Republic (I say 'a' Group of Death because that tournament had another - Argentina, Netherland, Ivory Coast and Serbia & Montenegro). England, on the other hand, had two very poor teams in Paraguay and Trinidad & Tobago. Slovenia beat Russia, that says something; while Algeria beat Egypt - a team who've recently dominated the African Cup of Nations.
I guess what I'm saying is this: is this group better than the one we faced in the last tournament? Yes. How did we do in the group in 06? W 2 D 1 L 0. So that implies we won't waltz this, seeing as with an easier task four years ago we didn't come out with a 100% record.

I would put these teams above England in terms of probable success:

Brazil
Spain
Italy
Netherlands
Ivory Coast/Portugal

On top of these, I wouldn't like us to face Serbia, Germany, Argentina or Ghana. I think we'd have a decent chance against these teams, but it'd still be squeaky bum time. Against the teams mentioned in the list above, the issue is purely mental - our players don't think they're good enough. Draw Brazil and we're out, even if Brazil don't play well. Not even Capello can alter that particular national frailty.
Wenger finds defeat hard to swallow 8:04pm on 03 Dec 2009 I'd just like to comment on a few things before addressing the larger issues.

240. At 1:58pm on 03 Dec 2009, philmcnultybbcsport wrote:

"...it reflects badly on Wenger that he felt unable to do it. I will not change my view on that."

Phil, after reading your blogs for so long, I can safely say there is no need to use the words 'will', 'not', 'change' and 'view'. I'll have a friendly bet with you: read over all your blogs, and if you can find one - just one, mind - where you HAVE changed your mind because of something us non-salaried commentators have said, I'll defend you vehemently each and every time someone throws the Liverpool-title prediction in your face. After I've won that bet, remember this mantra: words are precious.

You also later hit back at the people criticising the media, but you glossed over WHY people were having a go: namely, how can you say Wenger's actions are overshadowing Man City's achievements, if you yourself are dedicating an entire blog to Wenger's actions? The point being a simple one...you can't make the point yourself without being a hypocrite. YOU are overshadowing Man City's progress as much as Wenger by focusing on it.

On to the actual points in the blog: Find it strange that no-one has picked up on the rather scary point that in both games, Arsenal were far from inferior. Wenger COULD point to statistics - possession, etc. Which surely makes it worse, no? Statistics telling you you've held your own, yet the game ends with a 3-0 loss. Phil is dismissive of what Wenger says, and I feel that's really narrow-minded. Wouldn't it be better to show that this is the heart of the issue - a purist approach leads to purist play, but not necessarily success? His assertion of statistical proof isn't him 'losing it', more a fact that perhaps he hasn't moved with the times as people have assumed.
Look at last night: Man City had 12 shots, 75% of which were on target - scoring 33% of those. Arsenal, on the other hand, had 10 shots but only 30% on target, of which 0% resulted in goals. This in spite of achieving 61% possession AWAY from home. Against Chelsea, Arsenal again only managed 3 shots on target, scoring none; Chelsea could only manage 5 on target, yet scored three - a 60% success ratio.
So Man City and Chelsea's stats suggest two different (and equally successful) approaches: Man City have a lot of shots on target, with 1 in every three on-target shots resulting in a goal. Chelsea have few shots but make the most of their opportunities, with them needing on average less than two on-target shots to score a goal. Arsenal, conversely, take neither approach: hitting lower numbers of shots, and considerably less on target. This completely nullifies their dominance in possession, as that statistic merely promotes one thing: delaying Man City/Chelsea scoring a goal. Note the use of word 'delaying', as their approach to scoring makes a goal probable. With Arsenal, in both games, you could label their goal-scoring potential as 'unlikely' - not enough shots (the Man City way), nor players of the same quality as Drogba or Anelka. A team stuck with players who probably need 10 on-target shots to get 2-3 goals, yet the team can only produce 3 such shots in each game. The outcome is inevitable, the cause obvious. A team obsessed with possession will do anything to not give the ball away; this includes not taking risky shots, or even standard shots in situations where there's a good chance of a goal. This leads to less shots than might be expected. It also leads to players gaining great confidence when in possession; the inverse of this is great anxiety when not in possession. If Arsenal play possession football, they certainly train possession football. This means that, in training, they have less shots as well. Which means less proficiency in shooting. And less defensive preparation when it comes to a team such as Man City, who fire in 9 shots at your goal - an on-target shot every ten minutes. And so it becomes apparent that a purist approach creates a vicious circle, with a team of unprepared defenders, blunt strikers and perfect midfielders. All of whom can pass brilliantly.

Phew, that was loooong.
Brazil's new breed of guard dog 10:40pm on 09 Nov 2009 OlaKay wrote:

djconnell :
Arsenal have developed tremendously since Silva left, really?? winning what in the process??

___________________________

So the only criteria for measuring development is silverware? Never minding the myopic nature of that statement, it's quite clear to anyone that follows football that the days of 20 year domination such as Liverpool in the 70s and 80s is no longer possible. Man Utd. dominated in a similar way for the first five years of the Premier League - of course they've won lots since then, but they haven't dominated; Arsenal have won cups and leagues, Chelsea too, and Liverpool have won cups.

My point?

The nature of Wenger's structure necessitates a period of transition, which in itself requires a period without silverware (barring good luck). He's changed the very structure of the team - up front and in midfield is a very different proposition from 3-4 years ago. Hence my phrasing - Arsenal have developed tremendously, not 'done' tremendously (which would imply success in terms of silverware). Never mind the fact that I made a point (echoed by others) that Arsenal have a similar player in Song, while having different options in Diaby, Denilson, Ramsey and Wilshere - surely that's a great development, to have five distinct playing style options, rather than just one?

What this means is that I'll sit here thoroughly enjoying my team's football, patiently waiting for the success to come (have you seen the league recently?). You can go:

count trophies/live in the past/ignore change (delete as applicable)
Brazil's new breed of guard dog 1:24pm on 09 Nov 2009 Tim,

I think there could definitely be an argument that Silva was offloaded for two main reasons - one tactical, the other athletic. It wouldn't be unreasonable to think Wenger is the type of manager who considers many elements other coaches don't - so the change of ground (and size of pitch that went with it) would probably have been foremost in his mind.

It seems strange that Brazil are sticking to this philosophy when trends appear to be shifting elsewhere. A cursory glance at Spain suggests a playmaking midfield reaps rewards, while the Premier League offers further evidence: Man Utd. have excelled without Hargreaves; Chelsea have competed strongly without needing to replace Makelele; Arsenal have developed tremendously since Silva left. In all these cases, the position hasn't died out completely - Man Utd. have Fletcher, Chelsea Mikel while Arsenal have Song and Denilson - but it could be argued that these players (perhaps with the exception of Song) are more expansive than their predecessors. It's interesting to note Ferguson's insistence on attempting to convert Anderson into a more defensive role than has previously been occupied.

For me, the role has been damaged in perception because it shifted from box-to-box players such as Roy Keane and Patrick Vieira to players less attacking and less mobile, simply positioned to clean up loose balls and make interceptions before passing to a more creative team-mate. Silva and Makelele would definitely be in this category, and perhaps Mascherano/Lucas too (note that Xabi Alonso was infinitely more creative) - their position in the team making it unbalanced in terms of creativity when Gerrard/Aquilani and/or Torres are out.

So to go back to point, it seems odd that there are some important examples of increased fluidity yet Brazil stick to this model throughout their national setup. I kind of understand maintaining it in the full team as it's a system which has brought most success, but insisting upon it at all levels down to U-17 strikes me as a lack of anticipation and forethought. If Brazil made their two central midfielders more attacking (surely a country where this would be comparatively easy), against a team which did employ a defensive midfielder the numbers (six vs. five) would be stacked in Brazil's favour.

Tim, who do you think will succeed at next year's World Cup? I see the tournament as key to shaping the next few years tactically and stylistically. Brazil as cautious, Spain as expressive and England somewhere inbetween (optimism as an Englishman perhaps).
The long road back for Barnsley's Iain Hume 2:02pm on 06 Nov 2009 sufccw:
"Should every footballer who throws a punch, headbutt or elbow be sued?

If hume makes a successful civil claim it sets a dangerous precedent."

What? I think in all honesty you are completely wrong. The reason sport has gone for so long not applying the same stricture of law as the rest of society is the difficulty of proving intent versus accident. That doesn't mean ANY sportsman is above the law.

I don't believe any footballer throwing a punch/elbow or headbutting should be sued - I believe they should be charged with assault, ABH or GBH depending on the malice of their actions and the resultant injury. For too long we've had fully grown men attacking each other in the public arena. Does no-one realise bans and fines don't work? THAT was the dangerous precedent, set years ago. "Go on, punch someone. You'll spend a month on the sidelines, and you'll still get paid." In what other profession would this occur?

I don't see a huge amount of difference between what Chris Morgan did and what Marlon King did to that girl. How can environment - football pitch instead of nightclub - or victim - fellow football player instead of young girl - invoke such wildly differing punishments?

Please note I am not saying Morgan intended to fracture Hume's skull, that's ludicrous. He did intend to strike him with his arm, however, and he also intended some level of harm. When those are your intentions, the level of success denotes the measure of your punishment - for an example, look at the ban given to Axel Witsel for his leg-breaking tackle on Marcin Wasilewski. He's been banned for 8 matches for a style of tackle I see quite regularly in the Premier League; the severity of the outcome has determined the extent of the corrective measure.

The fact that Morgan is only facing a civil case makes him quite fortunate, really. He could have faced a lengthy ban from football, a fine from the FA for bringing the game into disrepute, a suspension and fine from his club and a charge of GBH (resulting in jail time, which might have led to his club sacking him) as well as a compensation claim from Hume. That he only has to face one - and lets face it, the least harsh element of all - is to the detriment of the fact that this is a game, our national game no less, and as such should be played in a fair and sporting manner.
Spurs learn silence is golden 2:36pm on 01 Nov 2009 I think the major issue with Robbie Keane's statements before the match was that they were founded on Arsenal's performances in previous years, where the team had to fight to make the top four. This is the scenario Spurs find themselves in this year. However, Arsenal have improved the most from the top four, with Chelsea staying around the same, United getting a little worse and Liverpool both stagnating and finding out what happens when you treat your two best players like workhorses.

The match showed that Arsenal have a stronger squad than Spurs, and they have a stronger first team. For every top Spurs player there are 3-4 who don't quite cut it, whereas at Arsenal there is a collective responsibility in terms of class and product.

Just look at the front-line of both teams - all the responsibility is on Defoe to score, hence when he is injured there is a serious problem. Arsenal have RVP, Bendtner, Eduardo and even Vela who can all contribute - none are likely to score as many as Defoe, but at least the team isn't seriously devalued by injuries.
Likewise the creative midfielders - Spurs have Modric and Lennon - and with Modric's frame and Lennon's pace, injuries are always likely. Arsenal have Arshavin, Fabregas, Nasri, Walcott and Rosicky - ignoring the quality of younger players like Merida and Barazite. That's five first team creative midfielders versus two - no prizes for working out which team has the most strength in depth here.

I think Spurs fans are getting tetchy because it's implied a loss means they won't be up there challenging - that's not true. It's the simple case that you need Liverpool to continue their form and Man City to slip up to have a chance of the top four, whereas Arsenal do not need such things. This means, uniquivocally, that Arsenal are better than Spurs. Given how the league's going, a top six spot should be seen as a massive achievement (esp. seeing as it's likely two out of Villa, Everton or Liverpool will miss out on that) and I find it infuriating how Tottenham, as a club as well as its fans, have the same suicidal temperament as Newcastle when it comes to their expectation and assessment of success.
Benitez faces biggest test 6:00pm on 21 Oct 2009 This is THE key issue when it comes to Liverpool: lots of people are saying things about Rafa's transer policy and how it isn't up to scratch. This is true, but it can also be pointed out that every top manager messes up with signings.
HOWEVER, the real underlying problem is that Rafa seems incapable of sorting out the wheat from the chaff - preferring to sell players who would form a strong squad rather than quite obvious duds. At Utd Kleberson and Djemba-Djemba both lasted only two years, also only making 20 appearances each for the club in that time; This is Lucas' third year at Liverpool and he has already made 50 appearances.
How can you keep Lucas, Voronin and Babel, while letting Alonso, Crouch and Bellamy to go? I know there's the issue of making a profit, but it seems a bit of an oxymoron to reduce the quality of your squad in order to improve the squad.
Benitez faces biggest test 09:40am on 21 Oct 2009 Utterly hilarious that Benitez (and many Liverpool fans) hide behind injuries as an excuse. I'm sorry, but Phil's wrong when he states:

"It is a misfortune on the scale of seeing a beach ball tuck away the opposition's winning goal that they are both struggling again with injury at the same time."

Injuries to two (or more!) key players happens quite consistently at Chelsea, Arsenal and Man Utd. Chelsea have had injuries to Ballack, Bosingwa and Joe Cole (probably more) this season; Arsenal have had Almunia, Walcott, Diaby, Rosicky, Eduardo, Denilson and Djourou out; Man Utd have had injuries to Van Der Saar, Ferdinand, Park, Gary Neville and Owen Hargreaves.

The simple fact is that both Torres and Gerrard are overplayed by Liverpool because without them there IS no Liverpool. This means that they are more likely to suffer injury at the same time. It is incredibly sad to see injuries trotted out as an excuse for four defeats in a row - this can surely only be the case if it's a larger number of players injured? There have been times this season where Arsenal's injury list has included 7 or 8 first team players, not just two.

I doubt Man Utd would have lost four in a row if Rooney and Evra were out; I similarly doubt the same would happen to Chelsea if they were missing Drogba and Essien, or Arsenal with Fabregas and Arshavin. This doesn't mean these two players from each top four club are worse than Torres and Gerrard - it means that the rest of Liverpool's "team" is considerably worse than their rivals.

Injuries affect form, but in a team game (11 plus poss. 3 subs no less!) losing two players shouldn't result in loss. Especially if they both play in attack - it would be more acceptable an argument if it were the star striker and star goalkeeper - because then attack and defence are weakened. But how come Liverpool have shipped goals? Certainly not because of Gerrard and Torres' absence!!
England cannot replace Rooney 4:41pm on 14 Oct 2009 Phil,

I happen to believe you're wrong on this. I agree with some of the comments - Rooney does add that ability to create things instinctively, to do something unexpected and that is indeed something needed at the World Cup. But you also need someone who is a regular goal threat - a player who will get 4-7 goals in the tournament, which means someone scoring 1 goal every 2 games throughout. This isn't Rooney - never has been, never will be. Which means that - in my opinion - whoever PARTNERS Rooney is actually more important than him:

If Heskey partners, the likes of Gerrard, Walcott, Lampard, J. Cole, Lennon and Becks ALL need to score at least one goal in the tournament.

If Crouch partners, can he escape the curse that's blighted him so far at big tournaments - namely, fouls given against him constantly because of his height?

If Defoe partners - can he score goals regularly at international level? Hasn't been answered so far.

If Carlton Cole partners - can he make the step up, do what Heskey does AND add goals to that dynamic?

Unlikliest of all...

If Owen partners - can he stay fit?

These questions are more important than Rooney's participation because they still remain if Rooney isn't there for England.

Think of Brazil's famous 3 Rs - Ronaldo, Rivaldo and Ronaldinho. I'd say Rooney is most like Rivaldo - a player to be feared, will give you goals from nothing and generally is capable of producing unexpected things (but at the same time is hardly prolific). But England don't have an equivalent Ronaldo or Ronaldinho...which means ALL the attention will be on Rooney. With or without him, it's imperative we find those missing elements - a regular goalscorer and someone else who will add goals from midfield (my money is on Walcott - fairly unknown quantity, pace at World Cups always effective)

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

The Professor