Monday 14th June
The World Cup so far has been mainly characterised by negativity and hesitancy as teams fear conceding more then expressing themselves through creative forward play. With the exception of Germany against Australia, South Africa’s opening fixture (and of course the England game) the matches have been cagey affairs with little or no pace in the passing or movement and hardly any decisive or inventive play in the final third of the pitch.
This is how the modern game is evolving as a result of the success of Italy during the 2006 tournament and more recently Jose Mourinho and other such managers. It is something we shall have to live with until there is another change in football tactical fashions and is part of football’s constant struggle with style over efficiency. Teams of all abilities present two banks of four behind the ball when not in possession and try to hit their opponent on the break. Italy were held 1-1 by Paraguay after Italy conceded an early goal from a set-play. From the commentators and analysers Italy are receiving criticism, as always, for their defensive tactics. This is presumably because they invented the idea, however they are now merely one of many purveyors of this practice of containment.
As always, teams are exalted and disregarded at will, without looking at the bigger picture or historical accuracy. No one who has ever watched more then two games of football this season and not suffered a gunshot wound to the frontal lobe would have realistically written-off Germany as potential contenders. It’s Germany! They always have a chance and they made easy work of an Australian team that had many similarities with the United States.
The referee did ruin Cahill (and as a result Australia’s) World Cup with a bizarre decision to send him off even though he was pulling out of a late challenge. Despite this the German attack cut through the Aussie defence at will creating chance after chance with incisive and direct through balls, something England were lacking when in or around the USA’s box. The irony was that in fact this was the best performance England have made in a while and many feeling that this is a disaster for our chances of winning. Many eventual winners get off to an average start; for example Italy drew 1-1 with the USA in 2006 and England in 1966 drew with Uruguay.
The much-lauded 1996 European Championship team began with a draw against Switzerland. So hstory shows that not all is lost and as long as the team improves as the tournament progreses then anything is possible. The finalists of the last World Cup (France in 2006) and European Championship finalists in 2008 (Germany) did not seem like contenders at the beginning of the tournament but go better game by game.
Robert Green also received massive attention for failing to stop a tame shot from Clint Dempsey. The media as usual focused on this error as opposed to the deeper-rooted problems of the team. Goalkeepers are always at risk of this as any mistake generally leads to a goal. Capello seems to favour a 4-4-2 formation, hopefully because it was against the USA and not a more accomplished side, as the midfield seemed flat.
Gerrard was just about England’s best player, closely followed by Heskey who many did not even want to see in South Africa at all, and it was these two players that combined well to give England the lead in the 4th minute. A neat one-two involving Lampard and Heskey, who then laid off Gerrard as he over-lapped Heskey to break through the American defence and poke the ball past Tim Howard. England were cruising until just before half time Clint Dempsey turned Gerrard one way then the other and let of shot that 99 time out of 100 Green would have saved comfortably.
He didn’t though, as he failed to get down to the ball in time and as a result only got a bit of a touch on the ball and it bobbled passed him and over the line leaving a prostrate Green wondering how he can live this down. Blame for the defeat should not be directed completely at Green, he did not miss a one-on-one as Heskey did, or not have the confidence to take a shot as Lennon was guilty of. Green was not the player that allowed Dempsey to get the shot away in the first place.
When Milner had to be substituted due to illness it was perhaps a chance for the introduction of Joe Cole to add some creativity to the England midfield, instead Capello decided this game needed two wingers that run into dead ends and give the ball away a lot. Shaun Wright-Phillips joined Ashley Cole on the left side of the pitch and failed to successfully pass to any of his team-mates or beat the USA full-back. This tactical ploy was also being used by Lennon on the opposite wing with slightly less effectiveness. Just to exaggerate Wright-Phillips and Lennon’s ineptitude it was Glen Johnson who was the most dangerous attacker down the flanks as he overlapped his colleagues to cause the US defence problems on regular basis.
England dominated for most of the game, with the exception of short period in the second half. It was only during a twenty-minute period in the second half that England consistently created any decent chances and put pressure on the American back four. But did not stretch the US defence and as a result England ran out of time energy and ideas and a draw was all they deserved against an under-rated US side that’s was well organised made of many Premiership and other European league players. Bob Bradley clearly had England’s number and targeted Wayne Rooney for special treatment as he was doubled up on every time he got the ball. Bradley had worked out what Capello had not: England only has one truly creative player.
Capello has also been criticised for only selecting the team two hours before the kick-off. As Jamie Carragher informs us Liverpool have done the same thing for 14 years. Does this explain the clubs decline since the eighties, or is it that the media have over hyped another situation. World Cups do this to people of all professions it seems.
The media have also been backing the referees even in their most bizarre decisions and stating that challenges are dangerous despite the video evidence to the contrary. There have also been four red cards for two yellow card offences, these challenges seem innocuous at best as referees seem to be penalising players for even the slightest late or sliding challenge, thus making the game virtually non contact as player fall to the ground if they feel the smallest of touches. It would be a shame if a much-anticipated World Cup is ruined by dictates from FIFA and the constant medalling with the ball used during major tournaments.
Many are making a lot of the ball unpredictable flight and the fact that the Germans have been using the Jabulani ball in the Bundesliga for a year. All associations were offered use of this ball a year ago. Its good to see we the FA and Premier League could put aside their differences and selfish self-interests for the good of the national team. At least now we already have our excuses for losing to the Germans as England could face them either in second round if either team finishes second in their group and the other first, or if both win all their remaining games then they could meet in the final.
Monday, 14 June 2010
Thursday, 10 June 2010
The Quiet Revolution
Any tournament in the West Indies is characterised by garishly colourful dancers and a cacophony of out of tune whistling and the uncoordinated banging of inanimate objects in various shapes and sizes. England’s form in the shorter form of the game has also been just as random and hard to predict. Sometimes seemingly unplayable in 50 overs, while at T20 they seemed at times unable to compete. They had the look of an anachronistic unit unable or unwilling to grasp the nuances of this new smash and grab spectacle that had been forced upon them.
However there is revolution quietly evolving within the upper echelons of English cricket, and it has nothing to with the pursuit of money and self aggrandisement that drives Giles Clarke and the ECB, but the steely determination and tactical insight of Andy Flower coupled with the level-headed leadership and understated man management of Andrew Strauss.
Flower has quickly transformed the T20 team into a focused, complete, tactically aware unit that can score runs frequently and in an unconventional and flamboyant manner. By adopting this approach they take the game to the opposition and make it hard for a team to dominate them. As well as knowing how to use power-plays correctly and therefore restrict the batting capabilities of the opposition and take their own opportunities with the bat, they are able to maximise their run scoring potential in a form of the game in which games are won and lost on the smallest of margins.
Clever bowling changes are also a key difference in the tactics from even a few months ago. In particular the use of Swann to not only reduce runs but take wickets as well as the development of the slow ball bouncer from Broad and Sidebottom, shows that England are no longer playing catch up in world cricket, but are in fact at the forefront of shaping the tactics of the game and trying to find new ways to play to our strengths, something that England has not always done.
There has also been a change in the batting order as Wright was moved from down from opening and Yardy brought in to add a journeyman workman-like attitude to the middle order. With Morgan and Kieswetter operating as explosive runs scorers at vital places in the order adding runs to innings that would before have seemed below par, thus taking away the constant and worrying dependence on Pietersen for a decent total. These slight tweeks to the line up, along with a dose of self confidence, were all it was felt was need to change England’s fortunes. Flower made the right ones
It is ironic that this victory came at a time when Collingwood’s future as T20 captain was being brought into question, and now he is being exalted as a pioneer and saviour. As if to add greater sweetness to the victory it came at the expense of the old rivals Australia, a country who’s greatest spin bowler regularly jibed at Collingwood’s inclusion in the 2005 honours for an MBE despite his meagre runs total in that series.
What now for the Ashes in the winter? The main problem for England in the last tour of Australia was taking twenty wickets. Perhaps the arrival of Steven Finn into the attack will resolve this issue only time will tell as to how his development progresses as he undergoes strengthening training prior to the winter. As England’s test team has gradually improved, after a dip following the first Ashes win, and now the one-day team can now hold there own at the highest level it seems the future could be its brightest for some years. After years of Australian domination many of their legendary generation have now retired and there is now developing a state of equilibrium and parity between the two nations. It could be that the Ashes changes hands much more regularly and may in fact stay with whoever are the home side that year.
However there is revolution quietly evolving within the upper echelons of English cricket, and it has nothing to with the pursuit of money and self aggrandisement that drives Giles Clarke and the ECB, but the steely determination and tactical insight of Andy Flower coupled with the level-headed leadership and understated man management of Andrew Strauss.
Flower has quickly transformed the T20 team into a focused, complete, tactically aware unit that can score runs frequently and in an unconventional and flamboyant manner. By adopting this approach they take the game to the opposition and make it hard for a team to dominate them. As well as knowing how to use power-plays correctly and therefore restrict the batting capabilities of the opposition and take their own opportunities with the bat, they are able to maximise their run scoring potential in a form of the game in which games are won and lost on the smallest of margins.
Clever bowling changes are also a key difference in the tactics from even a few months ago. In particular the use of Swann to not only reduce runs but take wickets as well as the development of the slow ball bouncer from Broad and Sidebottom, shows that England are no longer playing catch up in world cricket, but are in fact at the forefront of shaping the tactics of the game and trying to find new ways to play to our strengths, something that England has not always done.
There has also been a change in the batting order as Wright was moved from down from opening and Yardy brought in to add a journeyman workman-like attitude to the middle order. With Morgan and Kieswetter operating as explosive runs scorers at vital places in the order adding runs to innings that would before have seemed below par, thus taking away the constant and worrying dependence on Pietersen for a decent total. These slight tweeks to the line up, along with a dose of self confidence, were all it was felt was need to change England’s fortunes. Flower made the right ones
It is ironic that this victory came at a time when Collingwood’s future as T20 captain was being brought into question, and now he is being exalted as a pioneer and saviour. As if to add greater sweetness to the victory it came at the expense of the old rivals Australia, a country who’s greatest spin bowler regularly jibed at Collingwood’s inclusion in the 2005 honours for an MBE despite his meagre runs total in that series.
What now for the Ashes in the winter? The main problem for England in the last tour of Australia was taking twenty wickets. Perhaps the arrival of Steven Finn into the attack will resolve this issue only time will tell as to how his development progresses as he undergoes strengthening training prior to the winter. As England’s test team has gradually improved, after a dip following the first Ashes win, and now the one-day team can now hold there own at the highest level it seems the future could be its brightest for some years. After years of Australian domination many of their legendary generation have now retired and there is now developing a state of equilibrium and parity between the two nations. It could be that the Ashes changes hands much more regularly and may in fact stay with whoever are the home side that year.
Saturday, 5 June 2010
Another false dawn at Upton Park
2009/10 Season
A season that began with high expectations following an encouraging 2008/9 season and the retention of nearly all frontline players during the summer, ended in ignominy and cowardice after a year of transition at Upton Park.
Rumours surrounding the clubs finances had been rife since the collapse of the Icelandic banking system, upon which the clubs previous owners wealth depended. This speculation had continued from the summer of 2009 with may sectors of the media predicting, and even attempting to aid, a fire sale. This did not happen, mainly due to the heroic efforts of Scott Duxbury, a figure who was not universally liked despite his selfless exploits (he reportedly gave a large portion of his salary up in order to pay for the wages of Guillermo Franco). With the spine of the team saved, until January at least, and a few optimistic additions and a top 10 finish last year there was the hope to at least consolidate and even push up the table.
Yet anyone who took the time to look below the surface could see the superficial nature of the moderate success of last year. The team had some good results at the start of the season by tailed off towards the end and the best staring XI was fragile and it seemed that the smallest dip in confidence or even slightest injury problems could derail the clubs fortunes. This came sooner rather then later.
After a promising away win at Wolves on the opening day of the season the cracks began to show and as the poor results persisted and as the season drew on with no turning point materialising, it became abundantly clear that the club were in a relegation fight. As January became February and the squad remained intact the vultures still gathered around the club and the inconsistency of the team continued.
The selling of James Collins to Villa at the start of the season was a costly error as a steady and reliable centre-back (who proved his worth during the Great Escape) would have been very useful. It’s decisions such as this that cast doubt over Gianfranco Zola’s decision making.
He persisted with Jonathan Spector at right-back despite his nervous performances, perhaps taking a chance and giving promising youngster Fabio Daprela a run in the team would have been worth a gamble. Some of Zola’s tactics were questionable, such as playing Diamanti on the right (even though he is left footed) and Behrami (or another right footer) on the left.
This caused both wingers to have to cut in on their preferred foot, which narrowed the team’s formation and limited crossing potential. These short-comings meant the strikers were starved of service and as a result creating and finishing chances lead to a lack of goals. Selection of the forwards was also a problem.
Cole was injured for a larger portion of the season after an encouraging start and when he returned was not as sharp. Zola also preferred to start Ilan due to his early goals. However Franco was the only player in the squad that could bring teammates into the game and link up midfield and forward play and actually showed some quality and creativity.
We will never know how the sacking of Gianluca Nani will be for the long term future of the squad as without his valuable insight into promising young players and youth development we seem to have no vision or direction in the progression of the team.
This showed a lack of respect for a man who had conducted himself with nothing but dignity when his new chairmen did anything but by criticising him in public. At no point in the season did Zola make excuses for the teams losses by blaming the referee or the situation he had found himself. Zola had his deficiencies as a manager (as stated earlier) but he did keep us up with a team that had a distinct lack of depth and quality with little or no money to spend.
There was very little he had to work with and not much he could do about it. It could be the case that he would be more suited as a number two as he could impart his knowledge and experience without the pressure and expectations of being the person the buck stops with. Anyone who saw his performance during Tony Carr’s testimonial could see that he is not built to be a club manager. During this brief appearance the weight was lifted from his shoulders as he returned to what he loves, playing football.
The smile retuned and he seemed to finally enjoy his time at West Ham, this could also be due to the fact that Premier League football had been secured earlier that week. After all it was Zola’s first club job and he had the club’s best interests at heart, he did not deserve to be treated this way. This was such a cowardly method of dismissal that it left a nasty taste in the mouth and for the first time I can remember actually made me ashamed to support the club I had done since I was six.
What next? Well there have actually been some reasons for optimism with Avram Grant as new manager and the signing of Hitzlsperger and possibly Riquelme. Although…I seem to remember thinking the same thing around this time last year.
A season that began with high expectations following an encouraging 2008/9 season and the retention of nearly all frontline players during the summer, ended in ignominy and cowardice after a year of transition at Upton Park.
Rumours surrounding the clubs finances had been rife since the collapse of the Icelandic banking system, upon which the clubs previous owners wealth depended. This speculation had continued from the summer of 2009 with may sectors of the media predicting, and even attempting to aid, a fire sale. This did not happen, mainly due to the heroic efforts of Scott Duxbury, a figure who was not universally liked despite his selfless exploits (he reportedly gave a large portion of his salary up in order to pay for the wages of Guillermo Franco). With the spine of the team saved, until January at least, and a few optimistic additions and a top 10 finish last year there was the hope to at least consolidate and even push up the table.
Yet anyone who took the time to look below the surface could see the superficial nature of the moderate success of last year. The team had some good results at the start of the season by tailed off towards the end and the best staring XI was fragile and it seemed that the smallest dip in confidence or even slightest injury problems could derail the clubs fortunes. This came sooner rather then later.
After a promising away win at Wolves on the opening day of the season the cracks began to show and as the poor results persisted and as the season drew on with no turning point materialising, it became abundantly clear that the club were in a relegation fight. As January became February and the squad remained intact the vultures still gathered around the club and the inconsistency of the team continued.
The selling of James Collins to Villa at the start of the season was a costly error as a steady and reliable centre-back (who proved his worth during the Great Escape) would have been very useful. It’s decisions such as this that cast doubt over Gianfranco Zola’s decision making. He persisted with Jonathan Spector at right-back despite his nervous performances, perhaps taking a chance and giving promising youngster Fabio Daprela a run in the team would have been worth a gamble. Some of Zola’s tactics were questionable, such as playing Diamanti on the right (even though he is left footed) and Behrami (or another right footer) on the left.
This caused both wingers to have to cut in on their preferred foot, which narrowed the team’s formation and limited crossing potential. These short-comings meant the strikers were starved of service and as a result creating and finishing chances lead to a lack of goals. Selection of the forwards was also a problem.
Cole was injured for a larger portion of the season after an encouraging start and when he returned was not as sharp. Zola also preferred to start Ilan due to his early goals. However Franco was the only player in the squad that could bring teammates into the game and link up midfield and forward play and actually showed some quality and creativity.
We will never know how the sacking of Gianluca Nani will be for the long term future of the squad as without his valuable insight into promising young players and youth development we seem to have no vision or direction in the progression of the team.
This showed a lack of respect for a man who had conducted himself with nothing but dignity when his new chairmen did anything but by criticising him in public. At no point in the season did Zola make excuses for the teams losses by blaming the referee or the situation he had found himself. Zola had his deficiencies as a manager (as stated earlier) but he did keep us up with a team that had a distinct lack of depth and quality with little or no money to spend.
There was very little he had to work with and not much he could do about it. It could be the case that he would be more suited as a number two as he could impart his knowledge and experience without the pressure and expectations of being the person the buck stops with. Anyone who saw his performance during Tony Carr’s testimonial could see that he is not built to be a club manager. During this brief appearance the weight was lifted from his shoulders as he returned to what he loves, playing football.
The smile retuned and he seemed to finally enjoy his time at West Ham, this could also be due to the fact that Premier League football had been secured earlier that week. After all it was Zola’s first club job and he had the club’s best interests at heart, he did not deserve to be treated this way. This was such a cowardly method of dismissal that it left a nasty taste in the mouth and for the first time I can remember actually made me ashamed to support the club I had done since I was six.
What next? Well there have actually been some reasons for optimism with Avram Grant as new manager and the signing of Hitzlsperger and possibly Riquelme. Although…I seem to remember thinking the same thing around this time last year.
Tuesday, 1 June 2010
The Lives of the Artists
Review
This is a one off documentary about the inspiration behind a group of diverse contemporary artists, offering a hidden insight in lesser-known purveyors of the cultural zeitgeist.
The title is taken from a renaissance biography buy Giorgio Vasari (a sculptor and painter himself), not of artist’s work, but of their personalities. This is the premise behind his film, to expose their personal ambitions and what drives them to create. The films opening shot is an expansive montage of the three mediums of the featured artists; surfers Tom Lowe and Fergal Smith, snowboarder Xavier De Le Rue and punk band Gallows.
Whether surfers and snowboarders are artists is debateable, and in a way is part of the art itself and the questions that are raised by the film. Perhaps that is not the point as this film does not give opinion or pass judgement on form or content, it just shows the art in a passive way and allows the audience to make up their own mind. There is no introduction or ‘talking heads’ input from fans or critics, the only voice over is that of the artists themselves as they describe their motivations and insights into their creations.
The cut between each artist is sharp, thus allowing a comparison between them and of their respective passions, experiences, drives and ambitions. Although this documentary does show these in a creative and dynamic way with stunning cinematography creating a visceral experience for the viewer, it offers no comment on the art itself. In some ways this is a good thing as allows the viewer to experience the film on its own merits (as it is a piece of art itself) and to come to their own judgement on the film and its subject matter.
So if you want to see a documentary that gives genuine insight into an interesting, mostly less mainstream art form that is shot in a beautiful and thoughtful way, then this film is for you.
Defiance
Daniel Craig, Leiv Schriever and Jamie Bell play the Tulvski brothers as they hide from Nazi soldiers rounding up Jews in occupied Poland and Belarus. This becomes more difficult as their numbers in the forest begin to grow especially with the harsh winter and with inevitable human conflicts that arise. The film focuses mainly on the day-to-day interaction between the Jewish hideouts as well as the Russian partisans fighting the Nazis in guerrilla attacks. This does delay the inevitable confrontation with the Nazis but despite this it is a well-made depiction with some fine performances from the main cast. The fact it is a true story and that it does not have the stock ending for a holocaust movie makes its all the more compelling.
This is a one off documentary about the inspiration behind a group of diverse contemporary artists, offering a hidden insight in lesser-known purveyors of the cultural zeitgeist.
The title is taken from a renaissance biography buy Giorgio Vasari (a sculptor and painter himself), not of artist’s work, but of their personalities. This is the premise behind his film, to expose their personal ambitions and what drives them to create. The films opening shot is an expansive montage of the three mediums of the featured artists; surfers Tom Lowe and Fergal Smith, snowboarder Xavier De Le Rue and punk band Gallows.
The cut between each artist is sharp, thus allowing a comparison between them and of their respective passions, experiences, drives and ambitions. Although this documentary does show these in a creative and dynamic way with stunning cinematography creating a visceral experience for the viewer, it offers no comment on the art itself. In some ways this is a good thing as allows the viewer to experience the film on its own merits (as it is a piece of art itself) and to come to their own judgement on the film and its subject matter.
So if you want to see a documentary that gives genuine insight into an interesting, mostly less mainstream art form that is shot in a beautiful and thoughtful way, then this film is for you.
Defiance
Daniel Craig, Leiv Schriever and Jamie Bell play the Tulvski brothers as they hide from Nazi soldiers rounding up Jews in occupied Poland and Belarus. This becomes more difficult as their numbers in the forest begin to grow especially with the harsh winter and with inevitable human conflicts that arise. The film focuses mainly on the day-to-day interaction between the Jewish hideouts as well as the Russian partisans fighting the Nazis in guerrilla attacks. This does delay the inevitable confrontation with the Nazis but despite this it is a well-made depiction with some fine performances from the main cast. The fact it is a true story and that it does not have the stock ending for a holocaust movie makes its all the more compelling.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)