Monotheism and Referees
Referees are often given a hard time in contemporary football and this state of affairs may partly be attributable to religion.
In monotheistic religions, such as Christianity, it is conceived that a transcendental omniscient creator, God, exists over and above the products of his creation. This contrasts with pantheistic religions, which conceive of immanent gods, that is, deities who are an intrinsic part of the world. Christian belief also states that laws and ethics have been bequeathed to humanity by this transcendental all-knowing entity. Furthermore, humans were created in God’s image and are thus also separable from the natural world and the animal kingdom.
Since the Enlightenment it is argued that societies, particularly Western societies, have become more secular as science and reason have come to replace religion as a source of guidance. The influence of religion remains pervasive though, and it is argued that secularism is essentially a humanist reconfiguration of Christianity. Science and technology reinforce the Christian illusion that humanity is somehow separate from, and in control of, the natural world. Philosophy and ethics shaped by this Christian-infused Enlightenment still suggest that immutable laws and principles can be established which transcend the specifics of human interaction; but now these laws are derived from human reason rather than religious doctrine.
It’s therefore no wonder refereeing is such a thankless task in cultures shaped by monotheism! It is perceived that the referee should somehow be separate from the actual game of football, and thus enforce the rules in an entirely objective, infallible fashion. Mistakes by players are viewed as aberrations, but managers and fans actually see errors by the referee as some form of violation of the game. According to this view, the players comprise the actual activity ‘football’, and the referee should guide the game from an omniscient, detached vantage point. How often do we hear from managers that ‘the referee cost us the game’ or ‘that decision cost us £Xm’? Perhaps it would be more appropriate to see the referee as an intrinsic part of a match and that, as a fallible agent, their decisions are as likely to shape the game as those made by players. Cultures shaped by religions which view God and nature as coextensive may actually be more accommodating of refereeing deficiencies.
Science and technology also present problems for the referee. Science underpinned by Christianity suggests that technological advancement should eventually eliminate error and mishap from the world. This means that pundits and TV viewers feel justified in passing judgement on referees without acknowledging the need to make allowances for reasonable human error. ‘Now that, for me, is a diabolical decision’ states the pundit complacently as we watch an incident 16 times from a range of angles with super slo-mo and freeze-frame facilities. Never mind that the referee made his decision based on one snapshot, whilst having had to control 22 aggressive players and charge about a football pitch for the past hour!
So pause and check yourself during World Cup 2010 when you feel like screaming at the referee through the TV set – your feelings are probably just an irrational corollary of secularized monotheism.
Full-back
Until just a few weeks ago, left-back was England’s most settled position. Ashley Cole and Wayne Bridge were first and second choice respectively at World Cup 2002 – and this situation had remained unchanged. However, with Cole’s ankle injury putting him in doubt for South Africa, and Bridge exiling himself for personal reasons, England’s left-back slot is suddenly familiar and comfortable no more. Stephen Warnock and Leighton Baines are lined up as replacements, but the situation has changed substantially – Cole and Bridge have 113 caps between them, whereas Warnock and Baines have two (one of which was obtained last week against Egypt).
It’s likely the first choice left-midfielder (Steven Gerrard) will favour cutting infield from his flank; therefore it is important that the new left-sided full-back is strong offensively so that attacking width is not compromised. Baines has performed well as an attacking full-back this season for an improving Everton side, whilst Warnock is a pragmatic and classy defender. At his previous club Blackburn, Warnock was also deployed in central midfield to good effect which demonstrates that he has the range to impose himself in central areas. However, it was Baines that got the nod for last week’s friendly: he acquitted himself well enough and faced a fair challenge from pacy Egyptian wing-back Al-Muhammadi. Baines didn’t do much wrong and another couple of friendlies will assist his confidence prior to the tournament, if Cole doesn’t regain fitness in time. If there are further mishaps or injuries then versatile midfielder James Milner could provide cover. Milner was used at left-back for the final 15 minutes of the qualifier against Belarus last October. Gareth Barry offers another option but, whilst he is left-footed and played much of his early career at left-back, he is now an essential feature of England’s central-midfield.
Conversely, right-back was arguably England’s least settled position when Fabio Capello arrived as coach, but first and second choice now seem clear. Glen Johnson is established as first choice, but his attacking verve is offset by his defensive limitations. Some of Johnson’s contribution to the attack over the qualifiers was brilliant and he would make an accomplished winger. But every game seemed to feature at least one significant blunder. Wes Brown started the qualifying campaign as right-back. He is principally a centre-back but provides good cover for the right full-back slot. He offers less attacking presence than Johnson, but is slightly more solid defensively – although he is also prone to the odd lapse. Capello seems to favour a quick, touchline hugging right-sided midfielder like Theo Walcott or Aaron Lennon. If such a type of player is selected at right-midfield then Wes Brown’s inclusion is a possibility. However, it seems as though Capello is comfortable with two strong attacking outlets on the right. If a playmaker (with a predilection for drifting infield) was selected on the right, such as Gerrard, Joe Cole or David Beckham, then Johnson’s inclusion would be essential to ensure the maintenance of attacking presence on the flank. A drifting wide-midfielder and flying full-back together on one flank could leave the team exposed defensively, but with Barry and Frank Lampard providing a secure central midfield, the team has the scope to accommodate two attacking full-backs.
If either Johnson or Brown are injured before the tournament then it is not clear to whom Capello will turn. Manchester City’s Micah Richards looked to have made his international breakthrough under Steve McLaren, but has subsequently been overlooked. However, it’s more likely that squad cover for right-back would come from midfield in the shape of Milner – or perhaps even Gerrard.
The Catalytic Synthesis of Phosphines
My friend Dr Colin actually has a real doctorate – he obtained a PhD in Organic Chemistry from the University of Liverpool. Exclusively for WCC, Dr Colin offers some insight into how his research might assist England at World Cup 2010:
What was the title of your PhD?
The Catalytic Synthesis of Phosphines and their Applications in Catalysis
What were the key findings?
Phosphines can be synthesised catalytically, and can be applied in catalysis.
How might these findings inform Fabio Capello’s England plans?
Although this research has had a dramatic impact on science, to improve the England team we really need to re-examine the first principles of catalysis. The term “catalyst” is a metaphor often used incorrectly to describe the importance of certain players to certain teams, e.g. Gerrard at Liverpool. A common misunderstanding amongst commentators is that catalysts make the reaction happen, i.e. the reaction would not otherwise proceed without the presence of the catalyst. This is incorrect. The reaction would eventually proceed, it is just that catalysts can provide an alternative route, involving a lower activation energy, for the reaction to proceed quicker. Therefore Gerrard is clearly not a catalyst at Liverpool, as they would be completely stuffed without him. Therefore who should Capello look to as a genuine catalyst to increase England’s prospects at the World Cup? It should be taken into account that the catalyst itself remains chemically unchanged at the end of a reaction. In this respect he should definitely consider Gareth Barry, who has remained chemically unchanged since his first appearance for Villa in 1997.
Chemistry is concerned with composition, behaviour, structure, and properties of matter – but can it explain how best to accommodate Steven Gerrard and Frank Lampard in the same team?
The answer is unfortunately no. The nucleus of any good team is made up of protons, neutrons and electrons. In the England team Steven Gerrard and Frank Lampard are obviously electrons, as they lack any positional sense. Wolfgang Pauli discovered as far back as 1924 that the structure of an atom could be explained by a set of four parameters that defined every quantum energy state, as long as each state was inhabited by no more than a single electron, an observation lost on Steve McClaren. However, as electrons are identical particles that cannot be distinguished from each other by their intrinsic physical properties is it really necessary to play Gerrard and Lampard together in the same team? Scientists at Liverpool John Moores University are currently examining the use of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which states that a single electron can be in two places at the same time due to its wave–particle duality, to allow Gerrard a roaming role alongside a defensive midfielder whilst creating more space for Rooney to drop into deeper positions.
Please suggest a chemical that best represents the England side.
There is definitely a lot of potassium nitroso borosulfide (K3N2O2B3S4) in the current team.
England 3 Egypt 1
Egypt set up under a 3-5-2 formation and this presented England with some difficulties in the first-half. The visitors retained the ball well and made the most of their numerical advantage in midfield. England could have taken the lead within five minutes, but Frank Lampard’s shot was struck tamely at the keeper. After the game had settled England were chasing the ball for periods. Egypt accordingly took the lead on 23 minutes: Matthew Upson slipped allowing Zidan clear sight of goal from the edge of the 18-yard box and the Egyptian striker fired past Robert Green.
England asserted themselves more after they had conceded the goal. Egypt’s 3-5-2 allowed Gerrard to move infield without England losing significant presence on the flanks, and this helped them to exert some control. They had chances before the end of the half: Lampard could have done better again from close range, whilst Defoe did well to create a chance after shaking his marker, but his shot was saved by Essam Al-Hadari.
The second-half differed significantly as England seized hold of the game. They equalized early in the half when Peter Crouch, on for Jermain Defoe, slotted home Gareth Barry’s cross. England continued to dominate after they equalized and eventually took the lead when another substitute Shaun Wright-Phillips scored from the edge of the penalty area. The goalscorers combined for the third, when Wright-Phillips crossed for Crouch to knock home from close range (although he appeared to be in an offside position).
The first-half showed that some of the frailties remain: England were given the run around at times and the defence is still porous. However, the second period provided reassurances that England have carried their confidence from the qualifiers into 2010. After the initial shakiness, they took control of the game and put together some incisive moves.
8 Gareth Barry: Put in a convincing and rounded central-midfield display.
7 Steven Gerrard: Influential playmaking role behind the forwards.
7 Peter Crouch: Made his presence felt and enhanced his exemplary international scoring record.
7 Wayne Rooney: Initiated some good moves in the first-half and remained involved throughout.6 Leighton Baines: Given a good test on his flank by wing-back Al-Muhammadi, and he acquitted himself well.
6 Robert Green: No chance with goal and otherwise not much to do, but when he was involved he looked confident enough.
6 Jermain Defoe: Demonstrated his value when creating a goalscoring chance for himself, but a target man may have been more effective.
6 Michael Carrick: Steadied central midfield and tidy in possession.
6 Shaun Wright-Phillips: Looked sprightly after his introduction: scored and an assist.
6 Matthew Upson: Slip contributed to the goal, but less troubled after England gained foothold.
6 Wes Brown: Hardly foot-perfect but secure enough.
6 James Milner: Looked instantly at home, and his parried shot led to the second goal.5 John Terry: Less than totally convincing in the first-half, and his lack of pace was momentarily exposed in the second.
5 Lampard: Not as imposing as he was over the qualification campaign and failed to convert two decent chances.4 Walcott: After one early flurry, nothing went right for him.
Group-mind team selector: the outcome
England’s football fans have spoken! World Cup College has harnessed and aggregated the thoughts of its readers to yield a democratically selected England team. As part of our group-mind team selector experiment, a massive 12 people picked their favoured England team to play Egypt this evening! The selections have been totalled and the group-mind team selection features in the graphic.
The first stage of the calculation was to establish the formation. 4-4-2 was the most popular core formation – and under this core formation the standard 4-4-2 was also favoured. This is demonstrated in the table below the article (3-5-2 was also an option but was not chosen).
Players were then allocated to the team according to the number of times that they were selected for a particular position. (This process was explained in the previous article.)
No player selection was wasted. If you went for 4-3-3 (which includes wingers) a percentage of the selection for the winger transferred to both wide-midfield and centre-forward. For example, if you picked Stewart Downing at left-wing, 50% of this vote was transferred to left-midfield – and this helped him to pip Steven Gerrard into the side. Gerrard was a victim of his versatility: whilst he was picked in 10 of the 12 entries, there was no consensus with regard to where he should be stationed.
The actual team playing for England tonight will ultimately have been selected by one person – Fabio Capello. The team above was picked by 12 people and is therefore 12 times better!
A big thank you to those who participated!
‘Bigger is Better’ v ‘The Plucky Underdog’
…the litte fellows faded out before the big fellows according to the time-honoured pattern of life.
H.G. Wells
Evolution favours big! Larger members of a species will have an advantage over their smaller rivals as size, on average, has a positive correlation with attributes such as strength and speed. With regard to human beings, improvements in sanitation and nutrition lead to an increase in body size. Increased size therefore also equates with good health.
However, the causal arrow between environmental conditions and human corporeality is not unidirectional. With his notion of the ‘extended phenotype’ Richard Dawkins explicates how the genetic proclivities of individual beings reach out beyond the construction of biological bodies. For example, the genetic inclination of beavers to build dams will make a significant impact upon their local context. The biological underpinnings of human conduct also shape the environment. Through a complex interplay of cultural forces and genetic predilections, the phenotypic effects of human action exemplify evolution’s drive toward ‘bigger is better’. For example, when urban people started to use large 4×4 vehicles there was a social stigma attached, as it was deemed impractical and unnecessary to use such large cars (which are designed for use in rural areas) in towns and cities. But this stigma was powerless to thwart the urge towards people using absurdly large cars, as phenotypic indicators of status are more important than practical concerns. Now it seems as though every other car on the road is some kind of terrestrial aircraft carrier.
Despite this proclivity, human narratives demonstrate something of an alternative orientation. When formulating stories we prefer to tell of the underdog battling and usually defeating a more powerful opponent. Examples include Rocky versus Ivan Drago, Erin Brockovich, and Bill Paxton’s storm-chasers in Twister trying to place their sensors into the updraft of a tornado ahead of Cary Elwes’ corporately-backed team. These stories provide reassurances that human endeavour, including attributes such as guile, wit and effort, can overcome brute force or wealth. Whilst we view superiority attained via physical resources to be the mark of a bully in narrative forms, in actuality we are quite happy to monopolise the landscsape of our cul-de-sac with a massive Range Rover.
In sports such as tennis, rugby and athletics, the size and power of players have increased quite markedly. Increases in player size and improvements in racquet technology now mean that current tennis players serve much faster than those from a couple of decades ago. And in rugby, backs were often slight and nippy but are now much bigger on average. Perhaps part of the enduring appeal of football is that it is largely immune from this upsizing trend. Players who were smaller than the mean used to be able to rise to the pinnacle of the game – and that is still the case today. The most talented player at Mexico ‘86 was Maradona who is 5ft 5”. Presently, one of the world’s best players is another Argentine, Lionel Messi who is only 5ft 7” tall and of slight build. Furthermore, one of England’s key attacking players, Aaron Lennon is 5ft 5″ while Joe Cole, Theo Walcott and Jermain Defoe are also shorter than average.
So football comfortably encompasses the apparently countervailing human preferences for both bigger is better and the plucky underdog. At World Cup 2010 we can marvel at players’ strength and power, but also appreciate a sport within which brute force has not usurped skill, craft and guile.
England team v Egypt
Fabio Capello should pick as close to his first XI as possible for the friendly against Egypt tomorrow. The murkiest area with regard to first-choice personnel is defence. A SWOT analysis shows that the goalkeeping role is England’s key weakness as South Africa ‘10 approaches. David James is notoriously calamity-prone, Robert Green has not had much luck for England, whilst Joe Hart is inexperienced at international level. Capello should perhaps put his faith in Hart who has played well for Birmingham this season, but it’s asking a lot for him to embed himself in the side before June.
John Terry is the only first choice defender available for this fixture. Joleon Lescott may be chosen as Rio Ferdinand’s replacement to line up next to Terry in central defence. Over the qualifiers Matthew Upson was usually first-replacement, but Lescott’s club form may have pushed him up the rankings. In the absence of Glen Johnson, Wes Brown can be expected to cover at right-back, particularly as there aren’t any other designated right-backs in the squad, although midfielder James Milner is an outsider for this berth. With Ashley Cole and Wayne Bridge both unavailable, left-back is between Leighton Baines and Stephen Warnock – both should get a game tomorrow.
The midfield/attack should be very close to that favoured by Capello over the qualifiers. Injuries have impeded Theo Walcott this year and he would have been run close for a starting place by Aaron Lennon, but the Tottenham player has experienced injuries of his own recently. Gareth Barry and Frank Lampard are now established as England’s central midfield pairing, and Steven Gerrard’s best run of international form has coincided with his use on the left. Wayne Rooney should be played with Emile Heskey in attack, but I’d like to see Carlton Cole start the second-half up front with Rooney.
An alternative approach might be to play Gerrard at right-midfield with Downing on the left. As a left-footer Downing will be able to retain a wide position comfortably; this will allow Gerrard to tuck inside from right-midfield without the team structure collapsing into congestion. However, to enable Gerrard to stray infield from the right, it would be preferable to have an attack-minded full-back behind him so that attacking width is not compromised. This approach could be more viable when Johnson is available again.
To pick your England team to play Egypt, click here for our group-mind team selector.
Group-mind team selector
WCC is inviting its readership to participate in an experiment which can harness the power of group-mind. All you have to do is select the England team that you think should play in the friendly against Egypt at Wembley on Wednesday. We will add up the totals and present the aggregated team shortly before kick-off. (Fabio Capello’s squad can be viewed by clicking here).
You can choose from three options under each of the core formations. For example, under 4-5-1 you get the standard 4-5-1 itself, or the more finely configured 4-2-3-1 or 4-1-4-1 with staggered midfields. (Click here to view graphical representations of the formations.)
Just some notes on the calculation:
- The most selected formation will be used
- Then the player selections are calculated: this is based on the number of times a player is picked for a specific position
eg: Gerrard is picked 100 times overall – 70 at left-midfield; 30 at centre-midfield
James Milner is picked 90 times overall – 80 at left-midfield; 10 at centre-midfield
Milner would be selected for left-midfield, despite receiving fewer votes than Gerrard overall, by virtue of being picked most times for the particular position.
Please place your selections in the comments [only one set per person please] in the following format, or similar:
4-4-2 (4-1-3-2)
GK – Ogrizovic
RB – Phillips
CB - Kilcline
CB – Peake
LB – Downs
DM – McGrath
RM – Bennett
CM – Gynn
LM – Pickering
CF – Houchen
CF – Regis
Loading ...