This gallery contains 2 photos.
By Dr Paul: As we peruse the very best World Cup systems and strategies it’s important to remember those individuals that carry out the best-laid plans when they cross the white line. As the World Cup inches ever closer, pundits … Continue reading
The notion of progress as an incontrovertible good pervades the cultural fabric of England. Monotheistic religions such as Christianity assert that God is a transcendental being that is separate from the immanent universe; as humanity was created in his image, human-beings are therefore also separable to some degree from the natural world. Nature is therefore seen to be something which can be mastered by humans as they pursue an Earthly project of self-improvement. England is a nation shaped by the Protestant strand of Christianity, and the Protestant ethic promotes work as salvation. The belief in progress as panacea persists within our secular contemporaneous era, supported by the prevalence of science and technology.
The requirement for an inhabitant of a progress-oriented capitalist nation such as England is to be an adaptable and footloose economic unit. Stable social formations such as families and communities are not particularly compatible with unfettered market forces, which require a flexible and independent workforce. In present day England, affluence means that work is no longer closely tied to subsistence for the majority of people; employment in an affluent society is now intimately linked to the pursuit of progress. Steady, regular employment undermines the values of this pursuit. Occupations such as mining, which provided the foundations for whole communities, are now redundant. Even a role such as postman, which once provided secure job-for-life employment, is now shaped by short-term contracts. A society that lauds progress cannot accommodate people who merely wish to exchange their labour for money. To function appropriately within a progress-driven society, it is vital to be committed to a programme of self-betterment so that one’s economic value is continuously enhanced.
Football is not free from the pervasive influence of the progress imperative. This is why on-field positions which offer solidity and security tend to be undervalued. Defensive midfield is a position that has been underplayed within England’s national side. Defensive midfielders are defined by their relationship to the opposition, and are required to address the creative endeavours of another party. But Christianity is defined by creation ex nihilo (as God created the universe from nothing); so autonomous economic units (including footballers) shouldn’t be dependent on others with regard to creative enterprise. A society shaped by the imperatives of economic progress is thus much more respecting of marauding box-to-box midfielders who are able to seize the game and bend it to their will. Players such as Steven Gerrard and Joe Cole are lauded as they can ‘create something out of nothing’. So in the past, when a steadier player was incorporated in the side to help team balance, then there was confusion with regard to their contribution. For example, when Michael Carrick played against Uruguay in March 2006 it was highlighted that he was: ‘Unflustered and neat in possession…but lacks the drive of Frank Lampard or the presence to dictate a game.’
Other countries don’t seem to have quite the same aversion to steady defensive midfielders. Even flair nations like Brazil seem to recognize that security is a necessary complement to attacking imagination. But in progress-focused England, each player seemingly has to be a match winner otherwise they are performing inadequately. Steadiness and security are features of a sedate and comfortable world; they are inapplicable to the sharp-suited world of aspirational neo-liberalism. Competently and cheerfully fulfilling a steady job is untenable in England, as it won’t change the world. And this includes breaking up the opposition’s play and passing sideways! So the next time you are screaming at your TV set, imploring Gareth Barry to push up – remember, your feelings are just an irrational corollary of secularized monotheism.
England were comprehensively outplayed by Mexico in the first period, yet somehow the Three Lions led 2-1 at half-time. Mexico played an assertive 4-3-3 formation, pressing England high up the pitch. James Milner and Michael Carrick were overrun in central-midfield, whilst full-backs Leighton Baines and Glen Johnson were prevented from advancing. Peter Crouch and Wayne Rooney were accordingly isolated in attack. As England were unable to operate with any collective fluidity, they were reliant on isolated examples of individual attacking play. Theo Walcott showed some good bursts of pace on his flank, but poor decision-making meant that he failed to link up with his teammates. Although Mexico dominated the first 15 minutes, England were gifted a corner which led to their first goal. Steven Gerrard launched a cross to the far post which was nodded back across goal by Crouch, and Ledley King headed home from six yards.
Mexico continued to dominate after the goal. Robert Green made a great save from Vela, after the Arsenal player was allowed a clear run at goal following some poor defending. Salcido then hit the post with a curling shot. Gerrard tucked inside increasingly in the endeavour to assist Milner and Carrick, but England still struggled to retain any possession. However, at about the half-hour mark they did manage to string some passes together in an advanced position, which yielded a further corner. Rooney’s header from Gerrard’s cross was tipped onto the bar by Perez – Crouch knocked in the rebound with his arm. Mexico did score a deserved goal in added time. Baines failed to clear a Marquez header, and Franco tapped in from close range.
A two-goal advantage was rapidly restored early in the second-half courtesy of a Glen Johnson wonder goal! He made an assertive run infield and curled an impressive shot past Perez. Capello tweaked the approach following the break with England playing a more symmetrical 4-4-2. Jermain Defoe joined Rooney in attack, whilst Gerrard took up a central-midfield slot, with Milner moving out to the left. England measured up to the visitors much more satisfactorily in the second period and Mexico’s dominance was eroded. The tradition of Capello making purposeful in-game interventions was thus sustained. Few clear chances were created, but Gerrard and Aaron Lennon were both fouled when progressing into clear goalscoring positions.
The victory may reinforce England’s confidence, but Mexico’s dominance in the first-half was worrying. A Milner/Carrick central-midfield axis was insufficiently robust in this fixture, although Gareth Barry (if fit) and Frank Lampard should return to the team for South Africa. The defence also looked decidedly shaky at times. Whilst this was only a friendly, on this form, England won’t win the World Cup! [Selected ratings feature below.]
7 Robert Green: Some excellent saves. England’s no.1!
6 Steven Gerrard: Added some much needed presence to central-midfield in the second-half.
6 Wayne Rooney: Excellent turn in first-half to run clear of Osorio, he also linked up tidily with fellow attackers without consistently asserting himself.
6 Glen Johnson: Cracking goal, but otherwise not as visible in attack as usual. The soundest member of a not particularly sound defence in the first period!
6 Joe Hart: Not tested as much as Green, but looked confident enough.
6 Jermain Defoe: Looked bright and was involved in a couple of neat moves.5 Theo Walcott: Bursts of pace unsettled the Mexican defence, but no end product.
5 James Milner: Overrun in tandem with Carrick, but kept battling and performed well enough when moved wide.
5 Peter Crouch: Assist and (dubious) goal, but otherwise a fairly marginal presence.
5 Ledley King: Given the slip by Franco early on and central-defence was highly porous.4 Rio Ferdinand: Appeared to be the most culpable of England’s defenders during first-half disarray.
4 Michael Carrick: Failed to impose himself and some distribution was wayward.
4 Leighton Baines: A few errors and beaten by the winger much too easily on one occasion.
WCC asked two top footballing minds to select the most appropriate geometric representation of totaalvoetball (total football), which was most famously expressed by Dutch teams in the 1970s. World Cup mascot from 1990, Ciao and Allied Forces’ captain John Colby discuss the basis for their selections below.
Ciao: An oval, for me, is the most germane expression of total football. Total football is about the components of a system (Cruyff, Neeskens, van Hanegem et al) creatively filling space: the tactical framework facilitates but does not constrain. Symbiosis between component and system: the combined effort of the players expressed through intelligent collaborative enterprise. Total football is perfection yet (paradoxically) perfection expressed via corporeality cannot be ideal. In a similar fashion a circle represents the infinite, but anthropomorphic simulations of a circle within a non-Euclidean universe are only ever imperfect. The ideal belongs in the world of transcendental form: total football is the pinnacle of humanity’s immanent endeavour, yet is only an imprecise representation of an ideal. Therefore, the oval, a compressed circle, captures the endeavour of total football. Striving for an ideal (like circular perfection mediated by a playful demiurge) total football is oval. An ovoid total football represents the eternal striving of humanity towards the ideal, but forever condemned to an elliptical orbit.
John Colby: I’ve gone for a rectangle which is cut in half. This is because football is played on a pitch which is rectangular and because football is a game of two halves. In the 1974 World Cup final the Dutch were winning, by the end of the game the Germans had won. It’s a bit like when we played the Nazis back in the war. We were 4-0 down at half-time and were going to escape through a tunnel which the Resistance had dug through to our dressing-room bath. But then Doug Clure played by Russell Osman piped up “We can win this”. It was the only inspiration we needed: we went back out in the second-half and gave them a right run-around, pegging them back to 4 apiece. They were awarded a dodgy penalty late in the game but our American keeper Hatch pulled off a great diving save. A classic game of two halves. I suppose if the game goes to extra-time you’d need to add another line across the rectangle to make it quartered. The quarters shouldn’t be of equal size though, as extra-time is obviously shorter than the regular game. Of course, we never got the chance to stuff the Nazis in extra-time because there was a bloody pitch invasion after Hatch saved the penalty.
WCC recently explored England’s Plan D, and will look at plan A and B before the tournament – but what of Plan C?
A popular approach would be a 4-2-3-1, but with Wayne Rooney leading the line and Steven Gerrard in an advanced central-midfield position. And Fabio Capello has recently tested this combination in training. The appeal of this line-up is that it incorporates England’s most exciting and skilled players in key central positions. Rooney leads the attack (as he often does at Man Utd) and Gerrard provides creative support (as he does behind Fernando Torres at Liverpool). With Rooney and Gerrard situated centrally, Capello could then field a genuine winger on the left. With Adam Johnson taking up this left-sided role, and Walcott or Lennon featuring on the right, the team structure would offer pace and width on both flanks.
However, neither Rooney nor Gerrard has indicated that the roles they perform regularly for their club sides can be straightforwardly transferred to the international arena. Rooney’s appearances for England when used as a lone-forward have not yielded great success. He had only recently returned from injury, but he cut a forlorn and frustrated figure at World Cup 2006 when isolated in front of Sven Goran Eriksson’s leaden midfield. Capello also tried a Rooney/Gerrard central combination under a 4-2-3-1 in a friendly against France in 2008. Whilst it could not be completely discounted on such scant evidence, it intimated little promise. Within a familiar and well-drilled club set-up at Man Utd (often against inferior sides) Rooney spearheads the attack with aplomb. Within a more sporadically convened XI, faced with tight international defences, Rooney is wasted if he becomes mired in fruitless wrangles with the opposition’s central defenders. Rooney’s performances for England over the qualifiers were aided by the fact that a target man supported the team structure.
Likewise, Gerrard has excelled in an advanced central position as Liverpool’s talisman. But he has never replicated this form in central-midfield for England: he used to cut a beleaguered figure and his natural verve appeared to be constrained by the weight of national expectation. Gerrard meets the Boy’s Own football hero image and, with Rooney, is the England player most capable of producing spectacular play. As a result of this image and his club-established reputation, Gerrard’s indifferent international form was overlooked for several years. Under Capello his performances have improved following his redeployment to a flexible niche on the left of midfield. He still has the freedom to break into attacking areas, but is relinquished of the expectations associated with the all-singing, all-dancing central-midfielder.
If a 4-2-3-1 underpinned by a centrally-located Gerrard and Rooney functioned properly, then this could be England’s best strategy. It’s a sound international formation that incorporates England’s best players in key positions. When a less celebrated target man such as Emile Heskey is used, a touch of selfless graft and toil is stirred into the mix. Whilst most fans would prefer the focus to remain purely on ability, an international team isn’t just about fielding a hotchpotch of the best individuals – it’s about adopting an overall structure that facilitates optimum performance from the selected players. Heskey may not be the most talented forward in South Africa, but different types of influence are required, and his inclusion brings the best out of players such as Rooney and Gerrard. As WCC has highlighted, a team needs pawns as well as queens and rooks. That’s why a 4-2-3-1, with Gerrard behind Rooney, should remain a remote Plan C under Fabio Capello!
WCC recently analysed fantasy football data to explore an England XI based on performance statistics. We utilized Fantasy Premier League stats, and focused on average points per game from the 09/10 season. One potential issue with analyzing player performance is separating a player’s unique contribution from the overall performance of their team. For example, there was greater likelihood of scoring points for a clean-sheet if you played for champions Chelsea than relegated Portsmouth. And if you’re a Hull midfielder you are likely to have fewer opportunities to score goals and provide assists than your counterpart at Man Utd.
Fig. 1
Taking this into account, WCC has weighted the statistics to take into account the fact that players are situated within sides of varying quality. The difference between the top and bottom of the table with regard to goal difference was approximately 100, with Chelsea on +71 and Portsmouth on -32. (A Portsmouth player was in a team that was 103 goals worse than Chelsea over the season.) The spread in quality in the Premier League, using goal difference as an indicator, is thus rounded to 100. We can assume that the difference in quality from top to bottom roughly decreases at an incremental rate. Therefore we have increased the players’ average points per game by a fixed percentage to counterbalance this spread in team quality from top to bottom – see Fig 1.
Chelsea players receive no uplift as they were supported by the best team in the league. Man Utd players receive 10% uplift, Arsenal players 15%, and so on at 5% increments until Portsmouth, whose players receive 100% uplift. A Man Utd player with an average points per game score of 6 would therefore receive a 10% (0.6) uplift and thus end up with an adjusted rating of 6.6.
Applying this statistical approach, it appears that Robert Green is the rational choice to be England’s no.1. He scored a mean of 3.2 points per game over the year, but a wobbly West Ham side has been his only protection! Following 85% uplift he takes the keeper’s jersey with an adjusted score of 5.92. Paul Robinson (5.70) is the back-up, closely followed by pre-uplift no.1 Joe Hart (5.66). Despite 100% uplift, Portsmouth’s David James (5.40) still falls outside the squad.
Wolves’ Jody Craddock made the squad under the original statistics. But with 75% uplift he actually becomes the best defender in the Premier League, with an adjusted mean of 7.00 points per game. Glen Johnson (6.75) also retains his place. 35% uplift might seem generous for a Liverpool player, but they have experienced a lacklustre season. How many more points would Johnson have scored for Chelsea or Man Utd? In addition, Stoke pair Ryan Shawcross and Danny Higginbotham make the side (both 6.67). Scoring 5.60, Nicky Shorey (unwanted by Villa and behind Paul Konchesky at Fulham) is first substitute, with Matthew Upson (5.55) not far away. Blackburn’s teenage centre-back Phil Jones would be first reserve with 5.70, but he only played nine games so doesn’t meet our 10 games minimum criterion for inclusion. Perhaps he might be included at World Cup 2014!
Hull’s Jimmy Bullard is now the top midfielder, with his points per game average of 4.4 raised by 95% to 8.58. Frank Lampard does not receive any increase, but keeps his place in midfield courtesy of his impressive average of 7.9 points per game. David Dunn (7.35) also keeps his place, whilst Portsmouth’s Jamie O’Hara scores 6.8. Will O’Hara come into the international reckoning in the future if he secures a place at a more successful club? The midfield sub is Matthew Etherington (6.67) closely followed by James Milner (6.63).
Wayne Rooney (7.7) and Darren Bent are still the highest scoring forwards, but the latter is now top with an adjusted average of 8.42. Based on these figures, Fabio Capello should certainly take Bent to South Africa as he’s the best striker in the Premier League! First substitute is Carlton Cole (6.85) who may be unlucky not to have made the preliminary squad. Perhaps his association with an underperforming West Ham damaged his chances. It is perhaps noteworthy that England’s regular centre-forward Emile Heskey has an adjusted rating of only 2.47.
WCC has explored how history is swayed by contingent events. The question posed by a counterfactual historian is what if? Below is a recent newspaper article – obtained from a parallel universe where Robert Kovac only received a yellow card for his challenge on Joe Cole during England’s qualifier against Croatia in Zagreb.
“Oh, the pity of it Fabio. English football fans have been duped by false hope yet again. Now we are faced with the all too familiar prospect of England being deposited from a World Cup in humiliating fashion.
“Capello has demonstrated, if we needed it demonstrated again, that club management success does not readily translate into competence on the international stage. It’s one thing to orchestrate an already well-drilled continental club side, quite another to strong-arm a disparate group of English egos into a functioning unit. The qualification campaign spluttered in fits and starts like so many before. There was fleeting promise as England approached 90 minutes in Zagreb clinging to a 1-0 lead, before the inevitable panic set in and the now infamous Rio Ferdinand clanger gifted Croatia the draw. From this point on, the route to South Africa was always going to be undulating and tortuous, and home and away defeats to Ukraine indicate England’s present status in the global pecking order. It was only expected victories against the minnows, allied to Croatia’s dip in form, which enabled Capello’s misfiring, ramshackle collection of individuals to scrape into second place. Some dubious tweaking from Sepp Blatter meant that a FIFA-seeded England drew lowly Bosnia in the play-off, otherwise this could have been another major tournament bereft of the Three Lions – perhaps mercifully.
“In retrospect, we should have paid closer heed to Capello’s absurd comments early in his incumbency, when he compared the pedestrian David Beckham to Portuguese flyer Cristiano Ronaldo. This is certainly not a man attuned to navigate the idiosyncratic vagaries of England’s international set-up. It is quite incredible that the same issues endure in 2010 under Capello, which were relentlessly debated during Sven Goran-Eriksson’s misguided era. Can Frank Lampard and Steven Gerrard play in the same midfield? We still don’t know, but what is certain is that depositing Gerrard into an unfamiliar and uncomfortable outpost on the left is no sort of solution. Lampard is also a neutered presence next to the one-paced Gareth Barry in central-midfield. A misfiring midfield has meant that Wayne Rooney, otherwise on exceptional form for Man Utd, has increasingly resembled a headless chicken for England as he feverishly tries to compensate for his coach’s lack of tactical know-how. But it is perhaps the persistent deployment of the labouring, non-scoring Emile Heskey which is most indicative of a Capello’s obtuse and belligerent managerial style. Desperation and stubbornness are also unhappy bedfellows, and the sight of a floundering Sol Campbell in a defensive midfield role against Egypt was the lowest point in England’s recent footballing history.
“So on to South Africa! At least under Eriksson it seemed as though staid progression to the early knock-out rounds was imminent. With Capello at the helm, England will need luck on their side to progress from a group including Brazil and Ivory Coast. At least Steve McClaren spared us the misery of Euro 2008!”
WCC convened a special meeting between Frank Lampard and Peter Crouch* so that they could explore the latter’s surprising source of inspiration. Their discussion is detailed below.
Frank Lampard: Hi Peter. I understand that your approach to the art of forward play has been inspired by quantum mechanics?
Peter Crouch: Hi Frank. Yes, that’s right. I heard Jonny Wilkinson [England rugby player] talking on the radio a couple of years back and was interested in how his approach had been influenced by quantum mechanics. The Schrodinger’s Cat thought experiment particularly fascinated me.
FL: Could you tell me a bit about this cat?
PC: It was devised by Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger, and basically it’s about a cat inside a box. A subatomic particle may or may not decay inside the box, but if it does this would then release some poison. So basically the cat is alive and dead at the same time – until you open the box.
FL: How many cats were killed to find this out?
PC: It is only a thought experiment fortunately, so I hope it’s none.
FL: That’s a relief. So how is the cat alive and dead at the same time?
PC: It’s something to do with the superposition of states of being; the experiment shows the difficulty of applying principles of quantum mechanics to macroscopic entities – perhaps.
FL: OK. So it’s alive and dead at the same time, until you open the box and then?
PC: It would definitely be one state or the other – alive or dead.
FL: How so?
PC: Because its state depends on an external observer I think.
FL: OK, well I still don’t really get it. But I’m very interested to know how you are applying this knowledge to football.
PC: Well, do you remember that penalty against Jamaica back in 2006, when I tried the cheeky chip but missed embarrassingly?
FL: Oh yes.
PC: Well, I guess if there had been no external observers outside the 18 yard box then in a sense I would have simultaneously scored and not scored.
FL: You’d have still missed!
PC: I suppose so, but it would have been less embarrassing.
FL: OK, how else has Schrödinger’s Cat shaped your game?
PC: Well, a dead cat can’t catch a mouse and a dead centre forward can’t score a goal. But a cat that is simultaneously dead and alive could maybe catch a mouse and centre forward that is simultaneously dead and alive could maybe score a goal.
FL: Wise words.
PC: They’d probably get the wind up the opposition defence as well.
FL: Who would?
PC: The simultaneously dead and alive centre forward.
FL: Of course! Thanks for your time.
PC: Cheers.
* Frank Lampard and Peter Crouch have not been contacted by WCC and the above discussion is therefore assumed.
