The bigger they are, the harder they fall

[soccereconomist]

Slowly but surely, less prestigious soccer nations have crept been geetiing high quality results, with countries such as Sweden (94'), Bulgaria (94'), Croatia (98'), Senegal (02'), South Korea (02') and now Greece (04') beating teams with superior players (i.e. players that play on major clubs abroad and having a strong domestic league) in major international competitions.

Personally, I think the main culprit behind these loses has been two major trends in caused by the increase in transfers and the long international soccer calendar- fatigue and a lack of nationalism by players in the 'bigger' soccer nations. Specifically, I think the increase in transfers of younger players has diminished their desire to fight and win for their national team. Of course, I have no idea what is going through the heads of these international players, but I can just see in the faces of some players throughout the lackluster performances in the euro cup- the desire is just not the same on the national team level as it is on the club level.

First, let's tackle the fatigue issue. Even with superior training methods, sports medicine, and technology, one cannot control for the factor of mental fatigue when a big tournament comes at the end of a long season of domestic, cup and champions league games, as well as increasing travel for pre-season friendlies. Over the years leading up to the major competitions, these extra games add up to tremendous mental and physical fatigue, as well as nagging and chronic injuries. It's no wonder they cannot get motivated from the 25th consecutive month of playing.

As an example, Arsenal played 38 league matches, 5 FA Cup matches, 6 Carling cup matches, 10 Champions league matches (21 extra games). Chealsea played 14 Champions league matches, and 7 cup matches (21 extra games). Real Madrid (10 extra games) flew to Japan in the pre-season, while Manchester United (17 extra games), one of the main suppliers of the English squad, was gallivanting around the U.S. Since last July, all of these players have been playing non-stop week in and week out.


I know, many may disagree and say its a player's job to play all the time, and how they have such a great life, but there is no way the constant day in and day out pressure of having to play all the time does not get affect their long term play somewhat, on a deeper long term quality level. When every game means everything week in and week out- the incentive to perform well at a summer tournament in which you know your teammates (closely) for a month does not compare to the desire to win with your colleagues that you sweat blood for every other week of your life.

Arguably the biggest disappointment of the last two cups have been France, a team so stocked with talent that they were proclaimed the favourites by almost every major expert for Euro 2004, even after their early exit from ******/Kor 02, and Argentina, which were arguably the perennial pre-tournament favourites of 02' based on skill alone. With players in every position from the greatest clubs in the entire world, who could blame them?

The thrill of playing abroad for huge salaries and exposure has taken its toll on many national teams. Only six players from the entire 04' French squad play in France, while almost none of them (except Fabien Barthez) see any playing time. The core of their squad is made of players from Arsenal and Chelsea (7 starters), two English powerhouses involved in all four major domestic and international competitions, including the gruelling midweek European cup schedule that ran well into April and May.

Thierry Henry has lived in England for about five seasons and owes- no understatement- his career to Arsene Wenger and Arsenal, who picked him up (after seeing play left wing!) from Juve- and converted him into the greatest striker in the world. His huge improvement and development was done abroad, as was most of the French players, so inertly, there must be some let down to come play for another group of which you have no connection to.

In this era of globalization, gone are the days that a French, Dutch or small European player grows up until he is 23/25 in his home country honing his talents and then is off to go abroad, now the best youngsters are poached at the ages of 18 and spend basically their entire adult lives abroad, with no incentive to 'prove' themselves at international tournaments. This trend is only going to continue and is fast becoming the norm.

It's not that the players are all spoiled babies, it's the system that makes them that way. When your bread and butter is provided for you at such a young (and impressionable) age, then it is hard to be as committed to the greater cause of your national team when all you want to do is be drinking a large pina colada in the canary islands with your wife and kids after eleven straight months of stress.

Then take a country like Greece. A strong domestic league supplies them with excellent role players who are unpetulant while playing and have no qualms about giving it all for the team, not themselves. They have nothing to lose and only a large European contract to gain and their players are much fresher than any of their European giant counterparts, whose players have toured the world and played non-stop to years and have little to prove on the international scale. Portugal, France, Spain and Czech all fell to the more 'energetic', not more skilled, side.

On the other side of the pond, the USA 98' and 02' squads and is another example of this phenomenon. Only when the U.S. made a commitment to its domestic league playing an integral part in their world cup squad did the team succeed and was internationally recognized for its incredible spirit- not just its skilful improvement.

It is time for international super powers to face the music- the best individuals do not make the best squad. Look at trophy-less Real Madrid and you can see what I mean. Even in this era of larger than life superstars making exorbitant salaries, a team is still not built on players alone, but relies on tactics and unity to win titles.

[Bauser]

When every game means everything week in and week out- the incentive to perform well at a summer tournament in which you know your teammates (closely) for a month does not compare to the desire to win with your colleagues that you sweat blood for every other week of your life.

I generally agree with much of what you wrote, but I think this paragraph is wrong. I don't believe pro players these days sweat blood and tears for their clubs and arrive not motivated at a big NT tournament.

I would say 99% of all professionals - who have experienced success at both club and NT level - would point out the World Cup or Euro champs as the highlight of their careers no matter what they have achieved with clubs. I'm sure Zidane has great memories of his volley against Leverkusen in the CL final a couple of years ago, but I think it fades a lot when measured up against what he experienced with France 1998 and 2000.

I also think there is great bonding between players in national teams since there is no transferring. You may stay with many of the same teammates for more than 10 years. At club level players come and go faster than you can say Abramovich. Few stay for more than 4-5 years together. Time seems to be gone when there was love connected with club football and the players involved. There is the occasional Maldini at Milan and Adams at Arsenal who may say they love their respective clubs, but I don't believe one bit that that is the norm. Club football seems to be more and more about personal exposure and money and less about love. Less to sweat blood and tears for.

[beachesl]

Very good article, soccereconomist, you make some good points.

I think the lack of success of Spain, which have taken some of the best individual players to major world tournaments shows the lack of nationalistic desire aspect. My theory has always been that if Spain allowed their autonomous national regions such as Gallicia, Basques, Catalonia, and maybe Adnulucia to compete, each of those teams would have more success than the combined Sapnish team they field. This is because the players would care more, and thus play better. Solely having the larget numbers of talented players will not guarantee success: if so, Brazil would have won every match they have played in the last hundred years.

The United States is not getting better because it is has a huge population, or even (tho this is more important than the former) because it has the financial resources. It is because the system is now more devoted to success as a soccer nation now, with development programs and a funded professional league. They are better than Canada not because they have 10 times the population, but because they are 16 years ahead of us in player development and efficient organization. This is as a result of a nationalistic (altho in the American sense it would be better to say patriotic) devotion to a cause, and a will to coordinate the efforts to national success. They have bridged the narrow nationalistic efforts of ethnic groups to marginalize soccer (altho there are pockets of resistance, they are less important). Canada has a long way to go in this department, in all aspects.

So size is neither a negative or positve factor as things balance out...it is devotion, commitment, unity and organization towards a cause.

I also agree with bauser that some of the busier players have that nationalistic desire. Look at the players for England. The problem can be seen in that verse: "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak". And the weakness is not just physical weakness, it is the incredible distractions that living in a high pressure bowl that is professional soccer that wekens what nationlistic fervour is mustered. England will never repeat the glories of 1966. Their whole social structure and world view now will never permit the mustering of single-minded devotion that countries like France and Germany will occaisonally be able to rise, but never sustain.

[VioletCrown]

Slowly but surely, less prestigious soccer nations have crept been geetiing high quality results, with countries such as Sweden (94'), Bulgaria (94'), Croatia (98'), Senegal (02'), South Korea (02') and now Greece (04') beating teams with superior players (i.e. players that play on major clubs abroad and having a strong domestic league) in major international competitions.

You forgot Denmark (Euro '92, Semifinal in '84), Belguim (Final loser Euro '80, Semifinal WC '86, Semifinal Euro '72), Poland (WC '82)...

Not that I read any of your post. You probably have very good points in it.

But it seems to me that there's always good 'less prestigious' teams. And the nature of tournaments will allow one or two of these 'less prestigious' teams to go a long way.

Regarding your inclusion of Croatia as a 'less prestigious team, I have to say that remembering the glorious history of Yugoslavia in international soccer, for me Croatia doesn't quite count as a less prestigious team.

If the US were to split up, I'd still expect California to field a damn good team. And I wouldn't be surprised. And I wouldn't think of them as less presigious. I'd let them inherit a good part of the prestige that US soccer is developing now.

[saabrian]

Some of what you say makes sense...

"Slowly but surely, less prestigious soccer nations have crept been geetiing high quality results..."

I'll add USA ('02) to the list you provided.

"Personally, I think the main culprit behind these loses has been two major trends in caused by the increase in transfers and the long international soccer calendar- fatigue and a lack of nationalism by players in the 'bigger' soccer nations."

I think the fatigue question is real. The more famous countries have more regulars on big clubs that go further in the Champions League (and are more likely to play long pre-seasons) than less prestigious countries that might have only a few or none at all.

On the other hand, this is balanced out by the fact that smaller countries have a much hard time scheduling friendlies because the European clubs piss and moan about releasing their players. Heck, they even whine about competitive tournaments like the African Nations Cup.

However, I don't know that players in the 'bigger' soccer countries are any less proud to play for their national team than the smaller ones. Do you really think Zidane or Deschamps would rank winning the Champions League above winning the World Cup? I seriously doubt it.

"I know, many may disagree and say its a player's job to play all the time, and how they have such a great life, but there is no way the constant day in and day out pressure of having to play all the time does not get affect their long term play somewhat, on a deeper long term quality level. When every game means everything week in and week out- the incentive to perform well at a summer tournament in which you know your teammates (closely) for a month does not compare to the desire to win with your colleagues that you sweat blood for every other week of your life."

I think you're right in that as highly paid and well trained as these athletes are, they are still human beings and the human body and mind has its limits. I disagree that the lack of familiarity with national team mates is less of an incentive. The World Cup is its own incentive. This lack of familiarity may breed lack of cohesion and fluidity that causes the whole to be less than the sum of its parts. But I think that's a technical issues, not a motivation issue. I think, as you point out, the fatigue question is the real factor. Unfortunately, this is not going away. Unless, players are willing to take salary cuts in exchange for fewer games. I'm not holding my breath on that.

"Thierry Henry has lived in England for about five seasons and owes- no understatement- his career to Arsene Wenger and Arsenal, who picked him up (after seeing play left wing!) from Juve- and converted him into the greatest striker in the world. His huge improvement and development was done abroad, as was most of the French players, so inertly, there must be some let down to come play for another group of which you have no connection to."

However, the same core of players won WC98 and Euro 2000. So is the difference motivation or the fact that the core has aged and needs to be replaced?

"In this era of globalization, gone are the days that a French, Dutch or small European player grows up until he is 23/25 in his home country honing his talents and then is off to go abroad, now the best youngsters are poached at the ages of 18 and spend basically their entire adult lives abroad, with no incentive to 'prove' themselves at international tournaments. This trend is only going to continue and is fast becoming the norm."

I don't see that. The Euro and WC are showcase events. A player can become the object of bigger clubs' desires if he has a good performance in those 3-6 high profile games. Every big tournament there are a few. El Hadji Diouf in '02, some of the Nigerian players after '94, some of the Greek players today. Heck, even Alexi Lalas signed with a Serie A club after a few good games in WC94. Or he can gain an increased role in his club by proving himself on the big stage. Do you really think that Wayne Rooney's performance in Euro 2004 didn't make at least as big impact than a whole season at Everton?

"It's not that the players are all spoiled babies, it's the system that makes them that way. When your bread and butter is provided for you at such a young (and impressionable) age, then it is hard to be as committed to the greater cause of your national team when all you want to do is be drinking a large pina colada in the canary islands with your wife and kids after eleven straight months of stress."

Sure it's normal to need and want a break. But like I said, let them be willing to take a pay cut in exchange for fewer games.

[Gordon EF]

Great thread by the way!

Another aspect to this, it is not just national teams which this phenomenon is affecting. Porto just won the UEFA Champions League with a squad assembled for a, reletive, pittance. And, I'm sure an unfashionable Columbian team won the CONMEBOL equivalent (Once Caldes?).

Maybe this is just a coincidence, maybe not.

Fatigue, a lot has been made of this but I'm not convinced. Surely this would affect players, equally, in their league form. I'm sure everyone will agree that Thierry Henry has been far from spectacular in the last two tournaments but I'm sure he'll go on and continue where he left off in the league for Arsenal. Fitness is a big factor, obviously, but I doubt plyers from France, germany, Italy etc will really suffer because they play more games for their clubs.

Another argument against the fatigue theory is trends outside of major tournaments. The best example is the UEFA tournament qualifying competitions. the small UEFA teams have made huge steps towards the larger nations recently. Greece beat Spain to come first in their group. Belarus challenged up until the end in a group with 2 or 3 much bigger nations. Lithuania and the Faroe Islands both acheived results against both Germany and Scotland in their group, this was unthinkable maybe even 5 years ago.

As for mental fatigue, some players are mentally stronger than others. If you look at a side like Greece, it becomes obvious that they have a 'mental toughness' which helps them overcome suposedly superior oponents. I haven't seen much of the USA but most people agre this is a great strength of theirs. Maybe smaller teams are developing a persecution complex?

This is maybe more evident in club football. In club football, a manager can buy players, he knows have this toughness. In national teams, a manager has to either instill this in his team or sacrifice more talented players for ones with a better attitude.

I think this has a lot to do with the raise of some of the smaller nations and clubs recently.

I think the fact that players from smaller countries (and coaches to) are now able to go to the more traditional leagues and learn from them. They can come back and organise a team into a hard working, tactically aware, and technically gifted group of players which has made a mojor difference.

It's an incredibly complex topic and it would proabably take a book to answer anywhere near completely. But I think you have to look at it country by country. the reasons that Germany are not doing well are not the same reaosns for the French failure.

Another point is the location of tournaments. Northern European teams (which contain a lot of the traditional nations) do not usually fare well outside Europe or in hot climates. Japan/Korea and Portugal will never be their favoured locations. If the smaller teams continue to do as well in Germany 2006, I will be a little surprised.

[Bauser]

Another point is the location of tournaments. Northern European teams (which contain a lot of the traditional nations) do not usually fare well outside Europe or in hot climates. Japan/Korea and Portugal will never be their favoured locations. If the smaller teams continue to do as well in Germany 2006, I will be a little surprised.

South America in June would be perfect for Northern European teams. Remember Argentina '78? Players had long sleeves. It was rather cold. Don't know if that will be the case in Brazil when the cup comes there though.

[ursula]

Same could be said of Sout Africa too where a bunch of games, if played at night will be played in decidedly cool, if not actually freezing (possible) conditions.

[Auxodium]

It is simple
Soccer is a funny game, so unpredictable

that statement is true. against the odds a smaller team beats the bigger side.

[burn357]

Fatigue, maybe, but i doubt it. Dont you think that France, Spain, Brazil, Holland and Italy's B teams are talented enough to beat teams like Greece and South Korea(koreans really didnt creep their way up into greatness, its simply called buying referees). Im sure that if the great footballing nations fielded their U 21 teams they would be good enough to beat less prestigious sides, based on individual talent.
Lack of interest for one's country? Thats absolutely absurd. Look at the tears streaming down the face of Batistuta when Argentina failed to qualify for the second round in WC 2002. Look at the unconsolable Fransesco Toldo face down on the field after France's golden goal took the Euro 2000 out of Italy's hands. Look at Cristiano Ronaldo bawling after losing to Greece. Look at Antonio Cassano's shift from absolute joy to absolute despair after scoring the winner against Bulgaria only to find out that it didnt matter because Sweden and Denmark had tied 2-2. Nothing is more important to a footballer than winning for his country.
I think that the real reasons are these- coaching, overconfidence, lack of cohesion and teamwork on the pitch, and of course, plain bad luck.
Greece won because they played to their strengths and were able to play as a team. The big teams lost simply because their coaches did not prepare them well enough to play cohesively and fluidly. They just thouught, o its only greece, and look what happened. hopefully they will learn their lessons and come to the World Cup focused and more prepared.