Will Fitness Trump Skill in Germany?

[Sempre]

In the latest issue of World Soccer, there is a very
interesting interview with Thierry Henry.

Analyzing the 2002 World Cup, Henry theorized that teams
with fresh, fit players trumped teams with greater skill.

Brazil - Ronaldhino had been at PSG, and hadn't been playing
in the Champions League; Ronaldo had been injured; Rivaldo
had been on Barca's bench. These three made the difference.

S. Korea - With four months to prepare, this team was just
hell to play. Fresh as daisies, and fit to run non-stop in the
blistering heat, they got past better opponents.

Turkey - Fresher than most. A lot of their players had not been
weighed down by the neverending schedule of games.

Germany - Not as fresh as the teams above, but the Germans
were also not ravaged by injuries and fatigue.

If Henry is right, and this phenomenon will apply in Germany, we
can say that Brazil, England, Italy, and France, for starters, will
be very much up against it. While teams like the USA, Serbia and
and Montenegro, and Ukraine will be fresh.

Your thoughts - ?

[jrod69]

well i hope thats true except not for spain ;)

[The Potter]

The FA are ending the season a week earlier for this exact reason. But I don't think Germany will be as demanding as the far east.



I'm more worried by the lack of international build up games.

[sinner78]

I

Germany - Not as fresh as the teams above, but the Germans
were also not ravaged by injuries and fatigue.




germany has a long mid season break in their league.
longer than anyone else .They had injuries but you cant under-estimate what their mid season break does for them in end of season tournies.

[The Potter]

germany has a long mid season break in their league.
longer than anyone else .They had injuries but you cant under-estimate what their mid season break does for them in end of season tournies.


The premiership on the other hand will be making clubs play 4 games in a week. Genius

[roma/totti]

well players from teams will have about a months rest before the world cup, begins, i think that should be enough time for players which i hope for italy are well rested, i mean we have ac milan and juventus in cl, if they get to the finals then i think fatigue can set it, which isnt good at all for italy, but i mean roma wont go to too far in uefa, so i dont see a big problem

[Jaison]

The earlier endings of the league seasons combined with the removal of the second group stage of the CL will probably alleviate at least some of the fitness and fatigue issues compared to 2002.

[sinner78]

The premiership on the other hand will be making clubs play 4 games in a week. Genius


well we love to screw ourselves by playing a brutal winter schedule.

[Auriaprottu]

In the latest issue of World Soccer, there is a very
interesting interview with Thierry Henry.

Analyzing the 2002 World Cup, Henry theorized that teams
with fresh, fit players trumped teams with greater skill.

Brazil - Ronaldhino had been at PSG, and hadn't been playing
in the Champions League; Ronaldo had been injured; Rivaldo
had been on Barca's bench. These three made the difference.

S. Korea - With four months to prepare, this team was just
hell to play. Fresh as daisies, and fit to run non-stop in the
blistering heat, they got past better opponents.

Turkey - Fresher than most. A lot of their players had not been
weighed down by the neverending schedule of games.

Germany - Not as fresh as the teams above, but the Germans
were also not ravaged by injuries and fatigue.

If Henry is right, and this phenomenon will apply in Germany, we
can say that Brazil, England, Italy, and France, for starters, will
be very much up against it. While teams like the USA, Serbia and
and Montenegro, and Ukraine will be fresh.

Your thoughts - ?

I don't have the magazine, so I'll ask your opinion.

Wrt Brasil: Is Henry suggesting that Brasil's success was attributable to their fitness level (or, more specifically, the fitness level of the three Rs) trumping the skill of... the skill of... the skill of... ...of what team?

I'm truly confused here. Who, exactly, has more skill than Brasil, fit or no?

Win or lose, the five-time champions consistently enter the Cup with one of, if not the most skilled team in the competition. I'ts clear that those three players were rested, but really- is he implying that there were teams out there with more (or even equal) skill that would have won had these three played the same number of matches as their opposition's players? Because if that's what he's saying, it's beneath him, and a poor excuse to boot.

[Chewmylegoff]

In the latest issue of World Soccer, there is a very
interesting interview with Thierry Henry.

Analyzing the 2002 World Cup, Henry theorized that teams
with fresh, fit players trumped teams with greater skill.

Brazil - Ronaldhino had been at PSG, and hadn't been playing
in the Champions League; Ronaldo had been injured; Rivaldo
had been on Barca's bench. These three made the difference.

S. Korea - With four months to prepare, this team was just
hell to play. Fresh as daisies, and fit to run non-stop in the
blistering heat, they got past better opponents.

Turkey - Fresher than most. A lot of their players had not been
weighed down by the neverending schedule of games.

Germany - Not as fresh as the teams above, but the Germans
were also not ravaged by injuries and fatigue.

If Henry is right, and this phenomenon will apply in Germany, we
can say that Brazil, England, Italy, and France, for starters, will
be very much up against it. While teams like the USA, Serbia and
and Montenegro, and Ukraine will be fresh.

Your thoughts - ?


the koreans got as far as they did mainly because linesmen overruled any goal scored against them.

brazil won because they were the best team.

the end.

[gumbacicc]

Sounds like sour grapes from Henry. Fatigue can surely be attributed to a team's performance, but both finalists, Brazil & Germany, had many key players who play for club teams that were competing in long campaigns.

The fact of the matter is that it was just a strange WC. For Argentina, France and Portugal to go out as early they did, it was a major shock. Then we need not get into the horrible officiating which played great part in Italy and Spain's premature exit. Then you had Korea who was disgracefully aided by the officiating the entire way, and Japan also getting favorable referees (albeit worlds less than korea) which helped these two sides progress, despite not being such strong teams.

I suspect that what we saw last WC will not happen again in Germany and if France go out early again, the only thing Henry will be entitled to attribute that to is his team's own poor play. Same goes for the other traditional footballing powers.

[DoctorD]

I suspect that what we saw last WC will not happen again in Germany and if France go out early again, the only thing Henry will be entitled to attribute that to is his team's own poor play. Same goes for the other traditional footballing powers.

So are you saying that "what we saw last WC" was favoritism towards Korea and Japan and we won't see that next year, or are you saying that "what we saw last WC" was favoritism towards the home team? Looks like the "traditional footballing powers" already got favorable draws for the most part.

[gumbacicc]

So are you saying that "what we saw last WC" was favoritism towards Korea and Japan and we won't see that next year, or are you saying that "what we saw last WC" was favoritism towards the home team? Looks like the "traditional footballing powers" already got favorable draws for the most part.

What I'm saying is that I suspect that the Asian teams will return to their normal mediocrity in WC play, without the benefit of the home side officiating favoritism; and further, that I don't suspect sides like Argentina and France and Portugal to falter in a WC played in Europe, given historical precedents and the strength of their current squad. Consequently, if all goes as I predict, this will be a typical WC with the usual suspects around in the end, and lacking the surprises we saw last time around.

Further, not all the traditional powers got favorable draws (i.e. Italy, Argentina, Holland). Further, there is also a great likelihood that Brazil will have to face either Italy or the Czechs in the first knockout stage as well.

[Sempre]

I don't have the magazine, so I'll ask your opinion.

Wrt Brasil: Is Henry suggesting that Brasil's success was attributable to their fitness level (or, more specifically, the fitness level of the three Rs) trumping the skill of... the skill of... the skill of... ...of what team?

I'm truly confused here. Who, exactly, has more skill than Brasil, fit or no?

Win or lose, the five-time champions consistently enter the Cup with one of, if not the most skilled team in the competition. I'ts clear that those three players were rested, but really- is he implying that there were teams out there with more (or even equal) skill that would have won had these three played the same number of matches as their opposition's players? Because if that's what he's saying, it's beneath him, and a poor excuse to boot.

I'll try to play devil's advocate for a moment.

First, let's recall that before Japanorea Brazil were not favorite
to win. They had been losing an unusual number of games and
their WCQ campaign hardly showed them to be the world's best
side.

I think, objectively, that France had as much talent as Brazil
in 2002--but Zidane was injured, and the French did look rather
ragged. Not a goal scored? Something deeper than "Brazil were
the best, Korea got the calls" was happening here.

Let's also imagine that the 3 Rs came into Japanorea after an
exhausting campaign playing domestically, in the league cups,
and in the Champions League, with a short break before the WC.
Would they have been the same players? Maybe not.

Were Argentina less talented than Brazil in 2002? This, too, is
worth thinking about. And there were a number of games at that
Cup that showed athleticism trumping skill--USA over Portugal,
Korea over Italy, and so forth.

One thing that concerns me is the simple fact that players have
been complaining, often quite boldly, about the exhausting schedule
of games. A simple look at the sort of schedule Kaka or Gerrard will
have had leading up to the WC makes me think they have a point.

Kaka, for instance, will have gone from the Champions League final,
to the Confederations Cup, to Milan's pre-season training, to Serie
A and the Champions League--right through to the World Cup. That
sort of schedule has to take a toll ...............

[Excape Goat]

For your information, Leverkusen who went to the Final of CL that summer had the largest number of players in the semi-final. Players who made it so far in the CL did not affect their performance at WC. Figo and Zidane failed at WC Finals because of injuries(perhaps due to long season). Spain went to the quaterfinal with botrh Barcelona and Real Madrid in the smei. England with MANU in the CL semifinal did very well. Borussia Dortmond also went all the way to the UEFA Cup Final.

But yes, I do agree that the long European season took toll on the national teams.

[Auriaprottu]

I'll try to play devil's advocate for a moment.

First, let's recall that before Japanorea Brazil were not favorite
to win. They had been losing an unusual number of games and
their WCQ campaign hardly showed them to be the world's best
side.

Brasil went through what- two (I remember Luxemburgo and Zico, can't remember if there was a third) managers before settling on Scolari? That had to hurt. Plus, I don't think they ever had their full-strength side during WCQ. That's no excuse for them coming as close to the brink as they did, but it explains how Argentina won WCQ. I said back when they still were in danger of not qualifying that if they made it thru, the team they'd bring to the Cup would be greatly improved, and they were.

I think, objectively, that France had as much talent as Brazil
in 2002--but Zidane was injured, and the French did look rather
ragged. Not a goal scored? Something deeper than "Brazil were
the best, Korea got the calls" was happening here.

I do think Korea got the calls, but France should have been able to do better than they did even if Zidane had not gone at all. Remember, Romario was left off the Selecao (and I admit I was one of those who cursed Scolari at every opportunity for doing so), and the other players simply stepped up. Depth must be cultivated for success to be a continuing realization.

Let's also imagine that the 3 Rs came into Japanorea after an
exhausting campaign playing domestically, in the league cups,
and in the Champions League, with a short break before the WC.
Would they have been the same players? Maybe not.

We'll never know for sure. I've already conceded this point, tho.

Were Argentina less talented than Brazil in 2002?

Yes and no. They have tremendous talent, but the manner in which they (mis)use it, especially against Brasil, is deplorable, and not good for the Game as a whole. Their ugly tactics caught up with them in a way that did not happen during WCQ. Perhaps CONMEBOL allows that sort of thing, but FIFA does not, thank God.

And there were a number of games at that
Cup that showed athleticism trumping skill--USA over Portugal,

Selecao Lite has never been all that impressive as a team. They are better than a lot of teams on paper, but when it matters, they seem to find ways to fail. The loss to the USA wasn't so much a triumph of athleticism over skill but a failure of a talented team to play like one. Everything we needed to know about Portugal in 2002 can be summed up in one match- the one against Korea where they were playing for a draw from about the 35th minute until that guy decided to start fouling. Then Figo comes along and begs for a fix.

Korea over Italy,

I'm not certain the Italians aren't as athletic as any team out there. I will admit Korea looked fit as hell, tho.

[Nanbawan]

The 2002 WC started earlier to avoid monsoon. Henry isn't the first to bring that point concerning the last tournament. I also think he speaks in general terms for the whole competition, no need to focus on Brazil which was arguably the best team.

Concerning the French squad, a failed preparation was a major factor in that dismal performance IMO. A concern that wasn't erased at the last Euro. France really did stroll during the qualifiers (won all their matches) and as soon as the game against England started : "OMG, they don't look really fit !".

They struggled against Croatia, they did put a fight against the plucky greeks, but frankly they looked heavy on their feet during the whole competition. Normally, we should be warned about this by now, yet it remains one of my concerns regarding 2006.

[Jawz10]

I've always believed that Ronaldo saved his best until tournaments anyway. You can chalk it up under "conspiracy theories", but the year before the WC Ronaldo was always getting mystery injuries and being out for a month. He probably missed half a season because of it, then when the WC2002 came around he was fit, on form, and firing on all cylinders. He duly won the WPOTY award. He never plays hard, then when a Selecao match comes around he's all over the place.

WHICH brings up another question, is it fair for a player to win an award based on his form at one tournament when many players play an entire league campaign at just as high a level? Brazilians everywhere hate me right now.

[minorthreat]

WHICH brings up another question, is it fair for a player to win an award based on his form at one tournament when many players play an entire league campaign at just as high a level? Brazilians everywhere hate me right now.No, it isn't. The WPOTY that year should rightfully have been Michael Ballack.

[Duck Manson]

the koreans got as far as they did mainly because linesmen overruled any goal scored against them.

brazil won because they were the best team.

the end.agreed