[NNGR]Grudging Ambivalence: The World Cup Thread

Did you see LD's tweet about that?

In fact, did you see his Wells Fargo ad? I found it amusing but if England didn't qualify and we had Harry Kane doing a commercial where he sported a Germany shirt, it would not be well received.

But then we're talking about the nation that was livid after Euro 96 when Gareth Southgate appeared in a Pizza Hut commercial that mocked him for his penalty shootout miss. People couldn't believe that he'd make light of such a serious thing!

 

In Chicharito's defence, I was wearing my Man Utd shirt with his name on it. That's Kryptonite to any player.

 

Okay, let's not rewrite history.

LD showed plenty of heart and drive for the USMNT and is ingrained in some of its biggest moments.

I can see why USMNT fans would be upset with this Mexico stuff but you can't take his career from him. The reasons for JK leaving him out aren't suddenly justified because Donovan has used questionable judgement in this case.

Personally, while I understand US fans not wanting to follow the Mexico, I've no issue with those who have decided to for this WC. I personally support England because that is where I was born and raised, I support the USMNT when they aren't playing in England, because this is where I live and where my late wife is from.

I also have a lot of friends who follow Mexico, so it was nice to see them get that result.

 

I can also appreciate his explanation that he grew up playing soccer with Mexican kids and exposure to their passion being part of what pushed him to become pro.

 

I doubt he'd make that up, which makes it even more frustrating if true.

Something that this suggests - and it explains issues I said about that generations for years, while it was actually happening - that the players held far too much sway over what went on.

The clearest explanation for that generation's failure was the consistent, nonsensical approach to cram all the 'names' into the starting XI. Lampard and Gerrard were the biggest indicators of that.

Both players were primarily attack-minded midfielders. They could pitch in with other duties but wherever they were nominally placed according to the team sheet, they were most influential in and around the box. Indeed, both Chelsea and Liverpool were somewhat built around both players in their prime.

Whatever formation England used and wherever Lampard and Gerrard were "deployed", they operated pretty much the same as they did for their clubs. Gerrard could be started as the deeper midfielder, a RW, a CM in a double pivot and he'd still move in-field and operate on the edge of the area. So basically, he and Lampard would jockey for position in that zone, which is why our midfield was often ineffectual against solid opposition.

Of course, when things went right, those guys would be involved in the goals, so the issue barely registered with the British media til late on (and even then, it was more that they had disappointed, with little analysis as to why). It was also telling when bringing in players like Gareth Barry, Owen Hargreaves and Scott Parker, especially in place of one of the two, that our midfields tended to improve.

The most heartbreaking outcome of all this, though (and yes, I'm partisan on this) was the criminal misuse of Paul Scholes which I feel led him to retire from international football too early. Scholes is frequently cited by elite midfielders that came shortly after him, up to today (Xavi, a strong example) as a huge inspiration. More so than his England contemparies... including Gerrard, Lampard and Beckham. Yet to accommodate Gerrard and Lampard (with Becks on the right), Scholes was routinely shunted to LW for England.

The man who should have been dictating England's tempo, the guy with the superior "soccer IQ" was shunted out because the England team was often lined-up like a fantasy football team or "dream XI" rather than one intended to facilitate as system of play.

At first I thought it was Eriksson being incompetent, then McClaren being incompetent but when Fabio ****ing Capello of tactically-phenomenal '90s Milan fame started dong it, I was confused. Was I just wrong? But in later years, my way of thinking seems to have seeped into the mainstream.

Now that I hear this about cliques, that would certainly make more sense. If the players were able to do this, then clearly the managers weren't taking enough control. I'd guess that if the players were also failing to bond and forming their own groups off the field, it would follow that they were probably exercising some kind of influence both on the field and I'm thinking now, even in team selection.

We know that John Terry played a part in a few 'mutinees' at Chelsea. Sir Alex Ferguson wouldn't put up with that but it was certainly reported that in Moyes's tenure, Ferdinand and some of the old guard did push back against him.

Maybe that's it.

Note that even though Tunisia did frustrate England for spells yesterday, there was more of a cohesive system at play. David Bolt did a good article about this the other day and I certainly attribute it to a lack of "names" that must be fielded at all costs. If what Rio says is true, then **** all of them for wasting probably a couple of decades of serious talent at the international level - him included.

(might make this a blog entry...)

 

Oh crap. Is that the UK media saying it?

If so, the reasonable expectations and reduction in pressure were fun while they lasted. I'd be delighted with a QF run. If we can overcome a power, then I'll be ecstatic.

However, if they hype-beast has awakened, I anticipate the "Gareth Sproutgate" headline, with his face superimposed onto a sprout, at our next unconvincing 1-0 victory. (more blog potential...)