Germany have clinically decimated, dismantled and despatched a hapless English side that was hyped up as potential champions by many clueless pundits.
I can’t tell you how happy I am. Words fail me. Over the years England, in my mind, have come to represent everything anti-Arsenal. I know this is not fair to thousands of true gooners from England and trust me I don’t count them when I write this. They are the exceptions that prove the rule.
The reason I feel this way is that almost the entire English set-up is completely contradictory to the Arsenal way. We all know how the pundits hate us, how the media (except a few balanced writers) is largely anti-Arsenal, how most managers promote a style that doesn’t leave us a leg to stand on, and how some so called Arsenal fans criticize their own team for failing to be English! And I’m not even getting into the refs or the FA and other authorities.
This goes on season after season. Arsenal do things the right way; manage finances, develop young players, play brilliant football, compete at the highest level, and act responsibly in all activities be it transfers, or community development, or any other.
There is only one stick to beat Arsenal with really – No Trophies. In order to use this stick one has to lose all sense of perspective (move to the stadium, financial constraints, artificially inflated transfer fees, insane wages, etc). Not only that, one would also need a supporting cast of specious arguments like – No English spine, Can’t handle the physical game, and so on.
Essentially, all the genuine, practical, and relevant details have to be ignored and vague, hollow, and baseless arguments (that might sound intelligent to some who don’t want to see what’s really going on) need to emphasized. Isn’t that the real problem with English football?
I like to think of myself as a student of the game because I genuinely believe that is the only way to develop one’s understanding. In contrast, I find there are too many experts in the English game. People who pretend to be know-it-alls, who change their tune based on the results and not on the details of what actually happened.
For instance, this is what Alan Hansen said after this game,
On the whole (David) James was England’s best player, for the keeper to be the best player in a performance like that is unusual. It was shambolic.
Seriously, what is he talking about!? James’ technique for the second goal was very poor (Watch some Almunia one-on-one saves to see how it’s done). And what was he doing for the third goal? Look at his arms, it was as if he was trying to protect his body instead of making himself big. He could have done much better for the first goal as well.
If such comments were one-off I wouldn’t say anything. But the truth is that most pundits and football writers in England talk exactly the same way. Worse still, most of the comments are affected by results. If Germany had not been clinical with their two counter attacks and the game had finished at 2-1, these pundits would be talking about how England were robbed by the linesman and how FIFA is impotent and archaic. The problems with the team would have been forgotten and they would have been hailed as heroes for fighting a corrupt system.
It may be that the media is the same everywhere but I don’t understand Italian, German, Spanish or any other language so I can’t comment on that. If you have a perspective on this please do share.
I don’t really care about English football but since it affects Arsenal continually and we are an integral part I end up thinking about it anyway.
The way I see it, England needs Arsene (or someone like him) to control every football related aspect.
It’s not that the English players are bad. Some of them are world class. But the grass roots level of coaching is certainly not very good in England. I haven’t been there but it’s really obvious from the way the mid-table and bottom half clubs play.
Watch the way Germany brought the ball out for their two counter attacks. See how composed each and every player was even though some of them are really young. Can you imagine this from players like Barry, Milner, et al?
I like to think of these players (Lennon, Barry, Milner, James, etc) as the Redknapp level footballers. They are good players. If you put them in a team of fighters they will keep battling and will get some results, might even nick a trophy if luck goes their way. But these players will never produce consistent, top quality football and will never beat the best teams (Check Redknapp’s record against United, Arsenal, Chelsea).
Just see how Barry was exposed when Ozil skipped past him before setting up the third goal. It reminds me of Denilson against Sidibe. How can anyone say Barry is any better than Denilson?
Of course, there is an immediate counter argument that if the Arsenal player isn’t much better than how can I say everything that I’ve said. The answer is that it’s a complex world and the financial constraints on Arsene have really forced his hand. If he makes the choice of spending a quarter of the money on Denilson than he would have to on someone like Barry, we have to except it’s a brilliant piece of business. This is where perspective is so important; we need to see all the variables that affect a decision. The inflated value of Barry clearly illustrates the actions of the hype machine.
Just like the players, all the football writers and commentators need some fundamental training. Many of them are gifted writers as far as language is concerned but few actually understand the nuances of the game. These people are important because they shape public opinion. They also have a big impact on the way players play. If Shawcross is a hero, what do you think youngsters will learn? How do you think managers will approach a game? Can you imagine a young English manager having the guts to develop a technical team? He would be massacred the moments a few results go awry.
Even the administrators need to learn from Arsene. What’s the point of the Carling Cup? Wouldn’t it be much more beneficial to everyone if it was a youth competition, or maybe along the lines of the Olympics with three senior players allowed? Isn’t that much more likely to improve the quality of the youth? This is just one example, I’m sure Arsene can give ten or more radical ideas that will improve the quality of youth football.
Wenger has taken Arsenal to a whole new level with the Stadium, training facilities, countless innovations, and amazing football resulting in financial progress and memorable results like the invincibles. I feel England need a visionary like him to redefine all aspects of football if they want to emulate the other giants of world football.
Question is, can they get out of the intricate, self-deceiving web of unjustified hype and misplaced glory?
Can Technology Really Make The Game Better?
June 30, 2010The debate about the use of technology in football has been around for a while now. Obviously, the big blunders we saw in the England-Germany and Argentina-Mexico games have brought the issue to the fore once again.
There was an interesting discussion on the topic on the World Have Your Say program aired on BBC radio a couple of days ago. You can check out the podcast on this link. It is the 28th June program titled, “Should all sports at the top level embrace technology?” There were many speakers from different countries talking about various sports. I had the opportunity to present my two cents and, if interested, you can my thoughts just after the half hour mark. I’ll cover whatever I said and build on the details in this article.
I must say I’ve thought about the use of technology quite often. As Arsenal fans, we’ve suffered a lot at the hands of refs, and often that leaves me wondering if technology would have helped us.
The way I see it, there are two extremes; the present situation with virtually no role of technology is on one end and unlimited referrals for all kinds of decisions is at the other. I don’t think either is an acceptable state.
We’ve all seen the problems with the present state so I won’t dwell on that. If we end up using technology for each and every decision it will certainly kill the flow of the game. It’s not hard to imagine a 90 minute game lasting three or four hours if we start referring all doubtful decisions.
Clearly, the ideal solution lies somewhere in between. Goal line technology has been mentioned as an option. I’m not convinced about it because given the cost involved, the benefits aren’t that good. If I’d to make a guess, I’d say less than one percent of games have controversial goal line decisions. There were 380 games in the Premiership last season; can you remember four controversial decisions that would have benefitted from goal line technology?
Then there are other complications with using goal line technology as the only tech help. Against Germany, Lampard’s strike was from open play. But it could easily have been a free-kick. Imagine a situation where a free kick goes in and out and the goal is awarded using technology. At the same time replays show that the free-kick was incorrectly awarded and should have been given the other way. In such a situation we would have technology giving a goal to one team, while the other suffers as we only use it for goal line decisions.
I believe any technology based solution should satisfy three main considerations,
The referral system used in Tennis seems to be the best solution. If the Manager of each team has just one unsuccessful challenge available to him per game it would make a world of difference. This should be limited to big decisions like Goals, Penalties, Red Cards, and Second Yellow Cards. I think more than one game changing decision going wrong in a game is extremely rare so we don’t really need to refer all minor decisions or worry about too many referrals.
Implementing the referral system would be tricky. For instance, a manager might feel an opponent was off-side. In such a case, when should he refer? I’d say referrals should be allowed when the game stops for a goal, penalty or a card. If the player was indeed marginally off-side but it didn’t lead to a goal or other major event (happens quite often) then what’s the point in stopping the flow of the game.
Then there is a question of controversial decisions that don’t lead to a pause in the game. For instance, a team might have a legit penalty claim but the ref waves play on. I think at this point the manager must have a right to bring the game to a stop and ask for a referral.
Since there is only one incorrect challenge available to a manger they are not likely to waste it on frivolous claims. We can be relatively confident that the referred decision merits another look. The referral could also be invoked if the manager thinks an opponent deserved a Red Card.
I think Arsenal could really benefit from this. We probably lost 8-10 goals last season because we didn’t get some stone-walled penalties. I also feel this could be useful in incidents like the one against Bolton where the thug put his knee on Fabregas’ face and pulled his hair. At least knowing that a referral system exists will definitely serve as some sort of a deterrent to the thug teams.
The referred decisions should be seen by the fourth ref or another ref on a TV screen and there should be a 30-60 second limit on the time he can take. If the replays are not conclusive then we just move on and the original decision stands.
Since this would be limited to big calls only, chances of managers using the referrals as a time wasting tactic are low. Even if they do use it I think it’s an acceptable downside for a much fairer game. After all there are plenty of time wasting tricks that make us cringe when we see them. If we have a problem with gamesmanship those are the tricks we need to eliminate, not a solution that improves the fairness of the game.
To my mind this seems the simplest solution. The matches that don’t have TV cameras won’t be able to afford any other technology based solution anyway, so we can’t really think about them at this point. All other games that are covered by TV will have fairer games.
Like any other system, this isn’t perfect. I don’t pretend that this is the only or the best solution. Nor am I deluded enough to think that all the problems will go away and no new ones will be created. But considering all factors I think this system deserves a trial. It should be implemented in a couple of lower leagues or junior level competitions and the results should be measured. We can then have a clear idea of the kind of delays that are introduced into the game, the improvements can be measured, any new issues that might arise can be noted, and an objective analysis can be done regarding the way forward.
I also believe technology should be used for some retrospective decisions. For instance, diving must be punished if proven by replays. It doesn’t matter what the ref saw on the pitch or what he felt, if the replays clearly show a playing taking a plunge without contact he should get a 3-5 game ban that increases for repeat offences.
Similar punishments need to be handed for playacting and such other problems. We can’t have players clutching their face and then peeking at the ref before continuing their theatrics. It’s abominable.
Once the players know that the authorities are serious about taking action, diving/gamesmanship is likely to go down on its own. I think most players do it because they see others getting away with it. It’s a negative spiral that’s sucking more and more players in. Once a strict system is introduced we are likely to see a positive spiral and more and more players will be cautious about their acts on the pitch.
Having said all that, I still don’t feel positive about the use of technology. It’s not that I don’t believe it can help, as this article demonstrates I’m sure technology can help football. The reason I’m sceptical is that more than the actions of players and refs, football suffers from the archaic nature of administration. I just can’t see them doing the right thing.
Arsene said, “I just feel we are historical monuments that can’t move forward.” I can hear you say, “my sentiments exactly!”