 |
| |
|
 |
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Catching up with the Mailbag Posted: Friday July 11, 2003 6:29 PM
As an Irish supporter, it has been a joy this season to watch John O'Shea emerge so quickly as a fine defender and Damien Duff blossom, tormenting defenders with his wizardry on the wing. Where do you place these two players among the top young players in Europe and what do you believe they need to achieve to fulfill their potential?
I think Duff has only begun to scratch the surface. His talent is obvious, but he needs to perform consistently over an entire season, something he has yet to do. He is a jewel he needs good coaching and the right environment to go to the next level and I'm not sure Graeme Souness is the right man to take him there. As for O'Shea, I love that guy. In a few years he could be one of the top defenders in Europe. He just needs a little bit of patience, but his attitude, work ethic, skill and athleticism can take him very far.
Can you please explain to me how Lazio was placed in the top group for next Champions League (2003-04) while Inter Milan was seeded into the second group. Inter finished higher in Serie A (2nd place vs 4th place) and made it to the semifinals of the most recently completed Champions League. Lazio competed in the UEFA cup and did not even make it to the finals.
UEFA ranks teams based on their "co-efficient" which is a mathematical formula of their performances in European competition over the past five seasons. There's no favoritism, it's straight math. And Lazio's coefficient is currently higher than Inter Milan's.
Sir, I know you're not a man to voice your opinion and isn't blind by media hype so can I ask you why Beckham is rated so highly as a footballer when a player like Ze Maria has the same ability (plus he can dribble) but isn't mention in the same breath as the Englishman, I believe its all to do with Real Madrid's financial needs and football fans need to understand that he isn't in top 10 players in the world, let alone a legend.
Do you disagree?
Yes I do as a matter of fact. I'm a huge Ze Maria fan, but, frankly, Beckham is a better player and I don't see how one can argue the opposite. Sure, Beckham is followed by a lot of hype, but then so are many of the great ones. Cut past it and you've got a guy who creates loads of chances, scores his fair share of goals and works his rear end off defensively in midfield. Obviously commercial factors played a big part in his signing with Real, but it doesn't take away from the fact that he is an outstanding footballer, regardless of whether he's in the world's top ten or not.
Hi Gabriele, I and my folks have been arguing over this issue for quite sometime. I believe you can really sort out this issue for us. Which are the best football pattern in modern football and what are their advantages/disadvantages? Is it the 4-4-2, the 3-5-2, or the 4-2-1-3 pattern. I'll be eagerly awaiting your response. Thanks.
I don't think any tactical set-up is inherently better than another. Right now, the most popular are 4-4-2, 3-5-2, 4-3-1-2 and 4-2-3-1 but it all has to do with the types of players at your disposal. If you have several good wide players who can beat their opponents and deliver crosses it doesn't make sense to play 3-5-2, because that allows for just two wide men. Similarly, if you have a Pablo Aimar or Juan Carlos Valeron in your team, you might not want to play 4-4-2 because if you play him up front you take away his ability to hit deeper passes and force him to play with his back to the goal and, if you play him in midfield he is forced to take on defensive duties he may not be suited to. In addition, you have to look at the way players interpret the position. Technically, Zidane is the wide left man in Real's 4-2-3-1 formation, but he regularly cuts inside and lets the left back, Roberto Carlos, run the flank when Real has possession. Also, it's not just about formations, it's about attitudes. You can have a 3-4-1-2 formation -- as many Italian teams had in the late 1990s and it might not be any more offensive than, say, a 5-3-2 formation where the backs get forward and you have a central defender who builds the play from the back.
Hi Gabriele
You're without doubt, one of my favorite writers on the world game but I have to question why you hate Cuper so much at Inter? They were hardly setting the world alight before he came and he's turned them into a regular top two team (all right always second but it's a massive improvement on past years). They have a settled squad and system and with a couple more buys and some more luck they could win Serie A next year. Plus they did something in Europe this season also -- I think he deserves some praise for once.
I don't hate Hector Cuper, I hate the way he plays. To me it's unimaginative, predictable and, ultimately, self-defeating. I think that with all the talent in the Inter team he should have done better. And, while his results haven't been bad, a lot of it comes from Vieir's goals and Toldo's goalkeeping rather than any good coaching on his part. One statistic about Inter to me tells the story of Cuper: Inter took fewer shots on goal than all but three Serie A sides last season. This despite the fact that the nerazzurri scored their fair share of goals. This means that Inter doesn't create chances and that, to me, is what the game is all about.
I am a novice to the world of football a.k.a. soccer, the concept of deserving to win is a little confusing to me. Only in manager interviews is the idea of a perfect outcome is expressed. I know that the side that plays a more entertaining style is more appreciated but the team that plays it's way and wins should be honored too? If you could tell why there is such a hang up on style as opposed to substance I would be greatly appreciative
Good question. Apart from obvious situations which have to do with "luck,” i.e. a team creates nothing for eight-nine minutes, the opponents hit the crossbar several times and then a goal is scored at the other end through a defensive error, I think it's hard to talk about who "deserves" victory. I think it's not a coincidence that these issues generally arise in discussions about competitions like the World Cup or the Champions League, where many fans discuss "foreign" teams. As such, they tend to look for entertainment, rather than purely what is effective. And they are more likely to discuss "merit" (usually based on their definition of entertainment) than they would with domestic sides.
Hi Mr. Marcotti, A friend of mine from Manchester (lifelong ManU member) said that because ManU is a publicly held company they will negotiate any deal that they deam profitable to the shareholders regardless of what it means on the field. He also said that Ferguson has little to no input in the negotiating process. There are a few other publicly held clubs; what is the real structure when it comes to money vs team?
That's not entirely correct. It's true that Manchester United is a publically held company and transfer spending must be approved by the board, but it's wrong to say they act solely on the shareholders' immediate interests. It's more complex than that, United is in the entertainment business and there are many factors which are weighed up. Sir Alex Ferguson may not handle negotiations directly, but you can be sure he identifies (and approves) targets and sets general guidelines in accordance with the club's budget.
Just read your article on Arsenal. Pretty poor really and I have a few gripes about it but I'm only going to mention one. How on earth can you say, in terms of history, that Arsenal rank below Man Utd and, in terms of fan base, below Liverpool. Ask a Man Utd fan to tell about his team before the fifties and they haven't got a clue. Please could you explain your reasoning for you comments.
Sorry you didn't like the article. But I think the facts speak for themselves. United have won fifteen English titles to Arsenal's twelve. United have won five European trophies to Arsenal's two. United have won two European Cups to Arsenal's zero. United have reached the semifinals of the European Cup seven times, Arsenal has never gotten that far. I don't think it can be argued that Arsenal, in terms of success and history, is on a par with United, despite the fact that United spent more time outside the top flight. As for Liverpool, its fan base is enormous, partly owing to the the fact that club's best period -- from the late 1970s to the mid 1980s coincided with the first explosion of soccer on television and interest in international soccer. While Arsenal has been far more successful in recent years, I think there is little question that there are more Liverpool fans worldwide. Vicente Del Bosque's sacking will probably go down as one of the most controversial sackings in the history of football. As the news filtered through, I was distraught and in a state of utter disbelief when I read about it. That was my initial reaction. But then I tried to understand the justifications for his sacking. So what could they be? The board argued that Real Madrid's on field performances began to stagnate and that they no longer looked invincible, which was evident in the humiliating defeat at the Bernabeu Stadium against Mallorca and of course, the semi-final defeat against Juventus. Another possible reason could be that Vicente Del Bosque lacks the tactical astuteness to bring the best out of the players he has at his disposal. The board probably believe they need a manager who can control the players more on the pitch and hence has greater control of the outcome of the game. Vicente Del Bosque's management style allows players to operate more freely which leaves the game out of his hands. Despite all these possible reasons, they don't justify his sacking. First of all, the vast majority of fans were satisfied with the manager's performance. And the Real Madrid fans are notoriously known for being the most difficult fans to please. Now it seems the board has taken over that role. Then he also had the full backing of his players and he was clearly respected and popular amongst them. And the most obvious point: He won the 4 most important trophies during his 4 year tenure. If Sir Alex had achieved the same feat, that is winning two Champions League titles and two Premiership titles at Manchester United, he would by now been called "Lord" Alex. I think the board's decision to sack him was a vey daft one. Fine, the board recognized early problems in Real's performances. But nobody is more aware of this than the manager himself. And the solution isn't to sack him, instead the board should call a meeting with the manager and have a lengthy discussion as to how to resolve this problem. Real Madrid have been weak at the back, but who's fault is that? It was the board's transfer dealings, in dishing out millions for Figo, then Zidane and finally Beckham. Not exactly world class defenders. Del Bosque never had a say in the transfer dealings. If he had the choice he would have surely strengthened the back four and recruited a competent back-up for Makalele.
The board live in a silly euphoric idealistic dream, believing that Real Madrid should look invincible the moment they kick the ball until the final whistle is blown. Quite frankly, this is just ludicrous and impossible to achieve. The board's objectives are far from being realistic. I do not envy the manager who takes over from there. The best bet for the job in my opinion, would be Mourinho.
Well, we now know that the job has gone to Carlos Queiroz. To me, it seems as if Florentino Perez was looking for a yes-man who shared his vision. And that's what he got. I agree that Del Bosque (and Fernando Hierro) were treated very badly and I'm far from convinced that Queiroz is the right man. Real Madrid is very close to going down as one of the greatest teams in history but, to do this, it needs balance, not more attacking players. Perez should have had the foresight to bring in a coach who understood this and who looked to make signing which would add balance, not just glamour to an already glamorous team. Real will be fun to watch, as always, and I hope Perez is right and I'm wrong, but, so far, I disagree with his thinking.
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
