Power of Caring
  presented by CIGNA

Mailbag: Player-club battles continue

Click here for more on this story

Posted: Tuesday August 17, 1999 12:42 PM

CNN/SI's world soccer insider, London-based Gabriele Marcotti, will periodically respond to questions and comments from readers. Marcotti writes a weekly column on international soccer for CNNSI.com.

To submit questions or comments to Gabriele Marcotti, click here.

Question from Eric Johnson, Pasadena, Calif.:
Your argument for player power is compelling, but what about Leeds and Hasselbaink? He had two more years on his contract and basically forced his club to sell him.

CNN/SI: I think what Hasselbaink did wasn't particularly classy, but again, it is within his rights. If you want to quit your job, your employer can not force you to stay on. Similarly, if you are under contract, you can ask to be released, which is what he did. He asked to be sold, and Leeds sold him. And they made a decent amount of money at it as well.

Question from Jean R. Fournier of Toronto, Canada:
Could you please tell me what do you think of my beloved Olympique Marseille this season? Is it stronger with the arrival of Ivan de la Pena, the Argentine international Berrizo, the very promising Dalmat, etc. It seems to me that OM will have a pretty difficult season! Somehow I don't see OM going far in the big European Cup, am I wrong? I even have some difficulty seeing Olympique Marseille win the French League so barely missed last season. Well, what is your opinion regarding this matter? Are you as pessimistic as I am?

CNN/SI: Ivan de la Pena is a gamble. He is very talented, but has some serious limitations to his game, in terms of pace and mobility. Having said that, if you build your team around him, he is capable of wonderful things. And don't forget, he's still young. Eduardo Berrizo is a solid player who will contribute. The Champions League will be a stretch, but the French league is another matter. Marseille is built to win, and anything less than the title should be a disappointment.

Question from Neil Evans of Burke, Virginia
In your latest column you compare Steve McManaman going to Real Madrid after his contract with Liverpool was up with Nicolas Anelka's decision to agitate for a move to the same team only one year into a five-year contract with Arsenal. As a Liverpool supporter, I was sad to see Macca go but acknowledge his right to seek new opportunities once his contract was over; he has been a very loyal player for the Reds.

However, Anelka is totally different. If he did not want to play for the Gunners for the next 5 years, why sign a five-year deal? Nobody held a gun to his head. All his whining about the English press and how he had no friends -- I wonder why? The Spanish press is way worse than the English. If players can just ignore their contracts and illegally court new teams, then football as we know it is over. Teams will have no power to plan for the future; investors will be scared off, if their greatest assets can just leave on a whim, and, most importantly, the fans will be left to realize the players could care less about them as long as they earn another signing bonus. Bosman was fair enough; ignoring contracts is going way too far.

CNN/SI: I agree with your arguments about the future of the game. As far as loyalty is concerned, Anelka could learn a lot from McManaman, and Anelka will be in for a very tough time in Spain. He showed that good players aren't necessarily good people. But remember that clubs are just as guilty. They approach players even when they are under contract with other clubs and then complain when the same is done to them.

Question from Khari Williams of Kingston, Jamaica:
Did Arsenal give away their chance at the Premiership title when they let Nicolas Anelka go? Is Davor Suker an adequate replacement?

CNN/SI: Suker is a question mark. Nobody doubts his skill, though he hasn't done much in the last few years (aside from his accomplishments at France '98). It will be interesting to see how he fits in at Arsenal, especially because he is a very different player than Anelka. The Frenchman relied on the break, where he could use his blistering speed, while Suker likes the ball played to his feet. It will be quite an adjustment. But Arsenal is solid top-to-bottom, having also added Frenchman Thierry Henry, and they will definitely be in with a shot until the very end.

Question from Mark Mac Lombard, Illinois:
I was wondering if you might be able to comment on the effect on Nicolas Anelka's arrival at Real Madrid. Real have seemed to have put together a good side in the off-season, and I wonder how Anelka will play alongside the suddenly spectacular Fernando Morientes and the great Spanish talent Raul. What are the possible formations that John Toshack could have in mind? It seems, offhand, that Raul will be unable to repeat his goalscoring triumph of last year, and at the same time, I cannot really see how Anelka will solve Real's defensive woes, although Geremi Njitap and Ivan Helguera have been quite solid in the absence of Redondo.

CNN/SI: I think Toshack is looking at a 4-2-3-1 formation. Redondo and Geremi (or Seedorf, if he stays, which I think is unlikely) will be in front of the back four, with McManaman and Balic on the wings and Raul just behind Anelka. Of course, Morientes (who I think is vastly underrated) could play in Anelka's place. Another alternative involves playing Raul on the left and Morientes and Anelka together up front. It's not an easy puzzle to solve. I agree that the backline is dubious. Hierro is great, but he needs a top-quality player alongside him, and neither Sanchis nor Ivan Campo nor Karanka fit the bill. Julio Cesar seems to be doing well; maybe he can be the answer. Another solution could be playing Helguera as a sweeper, alongside Hierro. That would be an interesting gamble.

Question from Daniel Shee of Copenhagen, Denmark:
It is absolutely frustrating to read the predictions of the entire CNN/SI team. One should think you guys would know what you were talking about. You have a Terry Baddoo calling the transfer system flawed, and accusing a club like Manchester U. for being a part of the circus English football has become. Look at clubs like Chelsea, Arsenal and now Liverpool. Spending big money on so-called talent and having nothing to show for it. What is the logic in winning the ENGLISH Premiership when you can field a team with 1-2 players with Welsh, Scottish, Irish or English citizenship? Look at the most successful club in England. Manchester U. have fed and bred their own talent.

I don't see Chelsea producing their own players, and neither has Arsenal. Liverpool have enjoyed plenty of success while having a great farm system. Now they are relegated to buying in hopes of success, and when did they last win a championship? I believe your focus should shift a little from who spent the most money to who is actually trying to preserve the game. Buying satisfaction can be described as prostitution. I for one don't tip my cap to any team that couldn't care less about the development of the game. And neither should you at CNN/SI. Shame on you!

CNN/SI: I think you'll find clubs have been buying talent, whether it be from the lower divisions or from abroad, since the beginning of time. I disagree that Chelsea and Arsenal have spent "big money on so-called talent" with nothing to show for it. In the last three years Chelsea won an F.A. Cup, a League Cup and a Cup Winners' Cup. As for Arsenal, they won the Premiership and the FA Cup two years ago.

The point of running a football club is to win games and trophies. Some clubs do it by buying talent, others by breeding it. I agree that neglecting young talent can be dangerous and, by the same token, nurturing it can yield tremendous results (as Manchester United proved last year). To do well, you need the right mix, and that can include big money transfers. Don't forget that United only won the Champions League (after years of failed attempts), when they shelled out some $40 million for a quality defender (Holland's Jaap Stam) and a top notch striker (Dwight Yorke from Trinidad & Tobago). Also, as far as your point about English players is concerned, even United have only four in their first-choice starting lineup (Beckham, Scholes, Cole and Gary Neville).

 

Related information
Stories
CNN/SI's Gabriele Marcotti: Players vs. Clubs CNN/SI's Marcotti: Chelsea to take title CNN/SI's Gabriele Marcotti: Barcelona goes Dutch CNN/SI's Gabriele Marcotti: Is Anelka worth it? All-around game powers Brazil in Copa
Multimedia
Click here for the latest audio and video
Search our site	Watch CNN/SI 24 hours a day
	Sports Illustrated and CNN have combined to form a 24 hour sports news and information channel. To receive CNN/SI at your home call your cable operator or DirecTV.