Ashley Cole: England Captain?

With all the talk at the moment about who will captain England against Wales, and potentially further into the future, there is one name that has not even been mentioned. Arguably one of the very few guaranteed names on the team sheet for every match, the most capped fullback in English history and virtually the only England player who could realistically be put forward for the best in his position in the world. That man is Ashley Cole.

His record as a player is hugely impressive. He has won four league titles, including having been part of the Arsenal ‘Invincibles’, a record that is unlikely to be matched for many years and six FA Cup winner’s medals – more than any other player in history. He is the most capped fullback in English history, and with 87 caps already, it would be no surprise if he were to go on to overtake David Beckham and become England’s most capped outfield player. No England outfield player, including David Beckham, has made more appearances at World Cups than Cole. Indeed, if he is still in the team come 2014, he would break Shilton’s record of 17 appearances. He was named in UEFA’s team of the tournament after Euro 2004.

However, it is reputation off the pitch that people will remember him for, and which is likely to cost him any chance at captaining his country. His acrimonious move from Arsenal to Chelsea, his bitter split with the nation’s sweetheart, Cheryl Cole, and now the incident with the air-rifle has all mounted up to paint an image of a young man out of touch and obsessed with fame and money.

The question is whether a player’s life off the pitch should impact his role on it. Looking around the other candidates for the captaincy, virtually none of them have a clean image. John Terry had the well-publicised affair with the mother of his best friend’s child and rumours concerning a number of affairs have dogged him for years. He was fined in the wake of the 9/11 attacks for drunkenly mocking American tourists at Heathrow and he was arrested in 2002 after an incident at a London nightclub.

The current captain, Rio Ferdinand, was famously banned from football for eight months for missing a drugs test, going shopping instead. He has been banned from driving for a year for drink-driving, and in total, has been banned from driving four times. He attracted complaints for a comment on Chris Moyles’ Radio 1 show in 2006 and also appeared in a sexually explicit video filmed in Ayia Napa alongside Frank Lampard and Kieron Dyer.

Wayne Rooney was also in the spotlight for cheating on his pregnant wife last year and the contract saga that saw him hand in a transfer request at Manchester United. He also caused a backlash when he hit out at England fans at the World Cup last summer for booing the side.

However, putting aside all aspects of the private lives of players off the pitch, let us look at the situation on the pitch. In recent times, both Steven Gerrard and Rio Ferdinand have been picking up injuries with far greater frequency than earlier in their career.

Indeed, Rio Ferdinand has only played in four of the eleven matches since he was appointed captain of England. He has not managed to play even 75% of league games for Manchester United since the 2007/08 season, making only 13 appearances last season and 14 this season.

In his absence, both Michael Dawson and Phil Jagielka have emerged as real contenders for starting spot, and in Dawson’s case, a potential future captain of England. When we add in John Terry as well, Rio Ferdinand’s spot in the England team is in real threat, even at full fitness.

Steven Gerrard has been affected by several injuries this season. He missed several weeks after picking up an injury during England’s friendly with France, then missed the last friendly against Denmark and has now undergone surgery on a groin injury that is expected to keep him out for at least a month.

Frank Lampard captained England in their last friendly, but his position as a first choice in the centre of England’s midfield is under serious jeopardy following the emergence of Jack Wilshere in the past year. Indeed, there were suggestions before Gerrard was ruled out that Wilshere would be starting alongside the Liverpool man against Wales with Lampard left on the bench.

John Terry and Wayne Rooney are the obvious other choices. However, there are still concerns around Rooney’s form, but more particularly, his temperament. He is still prone to outburst at referees and losing his cool on the pitch, which is clearly not a trait that you want from your captain. Furthermore, there is generally a preference for a captain to be a defender or a midfielder, rather than a striker, simply because they are in the midst of the action on a more regular basis.

John Terry is an intriguing option. Stripped of the captaincy after the Wayne Bridge affair, he is undoubtedly the most natural leader that England has had for a long time. Indeed, it appears that is the current front runner for the captaincy for the Wales friendly, and if reports are to be believed, for the longer term.

The treatment of John Terry and the captaincy since he was stripped of it has been nothing short of ridiculous. The friendly against Egypt after he was stripped of it was one example, as was the friendly with Denmark last month, where the armband was passed around four or five players. In the words of Terry, “I felt, ‘OK, I’ve been stripped of the captaincy, but don’t take the piss out of me. I think they would have given it to one of the stewards ahead of me.”

However, John Terry has admitted to being in almost constant pain when he plays, and there has to be questions about his long-term future in the game. He has been picking up more injuries in the past season, and has missed out on four of the last six internationals with a variety of injury problems.

That brings us back to Ashley Cole. It is noticeable that he is almost never injured and so would actually appear regularly on the pitch, unlike many of the other choices.

There is also the other side to Ashley Cole that is often glossed over by the media. Against all expectations, he turned up at the leaving drinks for the former head of media at Arsenal. He has often travelled up to Leicester City when he has the opportunity to support Patrick van Aarnholt, a young left-back who is on loan there from Chelsea, and who looks up to Cole as his mentor. These things do not exactly tally with the image of a self-obsessed, money-hungry individual.

His unpopularity with the fans is often put forward as one of the main things holding him back. However, even if the fans do not like him as a person, there is clearly a respect for him as a player. He was voted England’s player of the year last year by the fans, having been one of the few players to come out of the World Cup with his reputation intact. He won the vote ahead of supposed fan favourites like Steven Gerrard and Adam Johnson.

He has arguably been the one of the, if not the, best left back on the planet for almost a decade. For all the best attempts over the years, no other left back in England has come close to dislodging him from the team. For all the attention he has received for his private life off the pitch, he is the only undisputedly world-class player that England has.

Of course captaincy is about more than just being the best player. However, his consistency, fitness and quality should put him up there, and he did have a very short spell as England captain at the end of the Denmark friendly. If the history surrounding John Terry costs him a return to the captaincy, there would be many worse options than giving it to Ashley Cole.

Let's face it, if we are looking for a captain that has a clean slate off the pitch, we would be struggling...

Neville the hero as Everton dump out Chelsea in thriller

Phil Neville's penalty earned Everton a thrilling victory over Chelsea in their FA Cup fourth-round replay at Stamford Bridge. Chelsea took the initiative in the penalty shootout when Leighton Baines missed for Everton but, after Tim Howard kept out Nicolas Anelka's effort, Ashley Cole blazed over, leaving Toffees captain Neville to blast home for a stunning triumph. Frank Lampard's volley

World Cup 2018 and 2022: Reasonable or Ridiculous?

So FIFA’s executive committee have made their long-awaited decision on the hosts of the 2018 and 2022 World Cups. Russia needing only two rounds to beat off competition from England, Spain/Portugal and Netherlands/Belgium to host it in 2018, whilst Qatar were the unexpected choice in 2022, beating off the USA, Australia, Japan and South Korea.

Whilst I am very disappointed that England were unsuccessful, I can see the argument for the decision to award the 2018 World Cup to Russia. However, the decision to take the 2022 World Cup to Qatar is simply ridiculous in my opinion.

Indeed, the decision raises questions on quite how FIFA see their role in the world. They are supposed to be concerning with promoting football and looking after the state of football. Instead, they seem to have an over-inflated opinion of their own power and regard themselves as single-handedly capable of solving all the world’s socio-economic problems simply by giving them the World Cup to host.

2018 – Russia

Russia has been the favourites to win the 2018 vote almost since the prospective hosts were announced. It has never hosted a World Cup before, which automatically makes it an appealing prospect to the people at FIFA, who love their idea of creating a legacy by bringing football to new countries. It also has the full-backing of the powerful Russian government, despite Putin’s decision not to attend the ceremony in Zurich. Combined with the almost bottomless pit of money that they could throw at the event, it was a very strong bid.


Clearly though, it does have its weaknesses. Security always has been, and remains, a major concern in Russia. Murders and kidnappings are commonplace in Russian cities and crime is something that must be addressed ahead of the World Cup. However, similar concerns were raised over South Africa, and the concerns turned out to have no real foundation – virtually no problems with crime affected the fans that travelled out there.

The other major concern is the distance between stadia, transport between them and issues with time-zones. Russia is a vast country, and despite the fact that matches will be restricted to the European part of the country, transport between cities will still be difficult. Given the state airline has one of the worst safety records of any airline, there are potential concerns here.

Finally, the issue of corruption looms large over this decision. The recent WikiLeaks revelations suggest that Russia is virtually a ‘mafia state’, where politicians and the secret service have close links with organised crime. Given the recent allegations against FIFA, one might suggest that the two corrupt entities are a perfect match for each other.

The failure of the English bid is another curious case. According to FIFA’s own delegation, the English bid was rated as the best financially, the best technically and the safest of all the bids, both for 2018 and for 2022. It was the only bid expected to turn a profit. Yet, England gained only two votes out of the 22 possible and was eliminated in the first round.


So, according to the delegations, England had the best bid, yet for the self-obsessed executive committee, only two of them, one of which was Geoff Thompson, the former chairman of the FA, felt that England deserved the award. It will raise questions as to how damaging the Sunday Times and Panorama revelations were, but it raises more questions as to how exactly the executive committee make their decisions and what they really want from a bid.

2022 – Qatar

If the 2018 decision was understandable, the award of the 2022 World Cup to Qatar can only suggest that the executive committee, with an average age of over 63, has collectively turned senile.

As with the 2018 decision, it raises real questions as to whether the executive committee pay any attention whatsoever to what the actual bid includes and what their own delegations actually think about the bids.

Qatar was described by the technical delegation as a high risk option, with more potential negative points than any other bid for either of the two tournaments. Let us look through a few of the potential problems.

The first issue flagged up was that the country is simply too small. In area, Qatar is smaller than the Falkland Islands and is predominantly desert with a short coastline. It has a population of only 1.7m people. Whilst there is nothing eminently wrong with being a small country, it begs questions of how it intends to cope with the influx of visitors that the World Cup would bring.

In 2010, South Africa welcomed over one million visitors to the country for the World Cup, with many surrounding countries experiencing a dramatic increase during this period as well. Germany saw over two million visitors arrive for the World Cup. How can any country cope with almost doubling its population for a month? They currently welcome 400,000 visitors per year. They can expect at least double that in one month.


Temperatures in Qatar in the summer when the World Cup will be taking place average around 115 degrees Fahrenheit – over 46°C. FIFA regulations set out recommendations aimed at reducing heat risk to players, suggesting that at temperatures over 32.2°C, football should not be played for more than 30 minutes without a break. Qatar comfortably finds itself within the extreme risk category.

The Qatari bid has come up with the revolutionary idea of air conditioning the stadia. It uses revolutionary new technology to cool the pitch area, and to a certain extent, the spectator areas down to a temperature of around 23°C. In a test, the new system effectively achieved this, wowing the delegation from FIFA.

However, it has so far only been tested on five-a-side pitches and a test 500 seat stadium. For the World Cup itself, they intend to use it on a far larger scale in multiple stadia each holding at least 40,000 people. It is vital that they are successfully able to scale up the technology.

One other issue with this is wind. It would appear that if there is some wind, it creates an effect where it effectively scours out the cool air, replacing it with the hot desert air. Given that June and July averages the most wind of any months, and the strongest winds, this is something that needs sorting quickly.

For many fans from throughout the world, the World Cup is a time for celebration, where they come to experience new countries and new cultures. Whether one approves or disapproves, drinking is a vital ingredient to all of this. However, in Qatar, public drunkenness or even openly displaying alcohol in public is illegal. It is unlikely that alcohol would be allowed in grounds or fan areas.

Furthermore, this is a country where homosexuality is illegal and punishable by five years in prison. A UN report less than two years ago claimed that the Qatari government "does not fully comply with the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking and is not making significant efforts to do so."

Now, whilst FIFA is not a political organisation, it must surely take into account aspects such as this. However, their history hardly suggests that this even crosses their minds, given their close relationship with the likes of the Gaddafis in Libya, the oppressive regime of Ben Ali in Tunisia or their ignorance in previous incidents in the likes of Nigeria.


However, for me, one of the biggest problems I have with Qatar winning the 2022 World Cup is that it is not really a footballing nation. The Qatari national football team have never qualified for a world cup. In qualifying for South Africa 2010, they were beaten by the likes of Uzbekistan and Bahrain – hardly footballing superpowers.

Since then, they have suffered friendly defeats in Qatar against the likes of Haiti and Iraq, as well as defeat away from home against Kuwait. If they struggle against teams of that calibre, I shudder to think how they will cope in the World Cup itself.

Similar concerns were raised about South Africa. However, they could call on the likes of Steven Pienaar, Aaron Mokoena and Kagisho Dikgacoi – all players who play in the Premiership. Qatar have only one player who even plays outside of Qatar – Hussein Yasser, who plays in Egypt.

Indeed, they have only made it out of the first round of the Asian Cup once, back in 2000, when they reached the quarter-final as one of the best third placed teams, despite not winning a single match at the tournament.

Finally, one major supposed attraction of their bid was that the stadia could be dissembled and sent to other developing countries to use there. However, given that one of the major things that FIFA supposedly look for in a bid is a lasting legacy in the host country, it seems as though Qatar fall down. How is taking down all of the stadia going to leave a lasting legacy? Indeed, are brand-new state-of-the-art stadia really going to help developing countries?

Conclusion

Now I know this seems fairly negative. I am not of the belief that only established footballing superpowers should be given the World Cup, although they are in the best positions to hold them. The 2002 edition in South Korea and Japan was an excellent tournament, as was the 2010 edition in South Africa.

However, each of these countries has qualified for world cups before. Each of them had achieved relative success on a continental level. It is difficult to see past the accusation that Qatar has won it purely because of money.

Much as I would have liked England to win the 2018 edition, I have no real problems with the Russians hosting it. They had an excellent bid throughout and I expect them to host an excellent tournament.

However, the Qatar decision is simply ludicrous for me. If FIFA are determined to take the World Cup to more developing countries, then that is their decision. But take it to countries with some form of history in football. The iconic stadiums are part of what makes a World Cup. The likes of Wembley, the Nou Camp, the Maracana. Truly iconic names. Qatar will be building virtually all the stadia from scratch. Admittedly South Africa did the same.


The Qatar World Cup may be an excellent tournament. I am not saying that it will be a disaster. But for me, it raises more questions about the real desires of FIFA.

If FIFA are determined to take it to developing countries regardless of the qualities of any other bids, then they should at least be honest about it. Countries such as the USA, Australia and England have all spent millions on putting a serious and competitive bid together. If they have no intention of awarding it to those countries, then why give them the hope that they might. I can probably guess the reason.

And finally, FIFA need to understand their real role in the world. Sepp Blatter has this mission where he is determined to solve global socio-economic problems by taking the World Cup and opening and developing football in new countries. He talks about how hosting the World Cup will improve the lives of poor people in developing countries.

But I would pose the question to Blatter. How exactly are the poorest people benefitting? The contracts and the money flows to the governments, to the existing rich. Have the poorest people in the poorest townships in South Africa found themselves any better off as a result of hosting the World Cup? Indeed, how many people really have benefitted?

I was out there for the tournament, and though it was a wonderful spectacle and occasion, a common question from the locals was what happens once everyone leaves? The brand new stadium in Cape Town is in the middle of the rich, white area of the city. The richer white people play rugby, so will not use the stadium. It is the poorer black population who play football. And they cannot afford to travel to the stadium and use it.

I heard similar concerns echoed in various other cities. It was amazing while the tournament was on, but that they would be burdened with multiple stadia and facilities that would not really be used. Can poorer countries afford this for a short boost? Can they afford to make the legal changes that FIFA demand? Does a World Cup really benefit developing countries?


Sepp Blatter and his executive committee can see their mission succeeding in the short term that they are around and care. But how much do they really care about the future? Blatter’s one-man crusade to solve the world of all its problems is probably good for his already over-inflated ego, but in the end, FIFA is only a football regulatory body. They cannot solve the world’s problems, and if they don’t really know what they are doing, they could hinder future development rather than helping it.

The Problem with Coaching in England

Since the World Cup, the issue of the lack of quality of players coming through the youth systems in England has been under scrutiny. Whilst there are the odd technically gifted players, the majority base their game around superior athleticism and strength, rather than ability with the football. It has raised the question of whether England is producing athletes that play football, rather than footballers.

There is a major problem with the youth system in this country. However, it is not just at youth level where there are issues. The entire coaching structure from grassroots, through the youth system, right to the very top level of the Premiership has major flaws, and needs to urgently be addressed if England are to give themselves any hope of returning to the pinnacle of world football in the future. The next World Cup in Brazil will almost certainly come too soon, and regrettably, the possibility of the 2018 World Cup in England may even come before a new generation, talented enough to challenge, emerges.

The old adage is that there is a choice that has to be made between quality and quantity. However, in England, with regards to coaching, there is a lack of either. No English manager has ever won the Premiership since its inception. Indeed, only two English managers have won the title in the past 25 years – Howard Wilkinson and Howard Kendall.

A second worrying statistic for English coaches and managers is that more Israeli managers have managed a team in the group stages of the Champions League than English managers have. Ray Harford in 1995 was the first as Blackburn manager, followed by Phil Thompson (whilst Gerard Houllier was recovering from heart surgery), Sir Bobby Robson and Harry Redknapp.

If we look at the actual figures, there are 2,769 English coaches that hold either the UEFA B, A or Pro Coaching Licence – the highest coaching courses available. If we break this down, we find 1,759 coaches with the UEFA B Licence, 895 with the A-Licence and only 115 with the UEFA Pro Licence. When you consider that, in theory, a manager needs the UEFA Pro Licence to work in the Premiership, it means there are only 115 English coaches who could manage in the top flight of English football. Indeed, a significant proportion of these have no ambition to manage, but are happy coaching. This is a worrying figure.

If we compare these figures with our European rivals, it shows a major difference between the availability of quality coaching. Spain have 23,995 coaches holding a UEFA licence, 2,140 of which hold the Pro Licence – there are almost as many Pro Licence holders in Spain as there are UEFA qualified coaches of any level in England. Germany has 34,970 UEFA licensed coaches, France has 17,588 and Italy has 29,420. Even the Czech Republic has more coaches with the A or Pro Licence than England does.

These statistics are a little worrying. However, even more concerning is that England has more registered players than all the other European countries with the exception of Germany. In other words, England has more players and fewer coaches. England has 1 UEFA Licensed coach for every 812 registered players. Spain has 1 UEFA Licensed coach for every 17 players. Even Greece has 1 UEFA Licensed coach for every 135 players. Indeed, at the current rate of progress, it will take England over 120 years to even match Spain’s current number of Pro Licensed coaches.

Qualifications are clearly not the be all and end all of coaching ability. However, in order to be a manager in any top league in Europe, a manager must hold the UEFA Pro Licence. England is a slight exception here. Whilst it is supposedly a requirement, the Premiership has made a number of exceptions over the past few years. Gareth Southgate, Paul Ince and Glenn Roeder are all managers who have been given special dispensation to manage in the Premiership without this qualification. Unsurprisingly, none of them had much success.

So what exactly is the UEFA Pro Licence? It follows on from the UEFA A Licence, which focuses on training and coaching methods. However, the Pro Licence is more based on the managerial side of the game. It involves a series of modules on handling top-class players, using the latest technology, analysing opponents’ strengths and weaknesses, and dealing with players’ problems both on and off the pitch. An important part of it is a study visit to a major European club, often Real Madrid, AC Milan or Inter Milan, to get a structural and technical overview of the club.

Once a future manager has acquired the necessary qualifications, there is one further ingredient that should be gained before making the first step into the managerial hot seat. No amount of classroom teaching can replace actual experience. It is no surprise that the vast majority of Europe’s top managers went through periods during the early stages of their careers where they worked with youth teams or as assistant managers.

Let us take a couple of examples. Guus Hiddink is widely regarded as one of the most respected and successful coaches in football. He spent a number of years early on in his career working as assistant manager at both De Graafschap and PSV. Similarly, Louis Van Gaal spent five years as assistant at Ajax, learning under the vastly experienced Leo Beenhakker. Rafa Benitez, Marcello Lippi and Giovanni Trapattoni all began their careers with extended periods coaching in the youth team of Real Madrid, Sampdoria and AC Milan respectively.

Each of these has gained the necessary qualification and background knowledge, then followed it up with spell learning and gaining the experience working at big clubs under talented managers. If we compare this to recent managerial appointments in England, where we see the likes of Roy Keane, Paul Ince and Alan Shearer given the chance purely based on their playing reputations, it is unsurprising that they do not have the ability to succeed instantly. On the continent, we see former big-names, such as Dennis Bergkamp, undergoing an apprenticeship with the youth teams at Ajax, rather than moving straight into management.

There is an interesting different in outlook between Italy and England regarding managers getting sacked. In England, if a manager gets sacked from his job, he is regarded as a failure and his past failings will permanently be associated with him when he looks for future jobs, particularly amongst the fans. However, in Italy, it is not necessarily viewed as failure – rather it is often seen as gaining valuable experience that will stand him, and his future clubs, in better standing next time he gets an opportunity.

Despite all of this, English managers and coaches need opportunities to test themselves once they have gained the qualifications and experience. The argument that there are too many foreign managers in the Premiership is valid. Compared with other major European leagues, there are more foreign managers, particularly at the top clubs. There are only seven English managers in the Premiership, and only two of those managed teams that finished in the top half last season – Harry Redknapp and Sam Allardyce.

If we again compare this with elsewhere on the continent, we find that 15 out of 20 managers in La Liga are Spanish, and Manuel Pellegrini of Real Madrid was the only foreign coach to finish in the top half of the table. Similarly, in Germany, 15 out of 18 managers were German, with seven German coaches finishing in the top half. Italy has an even more impressive figure with only two foreign coaches amongst their 20 clubs.

This could suggest that there are fewer opportunities for prospective English managers than there are for their continental counterparts. Particularly amongst the very top teams, English managers struggle to find an opportunity. Chelsea have not had an English manager since Glenn Hoddle left back in 1996, having appointed eight consecutive foreign managers; Arsenal have not had an English manager since Don Howe in 1986, and Roy Hodgson is Liverpool’s first English manager in 12 years since Roy Evans left.

Even looking at the next tier of teams down, Manchester City are on their third new manager since the last Englishman, Stuart Pearce, was sacked; Aston Villa have had three non-English managers since Graham Taylor and John Gregory; Harry Redknapp at Tottenham follows three consecutive foreign managers.

There have been plenty of fairly sub-standard foreign managers that have been given the opportunity to manage in the Premiership at the expense of English manager. The likes of Jacques Santini, Christian Gross, Alain Perrin and Egil Olsen are hardly names that any Premiership club would be associated with now. It begs the question why clubs felt the need to bring in poor European managers rather than giving an opportunity to an up-and-coming English manager.

However, whilst it is possible to have some sympathy with the likes of Sam Allardyce, Alan Curbishley and Steve Bruce amongst other who claim they are overlooked due to their lack of trophies, whilst not being able to manage at clubs who are likely to win trophies, it raises another question. Why do English managers not venture abroad to get the opportunities?

After a poor period in charge of the national team, Steve McClaren headed to the continent to expand his horizons and look to rebuild his reputation. Two successful years at Twente, including one league title and reaching the Champions League qualifying stages, led to a move to German side, Wolfsburg. He now has experience working in different environments, and is one of the very few English managers still managing that can claim to have won a league title.

Few other English managers have made the move abroad. New Notts County manager, Craig Short, had a spell coaching and managing Ferencvaros in Hungary. Tony Adams is looking to resurrect his fledgling managerial career at Qabala in Azerbaijan, having spent time as an apprentice at Feyernoord. John Gregory is beginning his second season managing in the Israeli league.

However, the days when Englishmen were getting some of the top jobs in Europe are long gone. Terry Venables and Sir Bobby Robson both managed at Barcelona. Sir Bobby also had spells at PSV, Sporting and Porto. Roy Hodgson had spells at Inter Milan and Udinese amongst others. Even David Platt had a spell in charge of Serie A outfit, Sampdoria.

Clearly, English managers are not going to walk into any of these top jobs. However, Steve McClaren is proving a shining light as to what can be achieved if they take the risk. A move to one of the smaller European leagues – Holland, Belgium, Portugal amongst others – would potentially provide the opportunity to challenge for major domestic trophies and provide the chance to experience Champions League football.

However, it is not just the fault of managers. The English FA has hardly provided a great deal of help for prospective managers. The PFA has launched its own coaching department to try to turn today’s players into tomorrow’s coaches after becoming frustrated over the lack of leadership from the football authorities. The LMA was forced to turn to the corporate world for funding for support and training programmes for young coaches after recent proposals were rejected by the FA.

In Italy, managers are trained in an institution created solely for the purpose of developing new managers. Even in Australia, the Australian FA are investing in sending groups of coaches to Barcelona for a period of between six and twelve months to learn the methodology and philosophy behind the club. There are hopes that the new National Football Centre in Burton will be the facility where new coaches and managers can get the training they require, but this is still long behind schedule.

However, even if we can sort out the problem with a lack of coaches and managers, the development through the age groups of young footballers requires a complete overhaul.
In England, between the ages of 8 and 14, the crucial period for the development of potential future stars, academies average only two to four hours of contact time per week, and even demand that their players avoid playing for their own grassroots clubs or school teams as a precaution, whether that be against injury or conflicting training styles.

At the same age, in Germany, teams are training their youth players for around 18 hours a week. In Amsterdam, Ajax work with their players every single day. Indeed, in Brazil, over 3,000 young professionals live at their clubs, eating, sleeping, learning and training with their teammates every day of the week.

In France, the municipal government funds professional football coaches to work with all the junior clubs in their local area, enabling even those who are not part of academies to gain access to qualified coaching. In Spain, every town and village has a centrally-funded deportivo where young people can play football, basketball, tennis and volleyball under the supervision of highly trained coaches.

Contrast this with the situation in England where many local clubs are run by enthusiastic, but untrained parents and friends. Here, winning is everything, even at the expense of the children learning to play properly and having fun. It is hardly surprising that the technical development of the players is not provided.

However, this is not to say that schemes are not being set up to try to counter this problem. Watford’s youth academy under Nick Cox has become the envy of clubs throughout Europe, and has been visited by representatives of almost every Premiership club, as well as others from as far away as Valencia. Indeed, it received special praise from visitors from Ajax’s celebrated youth system for achieving even greater coaching time with the kids than they achieve.

They have integrated their academy players into a local school run by one of the club’s directors. This has the double bonus of securing greater time with the children, whilst saving on costs. As Nick Cox explains, “We pick the children up at around 7am and they then do all the normal subjects but also have scheduled coaching throughout the day – at times when they are fresh – then we drop them home at 7pm. We get to do about 15 hours of football with them a week, up to three times more than most other clubs in this country.”

Another key area that is being focussed on is the idea of ‘cross-training.’ In the Midlands, rival clubs, Aston Villa, Birmingham City and West Brom have been worked together by training their 10- to 14-year olds together, exposing the children to a wider range of playing and coaching talent.

Once again, Watford have taken this one step further. The school not only caters for youth footballers, but also gifted young gymnasts, dancers, cricketers amongst others. By mixing sessions with these other groups and coaches, it provides a new outlook on certain aspects of training. For example, stretching sessions have been run in conjunction with the ballet dancers and gymnasts. As one of the young footballers explained, they were sceptical to begin with, but have discovered that it has improved their strength and flexibility immeasurably.

Watford are beginning to see the first generation of these children making a mark. They have reached the quarter-finals of the FA Youth Cup in each of the past two seasons, beating Liverpool before losing to eventual winners Chelsea last season. The crucial point is that, on average, their players all grew up only 12 miles away from Vicarage Road. In contrast, the Chelsea side that beat them contained six foreign players, all of whom had been brought over specially to join the Chelsea academy.

Whilst Watford is an isolated project at the moment, it helps to lay the foundations for future imitations and improvements that could be carried out by other clubs. However, this project as well as virtually all others that could be conceived will rely on the availability of quality coaches. Without them, no matter how good the theory behind the scheme is, it will struggle to succeed.

Quality coaches and managers are at a premium in the English game today, and England is lagging far behind its continental rivals. The FA need to start to implement new schemes to attract new coaches to embark in the courses that will bring them up to UEFA qualified levels, whilst encouraging the existing coaches and managers to take advantage of new opportunities, potentially abroad, to help their development and give them the chance to win trophies and experience managing at the top level of European competition.

If we have the coaches, good youth development can follow, and once again, England could start to produce the technically gifted players that can help to lead them back to the top levels of international competition once again. However, there is no quick fix – it will be a long path, but one that needs to be embarked upon with the utmost haste.

Change is Needed - How to Resurrect the Youth System in England

The 2010 World Cup in South Africa marked the final opportunity for the so-called ‘Golden Generation’ to make their mark on the global stage. The likes of Frank Lampard, John Terry, Steven Gerrard and Rio Ferdinand were supposed to be the backbone of the team that was going to take the world by storm. However, tournament after tournament has come and gone with only disappointment. A series of quarter-final appearances the best they could achieve. But where are the next generation coming from?


There have been numerous reports commission to try and determine why we do not seem to produce the same quantity of gifted players as other countries. Holland, which has just reached the World Cup final, has a population of just over 16 million, compared to around 51 million people in England. However, we glance enviously at the list of talented, technically brilliant players that they continue to produce – Johan Cruyff, Marco Van Basten, Ruud Gullit, Johan Neeskens and Dennis Bergkamp just to name a couple. So where are we going wrong? This article will look at a few of the reasons and some potential solutions.

The first major issue is the style of coaching that children receive in England, compared to countries on the continent. In England, we introduce the players to competitive matches on full-sized pitches from a very early age. Furthermore, we have competitive leagues right down to the youngest age groups, putting a huge emphasis on the idea that winning is everything. This leads to teams picking the bigger, stronger children, at the expense of the smaller, more talented players.

Let us take Spain as an alternative example. There are far fewer leagues for small children in Spain, with a greater emphasis on making football more fun and focussing on teaching them the technical skills needed. There is a huge amount of small 5-a-side football played amongst the younger groups, which leads to each child touching the ball more, having more shots, making more passes, and so developing the skills.

The lack of focus on winning at all costs means that the children have greater freedom to try new things without the criticism that would come their way. It is an interesting question to ask whether the smaller, Spanish passing players, such as Xavi and Andres Iniesta, would have developed to become such good players under the English system.


The problem with this emphasis on winning at all costs is not only constrained to the younger age groups. We put great pressure on the England youth teams to win their respective tournaments. Whilst England has indeed had success in recent times in these competitions, there has not been the progression into the senior team. Maybe it is the fact that we have bred a team of strong and quick players, who are able to perform well at the youth level, but are unable to make the step up to full international level.

The likes of the Dutch and the Spanish put far less emphasis on these tournaments. Rather, they see them as an opportunity for the players to develop their skills and intelligence. Whether they win or not is a secondary issue. As former U18 winning captain Darren Caskey said, “The youth teams should be about bringing players through to the England team, not about winning.”

However, the difference in the coaching that young players receive in England compared with Holland is staggering. If we take an 18-year old academy graduate at Ajax, he will have received around 6,500 hours of dedicated coaching within his club. If we take an 18-year old academy graduate at an English club, he will only have received 2,500 hours of dedicated coaching. Given these facts, it is hardly surprising that the Dutch produce more technically able players than England.

We can make comparisons closer to home as well. A 15-year old footballer in England will be having around 5 hours of dedicated coaching per week. A 15-year old swimmer will be doing around 15 hours of dedicated training with a coach each week. Why should an aspiring footballer receive so much less training than an aspiring swimmer? We need to provide far more access to coaching for aspiring young footballers.

The problem is that we do not have the coaches. In England, we have 2,770 UEFA qualified coaches. Whilst this may sound like quite a large number, Spain has over 24,000 UEFA qualified coaches, and Germany has over 35,000. How can we expect to produce quality footballers if we have fewer coaches and provide less training for the children and teenagers that are supposedly the future of the national team?

The next issue is the facilities that are provided for young players to develop. England has more footballing academies than any other country in Europe. However, as we have seen, they do not seem to produce the quality. Maybe there should be more of a focus on quality rather than quantity. France has a total of 12 elite regional academies – the best known of these is Clairefontaine, which has produced the likes of Nicholas Anelka, Louis Saha, William Gallas, Thierry Henry, Hatem Ben Arfa, Sebastien Bassong and Jerome Rothen amongst other in recent years.


Similarly, the Dutch have merged many of the smaller local academies to form 14 large regional academies. This has helped to improve the quality of coaching and of the facilities in recent years. This also allows the best young players to play with and against each other on a far more regular basis, learning from each other in the process. A recent experiment has been tried in the Midlands to try and replicate this, where the academy players of Aston Villa, Birmingham and West Brom have been training together. Whether the National Football Centre that is expected to finally open in Burton in 2012 will help to move toward the continental system is still to be seen.

Furthermore, the Premiership regulations that 13 to 16 year old children may only sign for a club within 90 minutes drive of their home may be helping to restrict the opportunities for the most talented players to reach their potential. Manchester United has excellent youth facilities and has an excellent record of bringing young players through. David Beckham and Ryan Giggs are two of the best players that have come through as part of their golden generation. However, under the new regulations, neither would have been able to train at the Manchester United academy. Would Giggs have been the same player if he had to stay and train at the Cardiff academy instead of at Old Trafford?

One of the most commonly heard excuses is that there are too many foreign players in the Premiership, meaning that young English players do not receive the opportunities to break into the first-team. Whilst it is true that there is a growing proportion of foreign players in the league, this cannot be taken seriously as a reason for the lack of talented English young players. As Arsene Wenger has stated, it does not matter where a player is from, if he is good enough, he will play. No manager, even if he is foreign, is going to discriminate against an English player if he is good enough to play for their team.

Arsenal receives a huge amount of criticism for not bringing through English players. However, in the past 15 years, their academy has produced Stuart Taylor, Jamie O’Hara, David Bentley, Ashley Cole, Matthew Upson, Justin Hoyte, Kieran Gibbs and Jack Wilshere amongst others. All of these have gone on to have careers at the top level, and even internationally. However, they are not quite good enough to play for Arsenal, one of the best teams in the country. They did not play for Arsenal because they did not have the talent, not because they were not given the opportunity.

Whilst there are a growing number of foreign players playing in the Premiership, the younger players constantly complain that they are not given the chance to prove themselves. Maybe there could be an argument that these players should be more proactive and give themselves the opportunity. There are very few English players playing abroad. Why do some of these players, who do not get the opportunity at the age of 18-23, move to clubs in Europe? The likes of the Dutch and Belgian leagues in particular, but also the French and Portuguese leagues would be ideal for these players to develop by playing first-team football. Not only this, they would also learn a new style of play from these foreign league that would help them further.


There are very few English players that have ventured abroad, despite the obvious benefits that are associated with the move. A major reason for this is the mentality of young players. There are far too many youngsters who are in the game for the wrong reason – the lure of the money and lifestyle of a professional footballer, rather than for the challenge of being a great player. When we combine this with the fact that young players are paid far more in England than they would be elsewhere in Europe, we can see why the players stay. For these players, signing a professional contract with an English Premiership team is a sign that they have made it. In reality, they have barely even started.

The English system means that when a player graduates from the club’s academy at the age of 18, he must be ready to move straight into the first team. This obviously discriminates against those late developers. For those that are not ready for the first team, there is somewhat of a void. The reserve team is often made up of senior players trying to regain their fitness or the journeymen players that are no longer good enough for the first team. There are limited opportunities for the young players. There is a strong argument for introducing an U21 league, possibly even at the expense of the reserve league. Not only would it benefit the development of these players to play competitively at this level, there could also be a commercial opportunity. In the USA, they have the equivalent of an U23 league in all the major sports – the college system. Crowds of in excess of 100,000 people pack the stadia for the matches between the biggest colleges. Now whilst an U21 league would never reach these levels, it could easily garner public support if successfully marketed.

Finally, the Premier League has begun to try and address this problem. From this season onward, clubs must include 8 ‘home-grown’ players in a squad of 25 players over the age of 21. Whilst this sounds like a promising move, it is hampered by EU regulations that ban any restrictions on freedom of movement of labour. As a result, the Premier League cannot restrict teams to having to have a certain number of English players. Therefore, we have the idea of a ‘home-grown’ player. This is a player who has trained with an English club for at least 36 months before the end of the season when they turn 21.

This means that Arsenal are perfectly entitled to register Cesc Fabregas as a ‘home-grown’ player. Similarly, Carlos Vela, Nicklas Bendtner, Denilson, Alex Song, Armand Traore, Johan Djourou and Wojciech Szczesny would all qualify as ‘home-grown’. Therefore, Arsenal can meet the requirement of 8 ‘home-grown’ players in their squad, without naming a single English player. With the increasing frequency of young players in academies – 45 of the 300 players between 16 and 18 years old – being foreign, these regulations are relatively lax. Whilst the Premier League are hamstrung by EU regulations, there is an argument that the cap should be raised to 12 ‘home-grown’ players, as in Germany. Very few teams would have that many foreign players in their academy, forcing them to name English players.

However, this returns to the earlier argument that teams should not be forced to play English players if they are not good enough. There is a fine-line to be trod here. We do not want to hinder the quality of the league as a whole, and undoubtedly the foreign players have improved the league, but we do want quality young English players to be given the opportunity to play. As mentioned earlier though, if they are good enough, they will play.


Unfortunately, the sheer sums of money involved in the game now hinder the strategy of building for the future at the expense of instant success. Even the end-of-season games where teams used to blood new young players once survival was ensured and European football was beyond them are now taken more seriously. Sam Allardyce admitted that the additional £500k per finishing position in the league meant that it was not worth giving young players a chance. The only time young players get their opportunity now is when a club has an injury crisis, leaving them as the only option. Often on these occasions, the young players seize their opportunity. Phil Jones came in for Blackburn last season, impressed, and is now being talked about as a first-team regular. It is unlikely that he would even have had the chance to play otherwise.

It is money though that is likely to prove the solution. At the moment, the FA only invests 1% of its money into the development of young players. Rather, it relies on some of its major sponsors to provide projects aimed at the young kids. The FA Tesco Skills Programme is a good example of this type of project. Considering the FA pays Fabio Capello a salary of around £6m per year, it might be more effective to hire a less expensive coach and direct some of those funds toward youth development. No matter how good the coach is, if there are no good players coming through the system, England will not experience international success.

Germany has proved that investment can reap rewards. Ten years ago, the German FA, the Bundesliga and the German government all agreed to work together to resurrect the German game. They embarked on a £500m investment project (£50m per year) and they are now seeing the results. Victory in the U21 European Championships last year have been followed by an impressive number of those players making their mark at this year’s World Cup. Bayern Munich impressed in Europe with a team including a number of German players – the likes of Philipp Lahm, Holger Badstuber, Bastian Schweinsteiger, Toni Kroos and Thomas Muller are testament to the quality of players that are coming through the system at Bayern Munich.


With the money that is being pumped into the English game, major investment is needed to transform the youth system. Whilst the current economic climate means that investment on the German scale is overly ambitious, something needs to be done to change the style of coaching, the facilities, the quality and quantity of qualified coaches, and support for players to gain experience abroad. There is a worrying lack of talent being produced in the past decade, and if something is not done to restructure the youth system, England can look forward to a bleak future for the national team.

What does the future hold for England?

England went into the World Cup with the oldest squad in the tournament, with an average age of 28.7. Opinions were mixed with some claiming that there was plenty of experience in the squad, whilst others claimed that the squad was simply too old. As we all know, England were immensely disappointing, and at times looked slow and pedestrian in their football. Similarly, if we look at the 4 oldest teams in the competition – England, Brazil, Australia and Italy – they were all fairly disappointing when compared to pre-tournament expectations.


Now, let us look at the youngest teams in the tournament – Ghana, North Korea, Germany, Cameroon, Spain and Chile. These teams all had an average age of under 26. Four of these teams progressed to the second round, three were in the quarter-finals, two in the semi-finals and obviously Spain won the overall tournament. Now whilst this is by no means conclusive proof, there seems to be a suggestion that the younger teams performed better at these championships. Indeed, if we look at the style of play of these teams, Spain played their usual quick pass-and-move style, Germany played an attractive fast-paced attacking game, whilst Chile were one of the best teams to watch in the entire tournament, even out-playing Spain for a significant portion of their contest.

The Germans had no fewer than six players who won the U21 European Championships in 2009 in their squad for the 2010 World Cup, as well as three players from the current U21 qualifying side. These players included the majority of their critical players – goalkeeper Manuel Neuer, defenders Jerome Boateng, Holger Badstuber and Dennis Aogo, midfielders Sami Khedira, Mesut Ozil, Thomas Muller and Toni Kroos and striker Marko Marin.


So maybe this all suggests that it is time to jettison some of the older players from the squad and refresh the ranks with some younger players. Joe Hart will almost certainly come in as the first-choice keeper for the Euro 2012 qualifiers, replacing the ageing David James, and the now-questionable Robert Green. After impressing last season for Villa and England, James Milner will be pushing for a permanent position on either the right-hand side or the centre of England’s midfield. Having made it into the provisional 30-man squad, Theo Walcott, Adam Johnson and Michael Dawson are likely to press for a more permanent role in the squad, whilst those that just missed out, including the likes of Gabriel Agbonlahor, Ashley Young, Phil Jagielka and Gary Cahill will be pressing for a position.

Emile Heskey has already announced his retirement from international football. It would be no surprise if the likes of Matthew Upson and Jamie Carragher were to follow in losing their spots in the squad. The biggest potential exclusion from the Euro 2012 qualifying squad could be former skipper, John Terry. Whilst he is an excellent defender, he lacks that extra yard of pace and he is potentially a disruptive influence on the squad. Combined with his attack on Capello during the tournament, it would be no major shock if his international career was coming to a close.

In the more distant future, things look promising for England. The U21 side was a losing finalist in the 2009 UEFA U21 European Championships, improving from their semi-final appearance in 2008. Similarly, the U19 team was a losing finalist in the 2009 U19 European Championship. The U17 side has recently won the 2010 U17 European Championships, beating a strong Spanish side in the final. This suggests that there are plenty of decent players coming through, but whether they will progress and be given the opportunity in the Premiership is a different matter.


So who are the potential future stars for England from these younger age groups? We take a quick look at 10 players who could become important players in the years to come.

1. Jack Wilshere – Arsenal (midfielder)

Jack Wilshere is only 18 years old, but is one of the most promising talents that England has produced for many years. One of the few English players at Arsenal, Wenger holds him in such high regard that he is seen as a potential replacement for Fabregas. A technically gifted player, he is excellent with the ball at his feet, and has been compared to Paul Gascoigne in terms of his potential ability.


2. Jack Rodwell – Everton (midfielder)

Jack Rodwell burst into the Everton team over the last couple of seasons as a talented midfielder. A former captain of both the England U16 and U18, he is expected to move back into a defensive role in the longer term, but his recent performances in the centre of midfield for Everton have led for calls for an opportunity at senior level.


3. Nathan Delfouneso – Aston Villa (striker)

Nathan Delfouneso has scored goals for fun at youth and reserve level in the past couple of years, and has continued that form at international level. Six goals in five games for the U17 team, ten goals in 22 games for the U19, including winning the Golden Boot at the 2009 U19 European Championships and a goal on his debut for the U21 team have showed his immense potential. His style, speed and technique have raised comparisons with the great Thierry Henry in the French media.


4. Tom Cruise – Arsenal (defender)

Despite sharing a name with the famous actor, Tom Cruise is proving himself as a good prospect for the future. He made his Arsenal debut last season at left-back against Olympiakos in the Champions League, and has impressed at youth level for England.


5. Ciaran Clark – Aston Villa (defender)

Ciaran Clark is a former England U18, U19 and U20 captain, as well as leading the Aston Villa academy and reserve teams to their respective titles. He impressed in the Peace Cup for Villa last summer against Juventus and Porto, and was man-of-the-match on his Villa debut last season against Fulham. A hugely talented central defender, he will be hoping to break into the Villa side this season.


6. Connor Wickham – Ipswich (striker)

Connor Wickham broke into the Ipswich squad last season, as well as starring for England U17 as they won the U17 European Championships. A brace in the semi-final as well as a goal in the final marked him out as a player to watch for the future. Arsenal and Tottenham are chasing the £10m-rated striker.


7. Josh McEachran – Chelsea (midfielder)

One of the stars of Chelsea’s youth Cup triumph last season, the young midfielder is one to watch for the future. A former England U16 captain, he was another star of the U17 title-winning England side earlier this year. Fleet of foot and with a great ability to read the game, he is a great prospect.


8. Conor Coady – Liverpool (midfielder)

The captain of the U17 winning England side, the young midfielder was the driving force in midfield alongside McEachran. Assuming he gets the opportunity to play first-team football in the coming years, he should be one to watch.


9. Jack Butland – Birmingham (goalkeeper)

Another U17 international, he began the tournament as the 2nd choice keeper. However, given his opportunity, he put in a series of excellent performances and retained his place in the team. Put in an excellent performance in the final in particular, and may be one to watch in a few years time.


10. Gary Gardner – Aston Villa (midfielder)

Played for England at U17, U19 and U20 level last season before a cruciate ligament injury ended his season early. The younger brother of Craig Gardner, he was scoring for fun for the Villa academy and reserve teams before his injury, and hopefully he can come back to fulfil the potential that he undoubtedly has.

How England can win at penalties

As Woody Harrelson rolled his penalty into the net in the Socceraid match last night, once again, England had lost on penalties. The most unsuccessful major international side in history in shootouts, England have a 17% winning record, winning only 1 against Spain in 1996, whilst losing 5 since the heartbreaking defeat in Turin in 1990. So why are England so bad at penalties, and can they improve?

Critics often claim that the penalty shootout is a terrible method of determining matches – a complete lottery. However, can it really be a complete lottery? If it is, why do England seemingly lose every time, whilst the Germans seem to be masters at it. The reality is that it is anything but a random lottery. Research and game theory can be used to provide that all-important edge in the shootout, and whilst the pressure can affect even the best-laid plans, any advantage, no matter how small, could be vital.


The obvious first step would simply be to practice penalties in training before the tournament. However, as blindingly clear as this may be, Glenn Hoddle admitted following England’s defeat to Argentina on penalties in 1998, that they had not practised penalties at all beforehand. Frankly, this seems quite bizarre. Although you clearly cannot replicate the pressure in training sessions, it would surely provide the experience that may help. Following England U21 losing to Holland on penalties in 2007, Stuart Pearce had the team practising penalties in every training session for the two years ahead of the 2009 tournament. Not only did this provide the practise for the players, it meant that he knew exactly who the best penalty-takers were. Hence, Joe Hart stepped up to take the second penalty against Sweden in the semi-finals. England went on to win the shootout.

Next, it always seems to be the case that managers leave it up to the players to decide who is confident of taking a penalty kick. Whilst confidence in yourself is an admirable trait, it seems ridiculous that you may have players taking their first ever penalty as a professional in such a high-pressure, high-stakes environment. Both in 1998 and 2006, David Batty and Jamie Carragher respectively were taking their first ever penalties as a professional. They both missed. Come South Africa, England will have plenty of players that are regular penalty-takers for their clubs – Frank Lampard, Steven Gerrard, James Milner, Wayne Rooney and Gareth Barry all take penalties on a regular basis. If we reach a shootout, the majority of those should be on the pitch, and you would expect them to be the first-choice takers. If we add Ashley Cole and, potentially Joe Hart, there are plenty of quality takers there to avoid the situation of inexperienced players taking penalties.

However, there is plenty of research has been done on penalties by academics and people involved in the sport alike. Two recent examples suggest how effective prior research can be in influencing the outcome of shootouts. Firstly, there was Jens Lehmann for the Germans against Argentina in 2006. Ahead of each penalty, Lehmann would take a scrap of paper out of his sock, study it, then prepare to face the penalty. At the time, commentators suggested it was a poem or a prayer – instead, it was actually a list of instructions of where the Argentineans were going to put their penalty kicks. He had notes on 7 different Argentinean players’ penalty techniques. Whilst only 2 ended up taking the kicks, his notes were correct on each. Before the tournament, the Germans had built up a database of over 13,000 penalty kicks, providing invaluable information on each player.


His notes on Maxi Rodriguez suggested that the penalty would be hit to the left. He went that way, but unfortunately the penalty was hit too well. However, the notes on Ayala said ‘waits long time, long run-up, right’. After a long wait and run-up, Ayala hit the penalty right, and Lehmann saved it. Despite not having notes on Cambiasso, simply studying the scrap of paper intently gave him the psychological edge, and he saved it to send the Germans through.

The other example was the 2008 Champions League Final between Manchester United and Chelsea. Ahead of the game, Chelsea were provided with information about the United penalty tactics. Edwin Van der Sar favoured diving toward the taker’s natural side. Therefore, right-footed Chelsea players would have a better chance of scoring if they shot to their unnatural side, i.e. to VDS’s left. Furthermore, they should either hit it low along the floor, or high, since the majority of VDS’s saves were at a height of between 1m and 1.5m. Finally, against Cristiano Ronaldo, it was crucial for Petr Cech not to move early, since Ronaldo would change his direction, and that if he pauses, he almost always goes to the keeper’s right.

Armed with this information, Chelsea went into the shootout. Michael Ballack’s penalty went high to VDS’s left, Juliano Belletti went low to VDS’s left. Both scored. Petr Cech remained dead-still during Ronaldo’s run-up, Ronaldo paused, then put his penalty to the right. Cech saved it. The next four penalties – Lampard, Cole, Terry and Kalou – all went to VDS’s left. Ashley Cole being left-footed, disregarded the advice, and his penalty was almost saved.


Then, ahead of Nicholas Anelka’s crucial penalty, Van der Sar seemed to have cottoned onto the tactic. However, he believed that they were all going left, rather than just the right-footed players. He pointed to his left-hand corner, trying to psyche-out Anelka. It succeeded. Anelka changed his mind, hitting the penalty at a mid-height to VDS’s right. It was saved and Manchester United had won the shootout. Clearly, the research cannot guarantee a victory, but it provides the extra tiny edge that can be the difference.

Various other statistics are interesting regarding penalty shootouts. If you have the option, going first is beneficial. The team going first wins around 60% of penalty shootouts, presumably due to the fact that there is less pressure on them. Attackers score the highest percentage of their penalties, followed by midfielders, then defenders. This makes sense, and although there are always going to be exceptions, the more attacking the player, the more likely they are to score their penalty. Thus, a team should avoid letting defenders take crucial penalties. Memories of key penalty misses in recent times, include the likes of Gareth Southgate, Jamie Carragher, John Terry, David Batty, etc.

Players that have been on the pitch for less than 30 minutes score on average 86.7% of successful penalties, compared with 81.9% for those who have played between 31 and 90 minutes, and 80% for those who have played more than 90 minutes. The fresher the player is, the more likely he is to score. Finally, the younger players tend to score more often. Players under 22 score 85.2% of penalties, compared with 77.6% for 23-28 year olds, and 78.1% of over 29 year olds. Whether the pressure gets to younger players less is debatable, but they do seem to score more regularly.


So, preparation is key when it comes to giving the side the best chance of winning a penalty shootout. So let us hope that Fabio Capello has had the team practising regularly, and they have done their research on potential opposition. However, a final statistic to give us hope – in the last 5 years, the keeper with the lowest percentage of penalties scored against him is Rob Green. Only 53% of penalties in that period have been scored against him.

World Cup Countdown - Part 1

The 32 nations that will compete in the World Cup in South Africa are almost ready to begin their challenge on the famous Jules Rimet trophy. This article is the first in a series that will take a brief look at the warm-up games for each of the sides in order to try and give an impression of how each side is looking less than 3 weeks before the tournament begins.

Australia 2 – 1 New Zealand


Australia were expected to put in a strong performance against their close neighbours in their first warm-up for the World Cup. However, they needed a last gasp winner from Brett Holman to spare their blushes. Despite missing six first-choice players, Australia were comprehensively outplayed by their less illustrious neighbours and can consider themselves lucky to have snatched the win.

Chris Killen gave the Kiwis the lead after only 15 minutes, latching onto Shane Smeltz’s flick to place his shot beyond Adam Federici. Australia’s frustration showed, and both Vince Grella and Tim Cahill were grateful to the referee for not showing them red cards, due to the fact that the game was a friendly. Grella’s challenge in particularly was shocking, and deserved a straight red.

Just after the break, Dario Vidosic found himself behind the defence and finished well to bring the Socceroos back level, and after Brad Jones saved well from Rory Fallon, Brett Holman struck in the 94th minute to grab the winner.

Australian manager, Pim Verbeek was very upset with his team’s performance, having been booed off at half time, and blasted the two tackles from Grella and Cahill in the first half.

Japan 0 – 2 South Korea


Japan went down to South Korea for the second time in the space of a few months, after goals from Park Ji-Sung and Park Chu-Young gave the Koreans a 2-0 victory.

South Korea started well with Park Ji-Sung scoring after only six minutes in Saitama. Japan controlled most of the first half, with the Koreans happy to sit back and hit them on the counter. Despite this, Japan never really threatened to create too much before the break. After half time, South Korea took the initiative more, moving the ball around nicely. However, chances were rare, and it wasn’t until stoppage time in the second half when Park Chu-Young was brought down in the area, and he picked himself up to settle the game.

South Korea are now unbeaten in four games, whilst Japan’s preparations have been thrown into turmoil by the news that manager Takeshi Okada has been in discussions with the Japanese Football Federation over whether he should continue in the job.

Portugal 0 – 0 Cape Verde Islands


Portugal’s preparation for the World Cup started poorly with a goalless draw against the African minnows. It was a strong Portugal side featuring the likes of Ronaldo, Nani, Deco and Ricardo Carvalho. They dominated the game but were unable to create many chances, with Ronaldo and Hugo Almeida missing the best chances.

Described as a performance lacking organisation or speed, and having few opportunities, the Portuguese will be looking for a dramatic improvement in their next warm-up game.

South Africa 1 – 1 Bulgaria


South Africa put in a bright performance against European opposition, but despite an impressive performance, they were unable to come away with the victory. Siyabonga Sangweni gave them the lead after 20 minutes, although they had forced a number of chances already by the time they scored. However, it was sloppy defending that led to the Bulgarian equaliser, with Valeri Bojinov finding himself unmarked in the box to score.

After half time, the game slowed and it was Bulgaria that looked the more likely to win, although there were to be no more goals in the game. South Africa have another warm-up game on Thursday and will be looking to build on an improved performance.

England 3 – 1 Mexico


England were without their Chelsea players for this warm-up at Wembley, giving a few of the squad players a chance to shine. Mexico were the better side in the first half, passing the ball around nicely and carving out a few decent chances. However, they found themselves 2 – 0 down after 35 minutes with goals from Ledley King and Peter Crouch, both from set pieces. However, Guillermo Franco pulled one back on the stroke of half time.

England improved in the second half, and finished the match as a contest only 2 minutes in, when Glen Johnson cut inside and curled a beautiful effort beyond Oscar Perez. They could have had more, but both Gerrard and Lennon were cynically fouled when through on goal.

England will be happy with the result, but looking for an improved performance against Japan at the weekend, whilst Mexico will be relatively happy with their performance overall.

Argentina 5 – 0 Canada


A virtually full-strength Argentina cruised past Canada, with goals from Maxi Rodriguez (2), Angel Di Maria, Carlos Tevez and Sergio Aguero. The Argentineans were rarely tested at the back, and they will have been satisfied with good performances from Juan Sebastian Veron’s understudy, Javier Pastore, Angel Di Maria and Carlos Tevez. Furthermore, Veron showed his class after coming on at half-time, not misplacing a single pass in the second half. A good confidence boost in their final warm-up game.