johannkrizalid blogged @ 4:40 PM

Ok, i was working on my analysis on England's languid displays in continental competitions when my com crashed and 1 hour of analysis report gone. Fine, you stupid hard drive, you win. But like any great managers in the modern game, i dun give up. So i shall start all over again, because of a f***ing hard disk crash.

If you are an England supporter donning the England Umbro jersey with either Gerrard or Lampard enscribed at the back, you must be scratching your head and wondering wtf happened to a team brimming with talents and home to wondrous players like the duo mentioned above. Well, IMO it boils down to the manager. End of story. No matter how much the players try to vindicate the coach and how the press tries to make players and manager alike in shouldering the blame, we as audience knows that at the end of the day, the real culprit is Steve McClaren. Suddenly, the one whose nickname is "the Magnificent" isn't so magnificent anymore.


As anyone who knows me well, like my FM buddies, i've always preached on one fact, and that is a countryman should never manage his own country's national team. Perhaps i would be hanged if i had blurted this out in public ten years ago, but it certaily makes sense in contemporary football. Besides Lippi and Domenech, managers such as Marco Van Basten, Luis Aragones and Carlos Alberto Perreira have certainly proven themselves to be flops. Well, they have a new addition to their group of superflops, and this man is certainly chillin on his throne as the King of the Flops. He is the ex manager of boro, steve mcclaren.

There are many reasons why a countryman should not manage his national football team. First of all is bias, and this is proven in the case of van Basten. Being from Ajax once, he seemed to have taken a slant towards selecting players from his own club. Slant, in this context, is a severe understatement. Half of his outfield eleven came from ajax and AZ. OMFG. I mean, yes huntelaar and babel is good, they are promising but to replace van Nistelrooy, the fox in the box and the man the Netherlands desperately need to find the target is holy crap. Huntelaar didn't even get close to the goalbox mind you. He benched roy makaay and put on babel in the starting lineup. I mean WTF?!! If Makaay is undergoing a rough patch, then maybe i'll understand his reasons for benching him. BUT HEY, he scored the champions league fastest goal and is terrorising defences with his off the ball running even when he is not scoring, so HOW IN HELL DID YOU COME TO THE CONCLUSION OF BENCHING HIM? For rebuilding the squad and injecting new vigour? You may never get to see your fruits of labour Marco, cos you probably will be sent packing if the netherlands did not qualify.

So how is this the problem for Steve McClaren? Oh, he bested them all. He pwn3d us all. He slotted in dave nugent from preston as a substitute instead of defoe. Dave Nugent. Do you know who he is, people? I bet half the ppl in my country have never heard of this chap prior to the announcement of the lineup. He is good, but ultimately championship material. Why is he getting the cap and Defoe not even making it to the team? Just because he is on a good run in Preston? Mind you, he is a god**** premiership reject, and how in hell do you expect him to carry the responsibility of scoring goals for England?

Secondly, if you had already realised before, McClaren likes to pick players from the Big Four. Sure they are quality players, but can they gel? Gerrard and Lampard can't play together in midfield, so the solution is to exile Gerrard to the right? NO! My god, i will never believe that he actually has a UEFA coaching license. Southgate is better than him, and he's unqualified. As i always say, a good team can never have 11 world class players. What a team needs is a backbone, a group of key players that enforces tactical discipline and dictate tempo. A good manager builds a team around key players, players like Terry or Gerrard or Totti or Henry. Having key players stabilises your team and hastens the process of gelling with one another. Why is this so? This is because world class players bring with them an unbelieveable amount of self confidence and ego, and sometimes these egos conflict with one another. Having 11 top notch players will result in discordance, because each of them will be self absorbed in displaying individual brillances and not seeing the big picture. This is why i denounced the Galacticos system, and this is precisely the reason why Real Madrid winning La Liga is like a quest for the golden fleece. If you look at Man U you will see that they build the team around C.Ronaldo and Rooney, as well as a solid defensive pairing of Ferdinand and Vidic. You don't see them selling park ji sung or Fletcher and bringing in valon behrami or messi. Too many cooks spoil the broth and it applies here too. Back to the Lampard-Gerrard issue, if you can't play both, then rotate! Putting Gerrard on the right and Lennon on the left doesn't solve the problem, you're just putting square pegs in round holes. Looking beyond the big four there are other left wing alternatives, albeit not as good. But as i said, you can't have 11 top notch players, so having an average left winger isn't a problem at all. Barry is a good option, and so is Downing. Managers should not have prejudices or preference over any player, and the best way to go round this problem is to have a foreign coach come in and select the team. If England had kidnapped Guus Hiddink to London, England might have been cruising in their group now. Choosing players from the Big Four isn't always the solution to things, sometimes the troubles will just compound.

Having said so much, i really don't think McClaren is any better than his predecessor. Too many mistakes, too many sloppy appearances. If England slips again when they meet Andorra, this may spell the end of national football in England and the heralding of the new era of club football as proposed by Wenger and Mourinho.

I'm almost done with Anatomy of a Winner by Patrick Barclay. I personally recommend all my FM buddies to read it cos it helps a lot, at least it helped me. I will summerise the key notes and hopefully post it on the next post. Until then...

johannkrizalid blogged @ 12:39 PM

Well i meant this to be another blog bout soccer, and sometimes on my thoughts on certain things in life. This perhaps is a continuation to my old blog justgivethetitletochelsea.blogspot.com, which barely lasted a month and 3 posts be4 it was hacked and deleted. Well, the past is past and we shall not talk bout it anymore.

Why the name fourtwothreeone? As everyone who's known me well knows, i've always advocated this tactical system and championed it. Why? Because according to my own postulated theory of evolution of soccer tactics, i believe that eventually all soccer tactics converges upon these two mainstream tactical layouts, namely the 4-4-2 and the 4-2-3-1. 4-2-3-1 is a highly demanding tactic because it requires a team to have two very skilful wingers as well as a prolific striker. That said, it provides depth in midfield as well as width on the flanks. Sitting the playmaker directly behind the striker allows backup as well as more firepower up front while being assured that there are two midfielders covering his back. Unfortunately, not many teams in the world have skilful wingers as these have indeed become a rare breed amongst new generation of soccer players. Playmakers who can split defenses with accurate passes and deadly long shots have also dwindled in numbers. As such, 4-2-3-1 is rarely seen deployed in teams nowadays except perhaps roma and barcelona(before eto'o was out injured).
In the case of Roma's lineup against Lyon in the 2nd leg of the champions league, they deployed 4-2-3-1 to good use and with deep defending and creative wingplay, managed to put Lyon out of the champions league.

4-4-2 is another excellent tactical system. It allows good balance between defence, midfield and attack, due to the mobility and versatility of the two central midfielders. Often, proponents of fourfourtwo like sir alex ferguson will deploy an attacking mid and a defensive mid like carrick and scholes to dictate tempo and organise counterattacks. However, the real drawback of 4-4-2 comes from the two strikers up front. 4-4-2 requires both strikers to have telepathic abilities and to be familiar with each other's playing style. A mismatch will lead to disastrous results and breaks in momentum(like kuyt and bellamy in Aston Villa's home match against liverpool). This is a major flaw in 4-4-2, while the use of a lone striker in 4-2-3-1 eliminates that problem. 4-4-2 diamond in the case of Chelsea is a good formation provided the team has very established midfielders like makelele, but it suffers from a lack of width and places a lot of pressure on the wingbacks and central defenders.

Ok...i'm digressing too much. This is what happens when i talk football, i won't stop until someone tells me to STFU. Anyway, this blog serves 2 purpose. 1) this blog will serve as my scouting database, so if managers of FM wanted to know of good buys and bargain players you can visit my blog and check if there's an update. I set myself apart from FM sites in that i don't only include wonderkids in my listings but also BARGAIN buys for clubs outside the big four. 2) i will write about all the things that happened in my life, what i feel about certain issues and most importantly on issues involving soccer, cos i might consider being a soccer presenter/jounalist/analyst when i'm sick of whatever job i might be taking up in the future.(Basically, i kan the ESPN indian soccer presenter bu shuang very long liao, cos he likes to talk crap and i dun pay 20 bucks a mth to watch him talk trash on espn and football focus, so i decide to replace him sld i ever get the chance. he better not let me see him if not...) Anyway, this is about all i have to say. Next post: Why England is a perennial flop in european and world competitions and should McClaren abdicate in my favour as the new England manager?

johannkrizalid blogged @ 12:02 AM