John Terry: An accident waiting to happen?

Slippery slope: Terry’s on the way down

John Terry shouldn’t go to the European Championships with England.  There, we’ve said it.

A lot has already been written about whether the Chelsea captain should be representing his country anyway with a charge of racially abusing Anton Ferdinand hanging over him.

But it’s not for this reason that Thoughtsport think Terry should be left kicking his heels when Roy Hodgson takes his squad to Poland and Ukraine.  No.

We contest that Terry has lost it.  He’s just not the player he once was and, at 31, England should be looking elsewhere.

The case for the defence

Terry’s decline has been slow, steady but he’s definitelydeclining.  Chelsea have been leaking goals lately.  This season they’ve conceded 41 goals in the Premier League (with two games yet to come).  In his, and Chelsea’s, pomp they were a much tighter ship.

As the graphic below shows, Chelsea have been getting progressively ‘leakier’.  Now that may not be entirely Terry’s fault — selling Ricardo Carvalho; the doomed tactics of Andre Villas Boas; the rocky start made by David Luiz; the dip in form of Petr Cech etc. are all factors.  However, Terry himself is also a factor — a large one.

Year Finished Goals conceded
2005-6 1st 22
2006-7 2nd 24
2007-8 2nd 26
2008-9 3rd 24
2009-10 1st 32
2010-11 2nd 33
2011-12 3rd-6th 41+

Speaking of ‘large’, Terry has always relied on one key asset of his game.  The line between good players and top players is usually excelling in one (or more) aspects of the game (think: Michael Owen, exceptional pace; Paul Gascoigne, exceptional dribbling).

Terry’s exceptional talent was his size and strength — which made him good in the air and solid in the tackle, ideal for a centre-half.  He was never the quickest, but he had enough pace to get himself out of trouble if needed.  Paired with a ‘playmaking’ centre half, like Rio Ferdinand, Terry was the perfect foil.  The grit to Ferdinand’s craft.

“He’s behind you!”

Carroll playing the tune: Terry’s left floundering at Wembley

Recent events have shown some gaping (and growing) flaws in Terry’s game.

Take the two matches against Liverpool.  The first, the FA Cup Final.  The second the Premier League clash.  Both were big games for Chelsea, one for a trophy the other for a coveted Champions League place.

Admittedly Chelsea won one and lost one, picking up a trophy along the way.  Not bad.

If you watched the game(s) you may already know what’s coming.  Terry’s errors.  In reverse chronological order:

  • He slips to gift the ball to Jordan Henderson, who scores Liverpool’s second goal at Anfield
  • Andy Carroll easily beats Terry on the turn at Anfield.  Result, a clumsy, cynical challenge to bring Carroll down earns Terry a yellow card
  • He’s nutmegged by Luis Suarez at Anfield.  Result, Suarez shoots wide
  • He’s tricked by Carroll again at Anfield
  • He’s tricked by Carroll again (Andy Carroll!) on the edge of his own six yard box at Wembley.  Result: Carroll smashes it into the roof of the net.  Goal.

Toss in the torrid time Terry and co. had from, an admittedly resurgent Carroll, for half an hour at Wembley and it’s not looking good for ‘JT’.

Being nutmegged by Luis Suarez is no shame, better players than Terry will suffer that fate.  It was the tangle Terry got himself in chasing Carroll, not the most nimble of players at the best of times, that have sealed his fate in Thoughtsport’s eyes.

If Carroll can do that to Terry, what will the likes of Zlatan Ibrahimovic, Karim Benzema and Franck Ribery do at the Euros?  It almost doesn’t bear thinking about.

The solution?

Thoughtsport don’t like doing down players without positive alternatives.  Any hack can say”So and so is crap.” it takes a little more invention to say who should replace them.

Whilst England toiled over and dragged out the decision of whom should replace Fabio Capello, we were advocates of the school of thought that said: “Write of the Euros, we won’t win it.  Let Stuart Pearce take a few kids and give them some experience — it worked wonders for Germany.”

With Roy Hodgson in charge that won’t be the case.  It is extremely likely Terry will be on the plane to eastern Europe.  However, we’d advocate another route.  Take four centre-backs (plenty for a tournament).  On form the top four Englishmen would be:

  • Joleon Lescott (an under-rated season, in the formidable shadow of Vincent Kompany, at a City side that could be champions)
  • Phil Jagielka (already in the England shake-up and ‘rested’ after coming back from injury)
  • Gary Cahill (already out performing Terry at Stamford Bridge)
  • Rio Ferdinand (older than Terry but his time off injured has enabled him to adapt his game around his ever decreasing pace)

Throw in Micah Richards who can play right back or centre back and Chris Smalling (as a nod to his future/potential) and England don’t need Terry as much as some might think.

No room for extra baggage

That’s the footballing reason we think Terry should be omitted from Euro 2012.  Sprinkle in the pending court case; the captaincy debacle; the simmering tension with Rio Ferdinand; the needless red-card against Barcelona and countless other off-field distractions Terry brings and the argument becomes rather compelling.

Bear in mind as well as Ibrahimovic et al, all England’s opponents will have been watching Terry’s toils (both on and off the field).  As that red card against Barcelona showed the one time England skipper is liable to ‘lose it’ in key matches.  Terry will be targetted in the same way Wayne Rooney is.  Opponents will know he’s a walking red card waiting to happen, especially with the more fussy big tournament refereeing.

Drop Terry.  Will it happen?  We doubt it.  For argument’s sake we’ll name our 23-man squad now:

Goalkeepers x 3

Joe Hart; Ben Foster; Paul Robinson

Defenders x 8

Rio Ferdinand; Phil Jagielka; Joleon Lescott; Gary Cahill; Micah Richards; Kyle Walker; Ashley Cole; Glenn Johnson.

Midfielders x 8

Steven Gerrard; Gareth Barry; Scott Parker; Frank Lampard; Michael Carrick; Ashley Young; Theo Walcott; Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain.

Forwards x4

Wayne Rooney; Daniel Sturridge; Danny Welbeck; Andy Carroll.

Swap Richards for Terry and we suspect this may not be far off what ‘Woy’ picks.

Advertisements

Video technology: The argument against

Much hand-wringing in football following Thierry Henry’s handball in the Fifa World Cup play-off match against Ireland.

The Football Association of Ireland and Irish fans around the world protest;  Fifa, Uefa and the French Football Federation get their heads down and hope it will all go away.  Neutral’s are aghast and Henry’s reputation takes a severe dent.

Once things are cleared up and any (faint) chance of a replay is dismissed as impossible – only then does Henry concede a replay would be “fair” – not a million miles away from Andre Agassi only admitting his drug taking past only when he new it was too late to punish him.  Hardly brave.

Once again football fans, journalists and pundits around the world are baying for video technology to be introduced.  “There can be no argument against it!” they say.  Well, they’re wrong, because here it is.

The beauty of football, why I love it and I suspect you love it too is it’s universality.  Those heart-warming pictures you see of kids in ghettos playing with a ball made of plastic bags, with twigs rammed into the dirt as goal-posts (usually as part of one country or another’s World Cup bid) – they have a deeper meaning too.

Football can be played by anyone, anywhere.  Much as we all dreamt (or still dream depending on your age/grip on reality) of being Crufy/Pelé/Maradonna/Best/Cantona/Dalglish et al and knew it could never be so – we could still dream.  Football is achievable for everyone.  If you have a couple of mates and something anything that can serve as a ball you’ve got a game.  Heck, you don’t even need a few mates, a wall or something to bounce the ball back from will do.  Add imagination and you’re in the Bernabeu, the San Siro or scoring the World Cup winning goal at Wembley.

Same game

The team you play for at school, on a Sunday or in the Pub League – you’re playing the same game as those kids with twigs in the ghetto and the exact same game as Liverpool, AC Milan, Real Madrid, Corinthians etc. are all playing too.

Sure, they’re playing it better (mostly) but it’s the same.  The same equipment, the same pitch size maybe even the same ball if you put the latest adidas on your Christmas list last year.

As Sepp Blatter, Michel Platini tinker with the rules they’re still within reach.  Ok, your Sunday league may not have linesmen (sorry assistant refs) and your playground game may not even have a ref – but that’s not a rule that’s just down to availability.

Even if Platini’s experiment with AARs (Additional Assitant Referees) becomes law you could, in theory, still have those in place in the park on Sunday.

Add in technology: video replays; goal-line technology whatever – and that achievable link is gone.  Forever.

Most small local teams struggle to find the money for kit and bus hire to get to games.  Video technology is a million miles away from their budget.  Even many professional teams couldn’t afford it.  As more and more Football League clubs in England flirt with financial disaster the idea of adding to their costs is ridiculous.

Therefore a line would have to be drawn.  Videos would only come in a Premier League level or perhaps in the Championship too.   Is football really more important in those divisions?  Several tens of thousands of fans of teams in League’s One and Two would say otherwise.

And then what about Cup competitions.  If a tie is at a ground with the technology, should it be used?  And if the replay’s at the ‘smaller’ team’s ground, without the technology?  It would just be a murky mess of a disaster, waiting to happen.

Referees aren’t perfect.  Mistakes are made – as the match in the Stade de France showed.  But mistakes are as much a part of football as the glorious moments when everything goes right.

The most glorious thing of all is that football should be like justice – for all, not just those that can afford it.

Uefa choke = Uefa joke

In the most unsurprising story since Cristiano Ronaldo moved to Real Madrid, Uefa have overturned their own ban on Arsenal striker Eduardo.

The Brazil born Croatia striker had been banned for allegedly diving to win a penalty in Arsenal’s one-sided Champions League qualifier against Celtic.

As predicted here on Thoughtsport Arsenal appealed and quelle suprise the ban was over-turned.  Uefa choked it.
Now I’m not saying Eduardo should have been banned – the evidence was borderline at best – but Uefa chose to draw their line in the sand and should have stuck by it.

Instead they look more lilly-livered than David Beckham pulling his sore toe out of a tackle and allowing Argentina to score in the 2002 World Cup.

The status quo is restored: the big clubs know that no matter how loud Uefa crow about tackling this and doing something about that, they can ride roughshod over any rules (or rulings) they don’t like and do as they’ve always done – namely whatever they want.

Uefa President Michel Platini’s latest crusade is against clubs “doped with debt” as some put it.  Don’t be surprised if, by the time this comes to being enforced, it’s heavily watered down and then completely ignored by the clubs who, as ever, will find ways around it.

Well done Uefa, what a brave stand that was.  It lasted less than two weeks.

Appealing but not surprising…

So Chelsea say they will “mount the strongest possible appeal” to the transfer ban imposed by Fifa.

Arsenal are appealing against Eduardo’s ban too.

Both bans will be reduced (you read it here first).  Don’t be surprised if the words “suspended” appear too – but sadly not of the banning variety, more of the ‘suspended sentence’ type.

Remember that scene in the Indiana Jones movie?  Indiana runs after the sword-wielding natives with his gun… until they realise he has no bullets, and chase the terrified Indy into the distance.

Remind you of anything?  Fifa and Uefa shout loudly but have no bullets…

Chelsea’s ban: It will never stick

So Chelsea have been banned from buying players for the best part of two years: story on BBC Sport website.

At first – and not purely because of an anti-money, anti-big club mentality – most football fans will think “Good” – non-Chelsea fans anyway.

But does anyone expect this to stick?  I certainly don’t.

If Chelsea did, as Fifa says, induce a player (Gael Kakuta) to break his contract then they deserve to be punished.

For too long football has been about the size of your bank balance and not the size of your talent.  Any time a smaller club has something good (a player, a manager even a physio) it’s only a matter of time before a bigger club comes knocking – or more often they don’t even knock, they just take.

It happens at all levels of football.  It’s not limited to Premier League clubs, bigger clubs further down the pyramid just pass the treatment on down the ladder – much like a playground bully is usually bullied themselves.

But it’s just the big clubs throwing their weight around.  Would Kakuta have been tempted to leave Lens by say Scunthorpe or Darlington?

Can you imagine how that conversation would go?  “Gael – want to come and play for us?  You’d have to take a pay-cut and… Gael?  Gael?  Hello?  He hung-up…”

Toothless tiger

Much as with Uefa’s ban of Eduardo a precedent has been set.  Fifa have set their stall out, backing up their own rules with action.  All good so far.

The ban on Chelsea, announced today, forbidding them from registering players for two transfer windows (effectively until January 2011)and fining them €780,000 is a strong and determined stance.

Chelsea have 21 days to appeal.  If they don’t I will be flabbergasted.

The thing with the big clubs is they have big lawyers.  An appeal will be lodged.  All it will take is a few mentions of the Court of Arbitration for Sport; “restriction of trade” and so on.

Again, the precedent has been set.  Roma were punished similarly over the signing of Phillippe Mexes.  Their appeal saw the ban halved and the fine substantially reduced.  Don’t be suprised if the same happens here.

If it does the ban is effectively useless and Fifa, once again, shown as toothless in their attempts to prevent the big clubs bullying everyone else.

If Chelsea’s ban is halved they’re banned from just one window (this coming January 2010).  The January windows are usually a course of last resort for struggling clubs and/or those that have changed manager and need a change of personnel.

Any decent players are usually so tightly bound into a contract and/or Cup-tied for important European matches that the big clubs rarely do business in January.

Fining Chelsea a few hundred thousand euros is the same as the FA fining multi-millionaire footballers a few thousand pounds for breaching their rules.  A mere drop in a vast ocean.

It’s almost as if Fifa dish out hefty punishments knowing they’ll be reduced on appeal.

As any sports coach will tell you, feeling beaten before you even begin is the first step to certain defeat.

Eduardo: Scapegoat or smokescreen?

We’ve all seen and read (endlessly) about Eduardo’s ‘dive’ against Celtic in what amounted to a Champions League qualifier.

Much wringing of hands all-round.  “Diving.  Terrible thing.  We must stamp it out.” etc.  Uefa (under pressure from the media and Scottish FA) have made an example of the Arsenal striker – with a two match ban.

Gunners manager, Arsene Wenger, is understandably upset.  Much as we’d all like cast-iron honesty from all managers and players, did anyone expect him to do anything other than defend his player?

Precedent?

Uefa have, it would seem, set a precedent.  The next round of European matches will be extremely interesting.  Will all divers receive the same punishment?  Doubtful if not impossible.

The question I find myself wondering is why they have acted at all.  The pressure of the repeated media coverage has been cited but if that were the case every other refereeing decision would be treated in this manner.

The pressure applied by the SFA must have been key – big-wigs at Uefa being Scots cannot have hurt either.

Uefa President Michel Platini is an outspoken critic of video evidence.  Instead he advocates (and is trialling) a system of Additional Assistant Referees (AAPs) situated behind each goal.

What is this retrospective punishment of Eduardo if not trial by television?

The referee is hugely undermined and a precedent impossible to follow has been set.  It cannot be the answer.

Imagine if the incident had instead occured in the Champions League Final.  Eduardo dives (work with me  – assume Arsenal made it for argument’s sake); wins a penalty; scores and Arsenal win 1-0.

Under even more pressure, Uefa look at the video evidence and ban Eduardo.  Meanwhile, the Croatian is sat amongst his team-mates on a open-top bus tour of north London with the Champions League trophy.

Would you risk diving to win the sport’s biggest club competition?  Many (many) players would.  What’s a two-match ban to a place in history?

Additional referees are a far better answer.  Punishment would be instantaneous and results would stand, with authority.

If Platini supports this view, Eduardo’s ban is at best sending mixed messages – at worst it’s just a smokescreen – doing something for the sake of being seen to do something.