No You Don't

Fabio Capello declared today that he has the hardest job in Europe. Why?

"I'm worse off than Lippi, than everyone. I have Welsh players, Scottish, Irish. In the Premier League only 35% of the players are English. In Italy it's about 72% [Italians]."

First of all, I don't know what the Welsh, Scottish and/or Irish have to do with it. Did no one explain to him that he can only pick dudes from England? Perhaps someone should explain to him that Gareth Bale is, sadly, not available to be called up. (Sidenote: when are we going to make "Bale for England" t-shirts?)

Second of all, no you don't. Mr. Capello, no you don't. I can think of like 50 jobs harder than yours. I think the guy who manages Belarus has a pretty tough job. What about Estonia? Or Cyprus? That shit would suck.

The problem is not that we should keep England English. That's stupid. The real problem is that they don't have a proven striker who can lead the team (I'm looking at you Rooney) and their goalkeepers are, collectively, crazier than a box of rocks. England, however, have a wealth of wide players, a solid defense and a number of impressive holding and attacking midfield players. Just because they didn't qualify for Euro 2008 doesn't mean that Capelllo's job is suddenly incredibly difficult.

I'm actually going to take it a step further though. What if the problem isn't that the Premier League is too heavily foreign--what if the problem is that not enough English players go abroad? England haven't called up any foreign based player of note since Owen Hargreaves moved back to England from Bayern Munich (and, yes, I know they've called up Beckham but, stop being a smartass, we all know playing in America does't count). Look at how many players in top European teams play abroad (based on players who played in their final game of Euro 2008):

Spain: 3 of 14
Italy: 3 of 14
Germany: 3 of 14
Netherlands: 10 of 14
Croatia: 11 of 13
Czech Republic: 13 of 14
Portugal: 10 of 14
France: 7 of 14

So, yeah. While it makes sense that countries whose domestic leagues are traditionally weaker (i.e. not Italy, Spain or England) would pull more foreign based players, even the Spanish and Italians have found some value in pulling in players who play abroad. So perhaps Capello should encourage some of his players to move abroad (Frank Lampard to Inter, anyone?) instead of bitching about all the dern foreigners in the league. It's likely that having to adapt to new styles of play would allow English players to adapt more readily to the challenges of qualifying for an international tournament. Maybe then they could beat Macedonia. At home.

6+You're an Idiot

EDIT: After Googling "6+5 Rule," it made me realize that confirmed idiot Sepp Blatter, not confirmed idiot Michel Platini is the champion of this rule (though Platini wholeheartedly supports it). My mistake. I'm not going to go through and change the finer points of the argument because it still holds true. It works for everyone, not just European clubs. The rule still holds for American Jozy Altidore (or any other world player): American soccer is stronger if Villareal develop Jozy while, probably, Spanish soccer is a little weaker. Just substitute FIFA for UEFA and enjoy.

A lot of smarter people than me have presented more well thought-out arguments against (and, occasionally, for) Michel Platini's controversial "6+5 Rule" which will require all clubs to start with at least 6 players of domestic origin (I do not know how the rule applies to naturalized citizens and I'm too lazy to look it up--I assume that if Eduardo were to go play in the Croatian league, he would be considered as part of the 6 despite being born in Brazil but I'm not sure) supplemented by no more than 5 foreign players. There are merits to the system. I will not say, out and out, that it's totally retarded which is what I'm rather inclined to do. It could be a huge windfall for England--the FA would gain a significant advantage over clubs (by forcing them to develop talent for the national team) without having to make any decisions of their own or catch any backlash.

But that is precisely why Platini's proposal makes no sense. Why should UEFA care? If a league doesn't want to foster quality domestic players, isn't that their prerogative? Shouldn't this be a directive that comes down from an individual association (i.e. the FA says that we are putting a mandate out that we want to emphasize the development of domestic players so anyone who plays 6 English from the start gets free cookies!) rather than a Europe-wide declaration? I hardly see how it is in the direct interest of UEFA to promote this because such a plan will benefit some European nations while hindering others. In theory, such a plan would help large nations like England whose top youngsters are being pushed out of clubs by foreign players. But, I think the elimination of the current system would actually hinder smaller nations. Under current guidelines, the top players from less fashionable European nations move to other leagues where they are thrown in with other international talent. Take, for example, Nicklas Bendtner, the Danish forward for Arsenal who signed for the club in 2004. He gets the chance to develop in a stronger league against stronger competition and, by moving to England, makes available another development spot available for a Danish player at a Danish club. In essence, small nations get the best of both worlds--the Danes (for example) can develop their own talent as well as benefiting from other nations freely and willingly developing Danish talent. This closes the achievement gap between the richest nations (both in terms of talent and in money spent on a national team) and the poorest.

(Sidebar: there is a whole argument about the richest leagues plundering talent from the poorest and how these poor leagues/federations would be better off if they were able to keep the talent at home. That's the market--if a player is good enough and he plays in a shit league where he doesn't get paid, he's going to move. And while it might work against a nation on the club level, I think it absolutely works for them on a national level.)

I suppose it could be argued that Platini is doing this not with international football in mind but instead with club football in his crosshairs. Ostensibly, I suppose, he could argue that he's trying to even the playing field on the Champions League/UEFA Cup level but all that stuff is so fubar (because of earning gaps, distribution to lower leagues, etc), the 6+5 rule is about the last change that he needs to worry about making.

Anyway, in the same vein as this (and the real reason I wanted to post), I found this on the Guardian website after Idiot McFuckbag (Sir David Richards, Chairman of the Premier League) declared that the Premier League is damaging England. I would go so far as to argue that it's not (with 9 English players in the squads of the two English Champions League finalists) but that's not what's so remarkable about this little gem. Though they don't come out and say it in their feature, "Premier League v. England Timeline," what the Guardian is hinting at is that, somehow, someway, there is a connection between the events which happened in the Premier League and those that happened with the England team. Someone forgot to explain to the Guardian staff the difference between causality and coincidence. Take for example:

"May 1992: The Premier League is established as a limited company three months after top-flight clubs resign from the football league. First Premier League season begins in August

June 1992: A 2-1 defeat to Sweden in Stockholm means England fail to advance past the group stages of Euro'92, just two years after they reached the semi-finals of the World Cup in Italy"

Yes, that's right, the Guardian staff is suggesting, ever so gently, that somehow the Premier League--BEFORE IT HAD EVEN PLAYED A GAME--ruined England's chances to get to the knockout rounds of Euro 92. Yep, this entity which, I would argue, didn't actually exist except in the minds of a bunch of football executives and lawers until the first game was played, caused Per Tomas Brolin to score an 82nd minute winner in Stockholm.

Or, if they're not meaning to draw causation, they are simply saying "England was in the shitter then, they're in the shitter now!" which makes the whole article pointless.

They go on for a while, hinting that the number of foreign players in the Premier League hitting 250 had something to do with England going out of Euro 2008 qualifiers three months later and similar ridiculous shit but I'm too angry to even get into it. As David Cross once said, "It's called coincidence you fucking hippie freaks."

A Yankee World Cup?

The Guardian revealed today that the US may be considering a bid for the 2018 World Cup. This stirs up some major shit--the English are pretty sure this one is theirs. It's fair: they haven't hosted one since 1966 and, among European nations, they're certainly due. But, it has been 14 years since CONCACAF last hosted a World Cup--2018 would be 24 years. The US is clearly a formidable candidate and hosting another World Cup with a more established domestic league (MLS will be more than 20 years old at that point) could be a big coup for US Soccer. No other CONCACAF nation can field a reasonable bid either; Mexico probably does not have the infrastructure (and FIFA would be unlikely to award it to them after giving World Cups to developing South Africa and Brazil) and Canada doesn't have the stadiums.

Look, I'd love to see the World Cup in America. I'd love to attend a game (though there aren't many venues in the southeast that would likely host matches). I've been to a MNT game (albeit a friendly) and seen the passion American soccer fans have. They deserve it. But, I can't seem to convince myself it should happen. The soccer-specific stadium debate is one side of the issue; games in Giant Stadium are simply never going to be as good as games at Old Trafford.

(Sidebar: One part of the soccer-specific stadium debate that will probably get lost is the variability of size. I really enjoyed the games in Germany because each place took on its own identity and, I have to say, the games in the smaller arenas (6 of 12 had capacities less than 50,000) had a really different feel from the games in bigger ones. I don't see US Soccer utilizing smaller facilities for a change of pace--most will be NFL sized stadiums that all feel, sound and play the same. Unfortunate. Probably not great for the MLS either--I'm sure it isn't great that none of our domestic league's soccer-specific stadiums will be used because they're simply too small.)

But, the bigger issue, I think, is the ways in which the vastness of America works against having a successful World Cup. Maybe I'm making too much of this--I wasn't really interested enough in 1994 to see how things worked back then. But I can't get over the feeling that having a closer geographic spread is a real boon to a World Cup. It allows fans to bounce more easily from stadium to stadium and see games more easily. It also ratchets up the intensity, I think--maybe that's just me. Anyway, that becomes a huge issue when you're getting ready to stage a World Cup in the US. For example, US Soccer will certainly want to showcase Qwest Field in Seattle which is quickly becoming the premier large soccer stadium in the US. They'll also, inevitably, choose somewhere like Giants Stadium to capitalize on the New York market. The World Cup will then stretch across 3000 miles--it will have no center and, I'm afraid, no real identity. Maybe I'm overstating the importance but I think there's something to be said for compact planning in such a large event. Germany had the great fortune that it's furthest venues were only 480 miles apart. England can offer a similar compact nature along with top class venues. So I'm throwing my support behind them.

Besides, it's the only way they'll qualify for the tournament.

Landon Donavon? Starting?

Yes. He is. The NY Times Soccer Blog has asked me to name my starting XI for the US/England friendly and I think I just might. Yes, it's a friendly. More importantly, yes, it's a friendly between two teams who don't figure at all on the international stage (yeah, that's right, England. You heard me). But, it's better than following transfer rumors for another day (other than the extremely exciting rumor that Barcelona want to buy Malouda. Buy him! FOR MONEY!) or speculating who's going to replace Grant at Chelsea. So here goes my favorite futile exercise--expending time and energy on the US National Team:

(4-4-1-1...with the option to turn into a 4-2-3-1 with Dempsey and Beasley pushing up right behind the striker)

GK: Howard
DEF: Cherundolo, Bocanegra, Onyewu, Pierce
MID: Dempsey, Bradley, Clark, Beasley
FW: Donavon
ST: Johnson

I have to admit, I know nothing about the defenders outside of Bocanegra and Onyewu. I picked Cherundolo and Pierce because they seem to have played recently for the national team and both are European-based (which counts for something, I suppose). The problem in picking American defenders to me is that none of them seem to have a real position. Even Bocanegra, one of our longest serving players on the national team, can't nail down a spot--he plays fullback for Fulham (who apparently released him, according to the ever-reliable Wikipedia) but seems only to play center half for the national team of late, despite the fact that he used to play fullback. The lack of specialization is not good: does anyone think John Terry would stand to be shifted to
right back? Hell, Jamie Carragher retired from international football rather than play fullback.

Bradley, despite the protests of some of my closest friends (one of whom should be on this blog shortly), is going to anchor my midfield for the next 8-10 years if I'm coaching this side. He's a good tackler, good passer and a smart player. He's extremely solid and he's not Claudio Reina so he gets my vote. Ricardo Clark is energetic and still young--I figure I'll give him a run-out against England and see how he does. Dempsey and Beasley are no-brainers because we really have no wingers. Both have played great for the national team and have the ability to pull goals out of nowhere. Maybe DaMarcus can recover that World Cup Korea form.

Now, the biggest point of contention--Landycakes. I don't like him. I don't like him as a player. I don't think I'd like him as a person. I get an inappropriate amount of joy out of this:



Beasley's gotta take that one himself. Anyway, I think he's a miserable person and kind of a pansy but who else are we going to put here? Who's going to score goals? No one. Donavon, sadly enough, is the best soccer player in the States and we're stuck with him. Believe me, I'd rather play Adu here but, c'mon, let's not get ridiculous.

I'd put Altidore up top if I had my choice but he's not in the squad. What we need is a target man and we don't really have one. I suppose Jaqua's a big target but he's more shit than anyone in the squad so Johnson gets it by default. Congrats Eddie. Score some goals and maybe someone will show you some respect.

I don't even think the game is on in the States. Hooray. Go America.

EDIT: I just realized I left out an explanation of why I picked Timmy. Because he's awesome. It was so obvious I forgot to write it. My apologies, Mr. Howard. You're one of the few who's actually fit to wear the shirt.