footballspectator

I am talking here about two examples - Claude Makelele and Theo Zagorakis. Makelele said that he wanted to retire after Germany 2006. Fair enough - he is 33 after all and no one can say he has not given his all for Les Bleus. In fact he has already retired once before, after Euro 2004, but Domenech convinced him to reconsider. Without his presence and that of ZZ and Thuram (who also came out of retirement) France would probably not have qualified for Germany. You would have thought therefore that the least Makelele could expect would be for his wish to retire this time to be respected. Instead Domenech (who in my opinion was more of a hindrance than a help during France’s World Cup run) picks him .

Let’s now turn to Zagorakis who hasn’t had a decent game in over a year. He was surprised to be called up by Rehhagel having intimated that he no longer thought he was up to the task of playing international football and wanted to go out on a high. He was even more shocked to see his name in the starting line-up of Greece’s qualifier away to Moldova. Clearly off the pace, he asked to be substituted at half-time. Again, here is a player that has given his all for the national cause and who has earned the right to leave at the top of his game, but is not being allowed to.

Let me ask you this. If your employer were to give you a new and exciting piece of work to do once you had resigned, would you give your all? would you be motivated to do your best and bust a gut? probably not. Your mind would be focussed on your new job. You would have no incentive. However, because of their fame and the fact that patriotism is a strong emotion, these players are being forced to. The stigma of being unpariotic is too great.

So why do these coaches do this? Maybe they are worried about a lack of alternatives - more believable in the case of Greece but unlikely. For me it shows a lack of respect toward players who have helped them achieve their success.

When your coach resigns 4 days before the biggest tournament in your country’s history things must be going badly wrong. But then things see to have been going wrong ever since Togo qualified for the World Cup finals for the first time. Otto Pfister’s resignation came in the wake of a long running dispute over bonuses. The players had refused to play unless they were each paid appearance bonuses of £100,000, win bonuses of £20,000 and £10,000 per draw. When the Togo FA refused to clear these, the players boycotted training sessions and it was at this point that Pfister decided he had had enough and quit.

This is not the first time that such a dispute has arisen. Back in January a similar row almost resulted in Togo not participating in the African Nations Cup. While the dispute was eventually resolved, it badly affected Togo’s performances and they crashed out of the tournament with scoring a goal.

It’s understandable that players look for and deserve reward for achieving success, especially when they come from one of the poorest countries in the world. They also have the right to feel angry when promises are not delivered. At the same time, the opportunity to play in a World Cup should provide enough motivation even if it is for free. The Togolese players should derive enough satisfaction from the joy the are giving their long suffering compatriots by representing them on a world stage. Further if it is finances they are concerned about, what better way to secure their futures than by catching the eye at a major tournament and securing a lucrative transfer. Refusing to play over money leaves a bitter taste in the mouth.

Australia 1, Greece 0. Admittedly a friendly, but yet another defeat and goalless performance from European champions Greece on Thursday. Undoubtedly victory against all the odds at Euro 2004 was the outstanding moment in Greece’s sporting history, eclipsing even the iconic 1987 European basketball championship, Greece’s first major international team sport title. Results since have been poor. The World Cup qualifying campaign got off to a terrible start against Albania in Tirana with a lacklustre which included gifting 2 goals, ended in a 2-1 defeat. and never really improved. This was followed shortly by a series of hapless performances in the Confederations Cup. Has Rehhakles lost his magic touch?

One reason for Greece’s recent failure is that since Euro 2004, the catenaccio style which was used there so successfully has been taken to another extreme - the argument apparently being “if it worked well let’s do more of it”. Unfortunately two major problems are de-railing this plan. First the goals (of which there were few anyway) have dried up for one of the Euro heroes Angelos Charisteas. Second the defence has aged and become injury-prone meaning it is no longer as disciplined as before. The combined effect is that when a goal is conceded, Greece are in real trouble, lacking the creativity and pace to really trouble top-class opposition.

A second reason for Greece’s demise is the Greek mentality. Greeks tend to perform better when nothing is expected of them - witness a rousing performance at Old Trafford in 2001, in which victory was only denied as a result of some dubious refereeing and a superb performance by Beckham. Witness also Euro 2004 - the only game in which Greece really struggled was the final group match against Russia, which they were expected to win. The pressure this created almost resulted in elimination. Forward wind to the post Euro 2004 and this expectation is now constant - Greece are the European Champions after all, a tag they are struggling with.

Finally and most importantly, the team is old and in need of an overhaul. Captain marvel Zagorakis is now 34. Stelios Giannakopoulos, arguably Greece’s most successful export is 32. Dellas, Basinas, Kapsis and Vryzas are all the wrong side of 30 as well. Unearthing these gems of the future is particularly difficult in a country where players are often considered “emerging talents” until the age of 25 or 26 and where the pressure for success on managers is so great (many clubs changecoach at least 3-4 times per year) that it is preferable to bring in a cheap but experienced Brazilian import than a raw but talented youngster.

So what next for Greece and Rehhagel? Following World Cup elimination, Rehhagel’s star has waned considerably among the fickle Greek press, who are quick to point out his mistakes but who appear oblivious to reality. Victory did not turn the players into Ronaldinhos or Zidanes overnight, as highlighted by the fact that no player from that squad joined a really big club post tournament. The key to victory was organisation and discipline, two words you would not readily associated with the Greek temperament, were the foundation of success and demonstrate the value of Rehhagel’s work. The Greek press now seem to have forgotten this however. Yes there need to be some changes and younger players do need to be brought in - some such as Manchester City’s Georgios Samaras altready have been with considerable success. But if Greek football is to have lasting success, the changes really need to come from the big club sides: Olympiakos, Panathinaikos and AEK in the form of nurturing young talent and giving it its chance rather than imorting expensive has-beens such as Flavio Conceicao and Emerson.

As for Rehhakles, he would be better of retiring now because if poor results continue, Greece’s most successful coach is likely to be remembered as a failure in the illogical world of Greek football.

Following the scandal engulfing Juventus, the team have decided to turn a new leaf and change their shirt design from their traditional vertical stripes to hoops…

The board made this decision in recognition of their misdemeanours. For those not aware of the significance of black hoops, a clue is provided below..

Throughout southern Europe, specialist sports newspapers consistently feature among the most widely read newspapers in the country. Italy’s La Gazzetta dello Sport, with its distinctive pink pages has a readership of 3.4 million. Marca and L’Equipe are the mostly widely sold papers in Spain and France respectively and in Greece there are at least 7(!) national sports dailies.

In the UK, sports newspapers have not met with the same success. In the late 1990s, Sport First was launched in a fanfare of publicity but poor readership meant that it went from being a daily to a weekly in a short space of time. It can now be found in few outlets and goes under the title of Football First. The latest attempt is The Sportsman which aims to tap into the growing sports betting market.

Many argue that the reason for the failure of sports newspapers in the UK is that there is now such widespread sports coverage in other newspapers and with such competition it is difficult to penetrate the market. To some extent this is a valid argument, however there is significant sports coverage in the national pages in Spain, Italy and Greece and yet sports papers still flourish.

How do they achieve this? By strongly aligning themselves with one of the major football clubs, much in the way that national papers align themselves with political parties. In Spain, Marca and AS are strongly aligned with Real Madrid; El Mundo Deportivo and Sport are aligned with Barcelona. In Greece, Panathinaikos supporters read Athlitiki Icho or Derby; Olympiakos supporters read Protathlitis, or Fos. By doing so they are able to diffentiate themselves from the mainstream press and meet the specific needs of a particular set of fans, hungry for a daily diet of news, outrageous rumour and biased opinion and as fans rarely change teams, the readership is loyal. If UK attempts followed this model, rather than remaining unbiased, they might be more successful.

Over the next few weeks we are going to take a closer look at some of the main sports newspapers in Europe and some of their most unlikely rumours.

In Saturday’s FA Cup final, Steven Gerrard gave the kind of performance which should have made England fans breathe a sigh of relief and stop worrying about broken metatarsals anda forward line being lead by the slow and goal shy Peter Crouch.

At 2-0 down, Liverpool seemed down and out. However, one killer Gerrard pass (and superb Cissé finish) and fantastic volley later, and Liverpool were level. Even Paul Konchesky’s fluke was not enough to finish Gerrard off. His stunning 35 yard last minute volley, despite suffering from cramp, was the kind of moment he has produced regularly for Liverpool during the last couple of seasons.

In the final group game of last year’s Champions League, Liverpool were facing a similarly difficult situation. Needing to beat Olympiakos to progress by 2 clear goals, Liverpool fell behind to Rivaldo’s first half free kick. A Gerrard inspired Liverpool roused in the second half with another stunning effort from Gerrard making it 3-1 with a few minutes left. Then, in the final, it was Gerrard who again showed his team the way back from 3-0, with a header to reduce the deficit to 3-1.

Ask any Liverpool fan and he will be able countless other superhuman performances from Gerrard in pulling his club out of adversity. Yet Gerrard has consistently failed to produce the same form for England. Many blame this on fatigue, the argument being that by the time improtant events come around, Gerrard’s tank is running on empty. Doubtless this is a valid point and the omens do not look good for the summer as Gerrard has already played over 50 games this season. However, it fails to explain a series of lacklustre displays by Gerrard during the last two qualifying campaigns.

Maybe Gerrard is the type of player that needs to be surrounded by a mediocre team which relies on his leadership, in order to be inspired to consistently produce his best. In a team where the supporting cast is superior to that at Liverpool, Gerrard struggles to develop the same level of motivation, preferring to share the burden of leadership and his performances suffer as a result. So maybe Rafa Benitez should think long and hard about how many top class players he should sign for Liverpool as they may in fact blunt the performances of Stevie G.

The much awaited appointment of England’s new manager finally took place last week when Steve McClaren, very much second choice, was appointed following Luis Felipe Scolari’s last minute change of heart .

Felipao was just the type of manager England needed. He is bold, authoritative and not afraid to take risks and drop players with big reputations when they are not performing. He transformed a team, that had been struggling in South American qualifying into World Champions in 2002. At Euro 2004, he did not hesitate to drop Rui Costa or substitute Luis Figo despite public outcry. The result? Rui Costa’s dramatic goal against England and Figo’s superlative performance in the semi-final against Holland.

So why did he say no? Could it have anything to do with the managerial vacancy at Real Madrid? Felipao has always stated that his ambition is to manage one of Europe’s top clubs. His managerial style might also be exactly what is called for to whip Real’s underperforming team of pre-madonnas into shape.

The media frenzy surrounding Theo Walcott’s inclusion in the England squad is understandable. Sven Goran Eriksson admits to never having seen him play and on relying on Arsene Wenger’s recommendation in selecting him.
Brazil’s World Cup squad at USA 1994 also included a 17 year old phenomenon - Ronaldo, although he did not play.

There are two major differences between Ronaldo’s selection then and Walcott’s selection now. First Ronaldo had already experienced top level action, having scored 58 goals in 60 games for Cruzeiro of Belo Horizonte before being selected. Walcott scored 5 goals in 12 starts this season for Championship strugglers Southampton before joining Arsenal for an intial £5 million, where to date he has only played for the reserves. Second, Brazil had a fully fit partnership of Romario and Bebeto leading the line with plenty of goals in back-up forwards Viola, Paulo Sergio and Muller. England’s two first choice forwards Rooney and Owen are either injured or recovering and Peter Crouch is hardly prolific. With such strength in depth, Brazil could afford to bring a young player with bags of potential along for the experience. It’s doubtful whether England can.

If Wenger believes that Walcott is ready to handle arguably the most pressurised competition in football and carry the hopes of a nation on his young shoulders, then why hasn’t he thought him ready to handle the Premiership or the Champions League? If he is ready, may be he should be given a run out in Wednesday’s final against Barcelona?

As for Sven, he has little to lose in selecting Walcott. If the gamble pays off, he will be hailed as a genius. If it does not, he is leaving his job after the World Cup and so will not have to face the stinging criticism of the notoriously fickle English tabloids.

Wednesday night’s UEFA Cup final saw Sevilla trounce this year’s comeback kings, Middlesbrough. Last year’s final saw two other unfancied teams, CSKA Moscow and Sporting Lisbon reach the final. While the success of newcomers is always welcome, the UEFA Cup has very much become a second rate competition; few would rate any of these teams among Europe’s elite. Indeed until recently many of the teams competing in the tournament could only dream of doing so.

The demise of the competition can be traced back to the disbanding of the Cup Winners’ Cup and the expansion of the Champions League. What was once a thrilling competition in the 80s has now lost its shine. Rudi Assauer, commercial manager of Schalke 04, refected this in April when he said that finishing third in the Bundesliga and qualifying for the Champions League was more important than winning the UEFA Cup (Schalke were still in it at that stage) as the CL is much more lucrative.

The introduction of group stages to the UEFA Cup has done little to help viewing figures. The problem still lies in the perceived quality of the teams taking part. So apart from scrapping the competition what other options are there to make the UEFA Cup more popular?
One option would be to reduce the number of teams taking part in the Champions League, so that say only first and second from the major leagues, and first placed teams from the so-called minor leagues could qualify. Teams from the major leagues finishing third and say third in the minor leagues would then qualify for the UEFA Cup.

This would help both competitions and narrow the popularity and financial gap between them. It would increase competition by reducing the number of uncompetitive matches which would drive audience appeal and therefore sponsorship appeal. As an extra carrot, the winner of the UEFA Cup could be guaranteed a place in the following year’s Champions League. This already happens in European basketball’s equivalent of the UEFA Cup, the ULEB Cup, where the winner gets direct entry into the following season’s Champions League equivalent, the Euroleague.