Join Now | 
HomeAboutContact UsPrivacy & SecurityAdvertise
Soccer America DailySpecial EditionAround The NetSoccer Business InsiderCollege Soccer ReporterYouth Soccer ReporterSoccer on TVSoccer America Classifieds
Paul Gardner: SoccerTalkSoccer America ConfidentialYouth Soccer InsiderWorld Cup Watch
RSS FeedsArchivesManage SubscriptionsSubscribe
Order Current IssueSubscribeManage My SubscriptionRenew My SubscriptionGift Subscription
My AccountJoin Now
Tournament CalendarCamps & AcademiesSoccer GlossaryClassifieds
Rangers' failure was eminently deserved
by Paul Gardner, May 15th, 2008 7AM

MOST READ

MOST COMMENTED

I have just had the melancholy experience of watching Glasgow Rangers lose the UEFA Cup final to Zenit St.Petersburg. It has left me feeling immeasurably disappointed, and really rather sad.

Now, let me clarify. I'm not feeling put out of joint because Rangers lost. I really don't give a damn. Nor do I particularly care about Zenit. But I very definitely do care about the sport of soccer.

Hence my sadness, and -- something I didn't mention before -- my anger. And Rangers take the brunt of my wrath for perpetrating an utter travesty of the sport. You want negative soccer? Rangers supplied it, bucket loads of it, dreadful, boring stuff. You want caution, you want crude, unimaginative, inept play? Rangers gave us plenty of all of that, too.

Really, Rangers should be up on a collective charge of bringing the game into disrepute. This was quite woeful stuff.

But there can hardly be any complaints that it was unexpected, that we didn't know it was coming.

Just look at Rangers' record in the eight UEFA Cup games that it played leading up to the final: eight games in which it scored only five goals. But eight games in which its defensive-bunker tactics meant that opponents were limited to only two goals!  Take a look, too, at the semifinal against Fiorentina -- a two-legged series that produced no goals at all, and that Rangers eventually won on penalty kicks.

That tells you what really needs to be known, here -- and, by my measurements, it shifts some (but by no means all) of the blame. From Rangers to the guardians of our game. To FIFA, to the referees, and to coaches in general.

Surely there must be something wrong in a sport in which a team that averages less than goal game can reach the final of an important tournament?

Of course, I'm greatly tempted to draw a comparison with the dreadful Greeks who won the 2004 European championship -- a team that averaged 1.2 goals per game. The Greeks' deplorable performance was successful but the Rangers' efforts to copy the Greeks (and you knew that, sooner or later, someone would copy them) happily ended in abject failure.

A failure that was eminently deserved. What is to be said of a team that isolates a lone forward (Jean-Claude Darcheville) up front, and makes virtually no effort to get him the ball with a playable pass?  Of a team that was frequently seen in the first half with a line of six defenders at the back, or with eight defenders in its penalty area? A team that seemed to be interested only in thwarting Zenit attacks, and displayed little willingness to attack or any great proficiency in doing so on the rare occasions when it tried.
 
I imagine that Viacheslav Malafeev, the Zenit goalkeeper, must have touched the ball sometime in the first half, but I cannot remember him doing so. That could be due to the fact that I fell asleep. In the middle of the afternoon.

I'm sorry -- but with the best will in the world, this was a craven Rangers performance that deserved exactly what it got. Why would Rangers play that way? Well, the answer is so obvious that it is likely to be overlooked. Teams -- Greece and Rangers among many -- play that way because they believe that is the way to win. Greece did win, Rangers got to the final.

So there is some evident justification for the belief in cautious, negative soccer. Does it make sense to blame Greece's coach Otto Rehhagel or Walter Smith of Rangers for doing what, statistically, looks like translating into success?

Hardly. The fault is in the sport itself. Changes are needed, changes that will greatly increase the importance of goal-scoring. Changes that will make it clear that the way to win games is to concentrate on attack, rather than defense. Which means making defensive play a lot more difficult than it currently is.

I mentioned above that, against Rangers, the Zenit goalkeeper had very little work to do. But the Rangers goalkeeper Neil Alexander was not exactly over-employed, either -- simply because a team -- any team, a team with good players or a team with poor players -- can clog their defensive third of the field, and make it extremely difficult for opponents, however good they may be -- to break through. And so we got a final -- a final, mind you! -- with all the soporific certainty of an overdose of sleeping pills.

But Walter Smith must bear some blame for this travesty, for he is the one who chose to play this way, who chose to field two defensive midfielders and a lone, barely-used, forward.

A thoroughly tedious game, relieved by flashes of real soccer from Zenit, and two pretty good goals. Rangers offered nothing, and they got nothing in return. So be it.



0 comments
  1. Joao Santarita
    commented on: May 15, 2008 at 9:35 a.m.
    Yeah! But what is the solution that is alluded to ("changes are needed") but to which no proposal is made?

  1. David Whitten
    commented on: May 15, 2008 at 10:21 a.m.
    I agree. Nothing short of doing away with the off-side rule will instantly work to reward attacking play - and that would probably be unthinkable...

  1. Manuel Trejo-von Angst
    commented on: May 15, 2008 at 6:25 p.m.
    the offside rule does need a re-think. It rewards defenders for not paying attention to the attacking players, sorry that's all it does. If you allow your man to drift behind you free and open you deserve to be scored upon. Basketball toyed with a 'no cherry picking (offside)' rule many moons ago and they came up with the same conclusions. It was also around that time they stopped allowing teams the luxury of advancing the ball past the centerline only to play it back to kill time and lull teams asleep. Hockey decided on the same thing. I'm not saying they need to put all of those into soccer but the negative approach is garbage and all the 'but it's brilliant catennacio' cries in the world won't convince me otherwise.


Sign in to leave a comment. Don't have an account? Join Now




AUTHORS

ARCHIVES
FOLLOW SOCCERAMERICA

Recent SoccerTalk with Paul Gardner
How I referee Garber vs. Klinsmann    
That MLS Commissioner Don Garber should be upset by Jurgen Klinsmann's thoughtless and really rather peevish ...
To Landon Donovan: Ave atque Vale!     
So Landon Donovan has had his special day ... and I cannot think of anyone involved ...
The Need for a Holistic Approach to Soccer    
One of the stranger things about soccer is that it is rarely, if ever, considered as ...
England -- belatedly and hesitantly -- begins to accept Latin talent     
LONDON -- Change -- important, fundamental change -- seems to be arriving at last in English ...
Tactical fouls and studs-up tackles dangerously overshadowed by diving hysteria    
LONDON -- This fatuous business of turning simulation, or diving, into the worst crime that a ...
Magath's cheese poultice -- maybe not so whacky as it sounds    
LONDON -- There's not much to be said -- well, nothing good -- about the short ...
Coaches, Doctors or Refs: Who to trust with players' health?    
LONDON -- You may have noticed that Jose Mourinho has plenty to say. You may also ...
Mad Dog and Fighting Pig find home in MLS -- in a good way, of course    
Hard on the heels (and that phrase may soon acquire literal meaning) of the arrival of ...
Mystery surrounds Hugo Perez's USSF status    
A strange business, this Hugo Perez affair. He is no longer the coach of the U.S. ...
Toronto's Comedy of Errors Not That Funny    
What is the appropriate response to the Great Purge in Toronto? Does one weep for an ...
>> SoccerTalk with Paul Gardner Archives