Join Now | 
HomeAboutContact UsPrivacy & SecurityAdvertise
Soccer America DailySoccer World DailySpecial EditionAround The NetSoccer Business InsiderCollege Soccer ReporterYouth Soccer ReporterSoccer on TVSoccer America ClassifiedsGame Report
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
Seattle's love affair with the Open Cup turns sour    
The controversy surrounding Clint Dempsey and his trashing of referee Daniel Radford's notebook is quite ridiculous. ...
Flying bat at Fenway Park should send warning to MLS    
The recent horrendous "accident" at baseball's Fenway Park, where a fan suffered what was, at the ...
Mourinho defends counterattacking soccer, calls other coaches stupid     
Jose Mourinho has raised, yet again, the old argument about the pluses and minuses of playing ...
Clampdown on tactical fouls way overdue    
My notes on the recent Seattle-Red Bulls game inform me that referee Jose Carlos Rivero called ...
Lincoln Phillips provides perspective on black soccer in 1970s USA    
As a goalkeeper, Lincoln Phillips should not feature among my most cherished soccer memories. I have ...
The remarkable Clive Toye -- who brought showmanship, excitement and color to American soccer    
The debt owed by American soccer to Clive Toye is a vast one. It is not ...
The small guys -- from Jimmy Greaves to Lionel Messi -- are the ones who matter most     
This week has brought home, in as dramatic a way as I ever recall, the joy ...
Concussion dangers still not fully accepted    
If ever proof were needed that the English style of refereeing is a bad model for ...
The Greatest. Remembering Richie Benaud, 1930-2015     
I'll need to switch sports for a moment here. But it's important. The greatest of television ...
Stars? Bah, says Mourinho. The team -- meaning the coach, that is ME, is the one who matters     
Coaches, of course, can be relied on to say something. Without doubt they are the most ...
>> SoccerTalk with Paul Gardner Archives