Join Now  | 
Home About Contact Us Privacy & Security Advertise
Soccer America Daily Soccer World Daily Special Edition Around The Net Soccer Business Insider College Soccer Reporter Youth Soccer Reporter Soccer on TV Soccer America Classifieds Game Report
Paul Gardner: SoccerTalk Soccer America Confidential Youth Soccer Insider World Cup Watch
RSS Feeds Archives Manage Subscriptions Subscribe
Order Current Issue Subscribe Manage My Subscription Renew My Subscription Gift Subscription
My Account Join Now
Tournament Calendar Camps & Academies Soccer Glossary Classifieds
Advice from The Crumpet: You Never Can Tell
by Paul Gardner, June 23rd, 2008 7AM
Subscribe to SoccerTalk with Paul Gardner



Euro 2008 cannot seem to quite make up its mind -- whether it's going to upset all the logical assumptions, or whether it's going to conform. The first three quarterfinals gave us the wrong winners -- all three group leaders were beaten by the second-place finishers. How likely is that? But in the fourth game, some sort of order was restored when group D winner Spain saw off Italy. But that wasn't right either, because Spain never beats Italy in a game that matters, hasn't done so for 88 years.

But this time, the Spanish managed it -- though only via the tortuous penalty-kick shootout route and, well, if that's a victory, the Spanish have certainly waited a long time to celebrate it. It was a deserved victory, for Spain was the better team, more enterprising, more willing to go on the attack.

But no players know more about defending -- with skill and tenacity -- than the Italians, and this game was played under the sign of a 0-0 tie right from the start.

As it crawled along, the signs of fatigue -- a lined, harrowed face, a despairing gesture, a slumped body -- became more evident. And that raised another point in which this tournament has seemingly gone out of its way to contradict soccer's accepted wisdom.

Surely, Portugal, Croatia and the Netherlands must have been fresher than their opponents? All three were group winners after just two games (the UEFA system of using head-to-head results as the tie breaker ensured that), so that all three did the obvious thing and put out basically second-string teams for the last group game, resting their stars for the quarter finals.

Their opponents, Germany, Turkey and Russia could not do that: they were all running themselves to exhaustion in fierce do-or-die games. Well, Turkey and Russia were. The Germans -- already blessed by being drawn into the tournament's weakest group -- were having a tedious, but hardly strenuous, time against the Austrians.

Yet the "fresher" teams all lost. The teams that had given their top players a few extra days of rest were beaten. This is not supposed to happen, but on the other hand, to anyone who pays attention to what actually happens on soccer fields -- rather than being taken in by slick coaching theories -- it should not come as a surprise.

There's one common-enough platitude that rarely gets discussed among soccer coaches -- for good reason, because it tends to expose the unreliability, the impracticality, of so many of soccer's training methods. The phrase is: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. In sports terms -- you don't change a winning team.

The perverse results of the quarterfinals strongly suggest that one shouldn't make changes. Handing the matter over, for the moment, to the specialists (no shortage of them, these days), that translates as: forget what the team physio is saying about stress and strain and bodily attrition, listen instead to the psychologist and whatever he or she has to say about team spirit and the winning mentality.

Grabbing the initiative back from the specialists, one might ask just how important elaborate preparation really is? In youth soccer, you constantly hear the airwaves rent with cries of "Too much coaching!" -- but I've yet to meet a coach who admits (or, possibly, boasts) that he over coaches. You have the same situation at the pro level -- at the major tournament level -- but there no one admits to overdoing anything. I have never heard despairing cries of "over-preparation."

Even though the evidence is anything but convincing, the general consensus is that the more money and the more time a team spends on preparation, the greater its chance of success. There is a one word riposte to that: Denmark. The team that only got called into Euro 1992 at the last minute (to replace the banned Yugoslavia), had very little time to prepare, and won the whole thing.

That is the classic example, but it cannot be dismissed as an aberration, for two reasons: firstly, there are too many instances of superbly prepared (over-prepared?) teams failing to do the business; and secondly, virtually every team entering a major tournament these days is going to be super-prepared. So we'll never know, because there are no under-prepared teams. Such a thing is unthinkable. No coach, no administrator would dare to skimp on preparation. For the rather threadbare reason that they wouldn't dare to not do what everyone else is doing.

So over-preparation rules -- egged on by the lovely marketers, who are have an endless array of schemes and products and regimens and diets and courses to ensure invincibility. Possibly all those methods work, though it's much more likely that none of them does.

Euro 2008 has just given a neat and rather cogent demonstration that rested teams don't necessarily do better than non-rested teams. Will coaches stop resting players, then? Of course not. Anyway, there are injuries and yellow and red cards to be avoided, which complicate matters.

From now on, certainly till the end of this tournament, I shall ignore soccer's orthodox wisdom in these matters. Instead, I shall adopt the fatalistic philosophy of a distinguished member of P.G. Wodehouse's Drones Club, the one known as The Crumpet. According to The Crumpet: "... it's no good worrying and trying to look ahead and plan and scheme and weigh your every action, if you follow me, because you never can tell when doing such-and-such won't make so-and-so happen -- while, on the other hand, if you do so-and-so it may just as easily lead to such-and-such."

An appealing do-nothing philosophy, but one that -- given the billion-dollar coaching industry -- stands as much chance of being implemented in soccer as Greece does of winning another European Championship.



No comments yet.

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



Recent SoccerTalk with Paul Gardner
That Goal    
It was Pele who started the "soccer is beauty" theme. He titled his autobiography -- one ...
Tab Ramos paints a rosy American future in the changing U-20 World Cup -- but a U-18 World Cup would make more sense     
Tab Ramos has been talking in glowing terms of his team and its adventures at the ...
What's this? A goalkeeper penalized for rough play?     
Meet Sorin Stoica. Maybe you've seen him in action during MLS games. Not a highly paid ...
Scots wha hae! Thoughts on the sad and ominous decline of Scottish soccer    
I note, with considerable exasperation tempered by sadness, that Scottish soccer is experimenting with a marvelous ...
Celebrity coaches -- who needs them?     
I am still finding it difficult to come to terms with the extraordinary way in which ...
Wenger must stay -- even the stats agree     
Arsene Wenger should stay. That's what I think. And I think that way because I respect ...
Violent Goalkeeping (Part 2): FIFA must radically rethink the goalkeeper's role    
Last time, I asked: "What action has soccer taken to at least reduce the incidence of ...
Violent Goalkeeping (Part 1): Players at risk as soccer ignores its own rules    
Goalkeepers, we are told, need protection. No doubt we all agree. Up to a point.
The triumphant return of Bruce Arena    
Well, take that Jurgen Klinsmann. Never at any time during his five years in charge of ...
MLS games compare well with EPL but referees in both leagues reluctant to call PKs    
During this past weekend, I watched -- on television, of course -- 15 games. Well, not ...
>> SoccerTalk with Paul Gardner Archives