A Humble Proposal

The international friendly has surely become the least exciting type of match in world football. With nothing on the line, players pulling out with dubious injuries and little credit given to teams even if they win big, what is the point in continuing with them? It can be argued that it is necessary to play these games for managers to experiment and work with their squads, who only compete in about six or seven competitive games a year. But I propose a solution.

Between the last two major international tournaments (Euro 2008 and World Cup 2010), England played in twenty matches. Exactly half of these were friendlies. Now imagine if pre-season for clubs contained as many games as the competitive season. It would be seen as ludicrous and fans would show very little interest in the number of uncompetitive games. But what can we do about it? Well, it could be quite simple. Expand the qualification groups for the major tournaments and play more competitive games!

UEFA has 53 member nations. This could split quite easily into five groups of nine and one group of eight. That would leave 16 (or 14) competitive fixtures between tournaments and, maintaining the current number of international match days (which is always subject to change anyway), would be perfectly feasible. Depending on qualification places available (currently 14 or 15 for Euros depending on number of hosts and 13 for the World Cup), the top two could qualify with third place teams going into a play-off tournament, or qualifying based on the best group records. This would also have the effect of ensuring more top teams meet each other in competitive matches outside of just the major tournaments. Furthermore, the matches against the smaller nations would still give managers the opportunity to experiment with their line-ups, while still having the healthy pressure of three points being at stake.

With at least four match days to spare, friendlies could still survive, and would in fact become a more worthwhile start/end of qualification test against teams from different confederations. The friendlies against the likes of Brazil and Argentina, and even teams like Australia or Ghana are always more likely to capture the imagination than the likes of last week’s Denmark vs England match-up.

With the common consensus that top flight club football is of as good, if not better standard than international football, the idea of ‘blooding’ new players in friendlies is rendered useless. If a player is in their national squad, specifically the England squad, they should be prepared to compete for qualification and tournaments. Competing in more vital qualification games would do well to instil the competitive spirit that is so vital to succeed in the big tournaments. Playing so many low intensity friendlies, it is no surprise that teams such as England often flop when the pressure is on. I don’t think it is a coincidence that all five South American teams negotiated the group stage in South Africa, considering they played eighteen (in Uruguay’s case twenty) competitive matches in qualification. Friendlies have become an unnecessary hindrance for most fans of football, and it is high time the authorities did something about it. In the now infamous words of Ian Holloway, ‘FIFA, UEFA, you’re wrong!’

Arsene Wenger: Admirable, foolish or both?

Arsene Wenger is a man that divides opinion. Revered in some quarters and despised in others, he has the ability to cause conflict between football fans like few others. ‘Le Professeur’ has certainly achieved a lot in his decade and a half at Arsenal, but with no silverware to show since May 2005, is the Frenchman still the right man to take the Gunners forward?

Winning the Premier League title in his first full season in charge was a great achievement, and he repeated the trick in 2001/02, but his crowning glory had to be the ‘Invincibles’ season of 2003/04. By becoming the first team since the 1800s to go a whole league season unbeaten, Wenger had arguably created the ultimate footballing team. So how come they failed to win anything else apart from a rather fortunate FA Cup victory on penalties the following year? What the former Monaco boss did wrong was to dismantle the team so quickly.

With key men Thierry Henry, Patrick Vieira, Robert Pires, Sol Campbell, Ashley Cole and Freddie Ljungberg all leaving within three years, the team effectively went backwards. Reaching the Champions League final in 2006 was again impressive but it was already a team (if not in decline) in transition. Beaten by Barcelona in Paris, few would have predicted that the Gunners would still be trophyless five years down the line. While they may well end that run with victory in the Carling Cup later this month, the big two trophies of Premier League and Champions League look likely to elude them once again.

Wenger has orchestrated a change in playing style in his time in North London. From a team of talented, but forceful players such as Tony Adams and Martin Keown, he added flair (through the likes of Dennis Bergkamp and Henry) while maintaining the strength (players such as Vieira and Gilberto Silva) for his first decade at the helm. Yet post-invincibles era, he seems to overly rely on creative players with fantastic skill yet little strength. While Andrey Arshavin, Samir Nasri, Cesc Fabregas and co are all undoubtedly fantastic players, the failure to ally this with strength over the past few years has seen a succession of 4^th and 3^rd place finishes and failure to progress in the Champions League once they face the strongest opponents. While the emergence of Alex Song and addition of Marouane Chamakh seems to be giving the Gunners some much-needed steel this season, a failure to address other weaknesses has proved, and is likely to continue to prove, costly.

The manager’s transfer policy may well be keeping the club living within its means, but with such obvious weaknesses in the goalkeeping and central defensive positions, is Wenger fighting a lost cause? Sebastien Squillaci and Laurent Koscielny have both failed to fill the void in central defence left by the departed William Gallas and injured Thomas Vermaelen. Looking further back, no defenders have really lived up to the 03-04 backline of Lauren, Campbell, Kolo Toure and Cole. The lack of organisation in defence has proved costly time and again and it simply doesn’t seem possible for Arsenal to win the Premier League title until this problem is solved.

Another trait of Wenger is his refusal to play defensive football, even in the biggest games. While some see this as admirable, it is surely foolish when time and again his team have been beaten in the biggest games by the likes of Manchester United and Chelsea, who changed their tactics to stop the Gunners’ passing game. The Frenchman is renowned for complaining about the style of play opponents use against his team, but they play within the rules and he should really have wizened up to it by now. Their recent victory over Chelsea at the Emirates Stadium was certainly due more to the Blues’ horrendous run of winter form than a major tactical triumph for Arsenal.

With Barcelona looming in the Champions League second round, things don’t look great on the European front for the Gunners. Mauled at the Nou Camp last season, Wenger’s attempt to match the Blaugrana like-for-like failed miserably. As Manchester United showed in the 2008 semi-final and Internazionale in the same round in 2010, the only way to beat the Catalan giants is to set up defensively and foil their passing game. This is something that Wenger is almost certainly never going to do. While he has arguably got the best midfield and attack since the Invincibles season, with Robin Van Persie fit and firing and Nasri and Fabregas growing every week, it would still be very surprising if Arsenal were to lift the Premier League this season. Wenger has proved in the past he knows how to win titles, but if he continues refusing to improve his defence or change his tactics, he may well have won his last.