Trouble in Johannesburg: Rough Vs Smooth

On October 30, 1974 there was a sporting event in Africa which would see unfamiliar and unconventional tactics used in order to win, much like those of the Netherlands in Sunday evening's World Cup final versus Spain.

The sports may have been different but the mantra was the same; to win, at any cost.

Holland have been widely criticised for this approach which is quite contradictory, almost hypocritical, when you consider that Muhammad Ali, who won against all odds in the "Rumble in the Jungle", was written about in mythical terms following his victory.

Some may argue that the tactics employed by the Dutch would not look out of place in a boxing ring but, like it or not, they competed within the rules. Their approach was condemned by the majority of pundits on hand to provide 'expert' opinion, the same 'experts' that would no doubt have been full of praise for these tactics had it been England taking the pre-tournament favourites, Spain, to extra-time.

Despite beating Brazil 2-1 en route to the final, Holland were never going to beat Spain at a passing game, it's as simple as that. With a midfield boasting the creative influences of Andres Iniesta, Xavi Hernandez and Xabi Alonso, Spain would have been all too happy for Holland to come out and play a slick brand of football. This would have suited Spain and Holland knew it.

Holland had proven that they were capable of attractive football during this World Cup and have done through the years, the history of a nation's footballing pedigree will never be judged on any one match. So why the ill-feeling towards their tactics?

Holland adapted to the conditions and exploited a chink in Spain's armour but, although happy to acknowledge this, there doesn't seem to be one person ready to praise it. At half time Gary Lineker, the BBC's Match of the Day presenter, asked: "Well, is this the way to stop the Spanish?". In short, yes it was and it should have been applauded for presenting a fascinating final of Rough Vs Smooth.

People gave Ali little chance of beating the heavyweight champion George Foreman in much the same way Holland were given little chance of causing Spain any problems at the Soccer City stadium. Did Ali stick to his familiar formula of quick feet? Or did he adapt in order to win? He did the latter and to devastating effect. He understood that Foreman was powerful and that he would not be able to out-punch him, so Ali retreated to the ropes from the second round to the sixth, in the sapping heat, willingly making himself a punch bag. In doing this Ali knew that Foreman was tiring, he knew that his opponent had no longevity in a bout; 37 of Foreman's 40 previous knock-outs had occurred in the first three rounds of a match. He knew he could win, albeit unconventionally.

Muhammad Ali pounced in the eighth round, with Foreman seriously fatigued, and won by knockout when the champion failed to make the count. Holland did, at times, show their potential with Arjen Robben, the Dutch forward, missing two glorious opportunities when the sides were deadlocked at 0-0.

Even when the game went into extra-time, the players having strained every sinew and running on pure adrenalin, neither Spain or Holland changed their tactics. In the second-half of extra-time Holland were reduced to ten men when Hoawrd Webb, the referee, showed Johnny Heitinga, the Dutch central defender, a second yellow card for a foul on Iniesta who would have been in with a clear sight of goal. It was cynical but it was a small price to pay in the search of glory.

It was not to be though as Spain exerted more pressure on the depleted Holland defence with Francesc Fabregas, the Spain and Arsenal midfielder, eventually finding Iniesta free inside the area to rifle past the onrushing Dutch goalkeeper, Maarten Stekelenburg, to seal a first World Cup win for Spain.

So, it didn't turn out to be the spectacle the neutrals were hoping for. Do you think the Dutch would have cared had they won? Not at all. Would they do it all over again if it guaranteed success? You bet they would. Sometimes in sport you have to win ugly, go against the grain and de-skill yourself if necessary. This is exactly what the Ali did, in Zaire, in 1974.

Meddling media equally to blame for England's failings

Tired, robbed and under too much pressure are just a few of the excuses which accompanied England's disastrous exit from the World Cup in South Africa at the hands of a classy Germany outfit.

That was the long and short of it. Germany were classy, far classier than England, but why has it become so hard to admit? It may have something to do with being beaten by our nemesis but it may have more to do with our unjustified belief that we are a force to be reckoned with on the international stage.

The facts are stark and paint the picture, a real picture. England have won just one World Cup, in 1966, and have not won a single European Championship. Yet somewhere along the way we, as a nation, lost all touch with reality almost as though we are still caught in a drunken haze which has lasted for forty-four long years. The truth is, bear we admit it, we're just not good enough.

This isn't to say we can never win a major tournament, far from it. With the right balance and work ethic we could beat any nation on our day but it is rarely our day and the players rarely display the work-rate the adoring fans so desperately expect. David Beckham divides opinion as a footballer but if a poll was conducted to find out his greatest match as an England player, it would, undoubtedly, be his ninety minutes as captain versus Greece in a qualifier for the 2002 World Cup Finals. It was inspiring, it exuded pride, it was magnificent. It says a lot that 8 years on, that single performance has not been matched, yet alone topped.

In South Africa it was reported by the media that England's poor performances in the group stage were because of Fabio Capello's disciplinarian approach. Not once did the media take a step back and wonder if their own input was helpful. After all it is the media who coined the phrase "golden generation" in an attempt to glamourise a core group of players which were, given the term, seen as world-beaters. Yet, on their exit from the finals, pundits and sections of the media were baulking at the failure of this "golden generation" whilst conveniently forgetting that this was a label forced upon these players, not the other way around.

Not that the players don't like it of course. Why wouldn't they? Labels like "golden generation" and the infinite number of superlatives lauded upon our players week after week massage their ego's better than any Indian head masseur could ever achieve. So why then, did the media object so strongly to Capello's proposed introduction of a player-rating system? The Capello Index, as it was titled, was a process whereby the nation would be able to see how the England manager rated every player's individual performance via the Football Association's (FA) web site. These plans were, shamefully, shelved in the wake of a media onslaught which questioned the benefit and effect this would have on the players. Did the media stop their own ratings of players during the tournament? Of course not.

And here we stumble on the incessant disease which manifests itself within the coverage of the England football team. As with so many of his predecessors, Capello was not allowed to manage. Perhaps if he was given free reign to do as he pleased the results may have been different, maybe they wouldn't; we'll never know. The Capello Index was the perfect tool to bring a much-needed sense of reality to a squad of players who are so often criticised for losing touch with reality. Perhaps the media didn't want it because it would mean one less criticism to stab at the players or perhaps the media felt redundant that their own player ratings and comment would be overlooked by fans wanting to see what the man in charge thought.

For whatever reason it was, the FA should not have entertained any comment from the media but, in allowing them to voice their disapproval, the FA only served to undermine Capello and, in doing so, may have just lost one of the best manager's in the world.

FFF have no one to blame but themselves

After a dour start to their World Cup campaign France succumbed to a 2-0 defeat at the hands of Mexico in a match that left them needing a "miracle" to qualify for the Second Round.

The abject display will undoubtedly have the French media up in arms and raises serious doubts about the squad's mentality and that of manager Raymond Domenech.

Even at 1-0 down Domenech, the much-maligned manager, looked as though his mind was elsewhere and showed little emotion when his side conceded the penalty that made it 2-0 to the Mexicans. Unruffled in exterior, the interior was surely reeling at the French Football Federation's (FFF) decision to name his successor, Laurent Blanc, before the team had even arrived at their World Cup base in South Africa.

World Cup winners in 1998 and European Cup winners in 2000, France have established themselves as a major force in international tournaments in the last decade but since their loss to Italy in the 2006 World Cup Final they have flattered to deceive on an enormous scale.

Domenech was at the helm when France suffered a humiliating exit from Euro 2008, finishing bottom of the group and only managing a solitary goal in the process. Stories were rife at the time that all was not well within the camp, a feeling which has seemingly intensified during his reign.

The FFF have to be applauded in some respects for sticking to their guns whilst all around seemed to be reaching for theirs. Loyalty is a fragile quality, not least in football, but some would argue that the writing was on the wall; especially when a manager loses the confidence of his player's.

Fast forward to World Cup qualification and France finished second in a group which they were expected to win with ease. Pipped to automatic qualification by a resolute Serbia side meant that they would have to qualify in a two-legged play off against Giovanni Trappatoni's Republic of Ireland side. And the rest, as they say, is history.

Despite the contentious nature in which France qualified for the finals in South Africa, questions were still being asked of Domenech's managerial ability. Eyebrows were raised at his refusal to introduce Karim Benzema, Real Madrid's £30 million striker, when his side were in desperate need of finding a goal in the second leg.

Domenech did little to ease the pressure on his position when his World Cup squad announcement revealed that a number of key players were cut adrift. Although Benzema's omission was not completely unexpected it was met with some disappointment given the striker's impressive strike rate. Arsenal's gifted midfield playmaker, Samir Nasri, was another of those that did not make the grade as was the experienced, former French captain and World Cup winner, Patrick Vieira.

Two games into the tournament and Domenech has admitted that it will take a "miracle" for his side to reach the last sixteen. The stark admission only serves to illustrate the mood within the camp which clearly lacks belief and fight.

But who can blame him? Domenech is on a hiding to nothing and even if he wins the World Cup with France he already knows he'll be looking for a new job on his return. The FFF had the chance to relieve him of his duties after their shambolic display at the Euro 2008 finals. They had the chance to replace him during their qualification for the World Cup but, instead, decided to do the most disrespectful and damaging thing they could and announce his successor before the team had even begun preparations for the tournament.

France's failings have a lot do with Domenech but everything to do with the FFF.