PDA

View Full Version : The Madness of King Capello... what does the resst of the world think?!...


Ross K
07-16-2010, 11:38 PM
I thought I'd post this out of our usual TTFC club as I want to get a more international viewpoint on Capello and what he's 'achieved' with England.

This is because of some fresh 'inspiration'/bewilderment courtesy of this stunning revelation - from the Guardian newspaper about the 'Capello index' (players ratings system) which the FA (English football's governing body) prevented him initially publishing but which has now been made public anyway.

Check out the actual index at the bottom as,
The goalkeeper Robert Green gets the lowest mark for the tournament with a rating of 51.67 out of 100, having made a dreadful mistake in his only game, against the USA. Jermain Defoe tops the list with an average of 62.47 across the matches he played, which included scoring the winner against Slovenia.

England's second-best player according to the Capello Index was John Terry (60.48). Uruguay's Diego Forlán, who was awarded the official player of the tournament award, gets an average score of 65.77 by comparison.

Wayne Rooney, widely accepted to have had a dismal World Cup, is marked at 58.87, marginally higher than Spain's Fernando Torres and only slightly less than Jérôme Boateng, part of the Germany team that finished third at the tournament.

England's best individual performance of the tournament was rated by the index to be Steven Gerrard's against the USA (66.36).

The marks are calculated using a complicated scoring system which awards points for categories such as long passing, assists, mistakes, dribbles, goals, shots and headers.

Average mark given to England's players

Robert Green 51.67

David James 59.28

Glen Johnson 57.18

John Terry 60.48

Ledley King 57.50

Jamie Carragher 59.04

Matthew Upson 60.21

Ashley Cole 59.58

Aaron Lennon 57.64

Frank Lampard 58.58

Steven Gerrard 60.98

James Milner 59.40

Gareth Barry 57.50

Shaun Wright-Phillips 61.09

Joe Cole 55.45

Wayne Rooney 58.87

Emile Heskey 60.15

Jermain Defoe 62.47

Peter Crouch did not play enough minutes to generate a mark.


So... in reverse order of lunacy:confused:... he actually rates our 5th most productive, effective player in the world cup as being England's very own Robben - Wright-Phillips! ... ("Deep breath.")... third from top he rates... ("Deep breath and sip that whiskey.)... Rooney!... whilst Capello's second highest-rated English player in S. Africa is... ("Deep breath. Sip whiskey. Down tranquilizers. Cross yourself and say several 'hail Mary's.")... Emile Heskey... WTF!!!??? :shock: ... this is just truly, madly, deeply, mindbogglingly insane in a way that we all sadly now accept as par for the course when it comes to Capello and his out of date, rigid, stubborn, and just generally abysmal regime... (Oh and don't you just love that last line about Crouch?!... yes, exactly... says it all... "did not play enough"...)

Now, is it just me who thinks this, or... and despite his players undoubted lack of cohesion, form, spirit, harmony, fitness, etc... but as the world's highest paid manager and given his squad contained the players who regularly play in Champions League/Champions League finals etc and should have at least been expected to go a round further in the WC... is it just me who feels Capello has to be held largely responsible for such a dismal, pathetic, embarrassing and incomprehensible mess, and should have been sacked promptly (and sent to the tower :wink:)?!

R.

NickC
07-17-2010, 04:47 AM
Ross, it seems like you're drunk. A squad that contained players who regularly play in Champions League and Champions League finals? Come on now, you couldn't even make a 18 man matchday roster with all the English players who started consistently in Champions League matches.

Expected to go a round further? Are you talking about the same team that couldn't score against Algeria in an E.A.S.Y group? The same team that labored to a 1-1 draw against footballing giants Slovenia? The same England who couldn't beat a former colony (who, overall, could give a rat's *** about the sport!)? Surely a team like that isn't anywhere near world-class, and you can't get world-class results without a world-class team, especially if you have an old squad led by an outdated coach who can't even speak the same language as his players.

Come off it mate, England just aren't that great, they got whipped by Germany and didn't even top their group (and only scored 2 goals in the process). Not to mention your footballing style is just a physical kick-and-rush. The technical standard of English players is nowhere near that of South or Central Americans, let alone the Spanish, Dutch or the Germans.

crosscourt
07-17-2010, 07:15 AM
It's not just you. But the overwhelming balance of views is that the player are as a group nothing like good enough.

cc

Breaker
07-17-2010, 08:10 AM
That's what he gets for going against his supposed formula for picking players (needing to play and perform regularly at club level). At least half of that list were awful last season and surely did not deserve to get as much time on the pitch as they did.

Feña14
07-17-2010, 03:39 PM
Ross, it seems like you're drunk. A squad that contained players who regularly play in Champions League and Champions League finals? Come on now, you couldn't even make a 18 man matchday roster with all the English players who started consistently in Champions League matches.

Expected to go a round further? Are you talking about the same team that couldn't score against Algeria in an E.A.S.Y group? The same team that labored to a 1-1 draw against footballing giants Slovenia? The same England who couldn't beat a former colony (who, overall, could give a rat's *** about the sport!)? Surely a team like that isn't anywhere near world-class, and you can't get world-class results without a world-class team, especially if you have an old squad led by an outdated coach who can't even speak the same language as his players.

Come off it mate, England just aren't that great, they got whipped by Germany and didn't even top their group (and only scored 2 goals in the process). Not to mention your footballing style is just a physical kick-and-rush. The technical standard of English players is nowhere near that of South or Central Americans, let alone the Spanish, Dutch or the Germans.

It was America who drew with Slovenia, not England ;)

Tennis_Monk
07-17-2010, 07:25 PM
I dont want to come across as 'piling on' but when was the last time England team won something meaningful in an international competition like Worldcup.

Every world cup, there is lot of Hype and always ends up with a whimper.

England's soccer team is way overrated.

Feña14
07-17-2010, 08:15 PM
I dont want to come across as 'piling on' but when was the last time England team won something meaningful in an international competition like Worldcup.

Every world cup, there is lot of Hype and always ends up with a whimper.

England's soccer team is way overrated.

Yes and no, there is no doubting the quality of the players who make up the team. Terry who is voted into the World XI by his fellow pro's year in year out, Lampard who was voted the best midfielder in Europe in 2008, Gerrard has won a Champions League final on his own, Rooney is seen by the likes of Messi as one of the best around, Ashley Cole is the best left back around etc.. When you have talent like that, it's hard to really say England are "overrated".

They don't really come together as a team though, that's for sure. Much like Spain didn't for their entire history before 2008, before that they would turn up every 2 years for the Euro's or World Cup with one of the top 3 teams on paper time and time again, only to fail miserably.

It seems that fitting a team together is the most important thing, not the stars. Does having superstars who lack chemistry together mean they are overrated? I wouldn't say so.

NickC
07-18-2010, 06:27 AM
Yes and no, there is no doubting the quality of the players who make up the team. Terry who is voted into the World XI by his fellow pro's year in year out, Lampard who was voted the best midfielder in Europe in 2008, Gerrard has won a Champions League final on his own, Rooney is seen by the likes of Messi as one of the best around, Ashley Cole is the best left back around etc.. When you have talent like that, it's hard to really say England are "overrated".

They don't really come together as a team though, that's for sure. Much like Spain didn't for their entire history before 2008, before that they would turn up every 2 years for the Euro's or World Cup with one of the top 3 teams on paper time and time again, only to fail miserably.

It seems that fitting a team together is the most important thing, not the stars. Does having superstars who lack chemistry together mean they are overrated? I wouldn't say so.

It certainly does mean they're overrated. They're supposedly great players, but they don't produce results outside of their club sides. People slate Messi and Ronaldo for not achieving on the international stage, so why can't we expect the same of other players that the English seem to view as "world class" like Rooney or Gerrard? I read all the time on the BBC that Messi isn't world class because he hasn't won a world cup, and he's not won anything with Argentina (besides a host of youth tournaments) and thus he's overrated. On the other hand, those same people are led to believe that Lampard, Gerrard, Rooney, Terry, etc... are up there with the best in the world despite worse results in international (and club) tournaments.

West Coast Ace
07-18-2010, 09:58 AM
England's soccer team is way overrated.I agree. The EPL is the best league - when one considers tradition and $$$$. But most of the teams star players are not from the UK. But the UK national team seems to get a lot of mileage from the EPL. For a team that failed to qualify for Euro 2008 (losing at home - see below), their world ranking does seem artificially high.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/internationals/7103110.stm

Xenakis
07-18-2010, 10:40 AM
It was America who drew with Slovenia, not England ;)

LOL, emblematic methinks.

Xenakis
07-18-2010, 10:43 AM
I dont want to come across as 'piling on' but when was the last time England team won something meaningful in an international competition like Worldcup.

Every world cup, there is lot of Hype and always ends up with a whimper.

England's soccer team is way overrated.

The England football team not soccer, only the US has a soccer team I think (Canada too possibly?)

ProgressoR
07-18-2010, 11:48 AM
It was America who drew with Slovenia, not England ;)

yeh, pfft, get real, as if England would draw with Slovakenia.

No chance - we surely would have lost.

forthegame
07-18-2010, 12:10 PM
Ross, you realise the "Capello Index" has been diswoned by him? He has denied all knowledge of the ratings as released.

Feña14
07-18-2010, 12:19 PM
It certainly does mean they're overrated. They're supposedly great players, but they don't produce results outside of their club sides. People slate Messi and Ronaldo for not achieving on the international stage, so why can't we expect the same of other players that the English seem to view as "world class" like Rooney or Gerrard? I read all the time on the BBC that Messi isn't world class because he hasn't won a world cup, and he's not won anything with Argentina (besides a host of youth tournaments) and thus he's overrated. On the other hand, those same people are led to believe that Lampard, Gerrard, Rooney, Terry, etc... are up there with the best in the world despite worse results in international (and club) tournaments.

Depends on your point of view, for me personally I don't think you can judge a player solely on the way he plays in a few games once every 4 years, especially after they have already slogged their guts out for 10 months of the year.

Mourinho says the way for a player to test himself against the best is to play in the Champions League, year in year out, against the best sides on the planet. To put in a top performance against Barcelona with Villa, Messi, Iniesta, Pedro, Xavi, Alves etc.. over two legs in Europe this season would be more impressive in my eyes than a one off win against someone in a World Cup these days.

spaceman_spiff
07-19-2010, 04:42 AM
Ross, the main difference between this world cup and those in the recent past is Owen Hargreaves.

In past tournaments, he masked his teammates inability to retain possession by constantly winning the ball back for them (or funnelling the opposition into positions where the defence could win the ball back), thus giving them more opportunities to try more Hollywood passes until something actually came off.

On top of that, they scored more from set pieces because Beckham and Hargreaves (who people forget is really good at free kicks) were able to deliver good balls for the big guys to attack.

This year, they had no world class Makele/Hargreaves-style ball winner, and their set piece delivery wasn't as good either. Combine that with their other deficiencies, and there's your explanation for why they had no bite.

No manager in the world would have done better with that group of players, but no manager would have held his job if he hadn't taken that group to the world cup; the papers would be calling for his head if he hadn't taken Gerrard, Lampard, etc. It was a lose/lose situation.

Now that their weaknesses have been exposed, Capello has free reign to drop whomever he likes and pick the players who really should be playing for England.

spaceman_spiff
07-19-2010, 04:54 AM
The England football team not soccer, only the US has a soccer team I think (Canada too possibly?)

The US, Canada, and Australia (possibly New Zealand). All because, in those countries, "football" means something else, either American-rules or Aussie-rules football.

That said, soccer is actually an English term derived from the word "association." The official name of the game is Association Football, to distinguish it from Rugby Football. The word "association" was shortened to "assoc" in colloquial speech, which was then shortened to "soccer," similar to how Rugby is sometimes called "ruggers" in casual speech by fans of the game.

origmarm
07-19-2010, 05:07 AM
Ross, the main difference between this world cup and those in the recent past is Owen Hargreaves.

In past tournaments, he masked his teammates inability to retain possession by constantly winning the ball back for them (or funnelling the opposition into positions where the defence could win the ball back), thus giving them more opportunities to try more Hollywood passes until something actually came off.

Very similar to what I think. We were missing something crucial in the holding midfield. That and the normal "playing Lampard and Gerard together" issues.

NickC
07-19-2010, 05:42 AM
The England football team not soccer, only the US has a soccer team I think (Canada too possibly?)

Same sport.

Canada has a soccer team, as does Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, Japan, and Zimbabwe. Not to mention a certain country that finished above "footballing giants" England in WC group play.

ProgressoR
07-19-2010, 05:51 AM
^^ I reckon they are good competitors in overtime, even if they might tire in the bottom of the fourth quarter.

Xenakis
07-19-2010, 07:22 AM
The US, Canada, and Australia (possibly New Zealand). All because, in those countries, "football" means something else, either American-rules or Aussie-rules football.

That said, soccer is actually an English term derived from the word "association." The official name of the game is Association Football, to distinguish it from Rugby Football. The word "association" was shortened to "assoc" in colloquial speech, which was then shortened to "soccer," similar to how Rugby is sometimes called "ruggers" in casual speech by fans of the game.

And those countries too then. I already knew the association football origin.

Nick C, what's with the emotional outbursts about the English football team? What are you upset about?

Breaker
07-19-2010, 07:25 AM
No manager in the world would have done better with that group of players, but no manager would have held his job if he hadn't taken that group to the world cup; the papers would be calling for his head if he hadn't taken Gerrard, Lampard, etc. It was a lose/lose situation.

Now that their weaknesses have been exposed, Capello has free reign to drop whomever he likes and pick the players who really should be playing for England.

Heskey
SWP
Upson
Carragher
Green
"full back who can't defend" Glen Johnson

That's 6 players who played a big role that clearly should not have been given such an important role in the World Cup.

Heskey and SWP couldn't even get into their club sides second half of the season. Upson and Green were part of one of the worst defences in a top league. Carragher is old and even at Liverpool anyone could tell he was past it. Glen Johnson gets a pass I guess but everyone who watches him knows he can't defend properly yet a back up right back was not brought.

Also the likes of Joe Cole, Barry, Lennon, and KING all had fitness issues going in and that ended up into a disaster as well - Cole barely played, Barry looked slow as molasses, Lennon was invisible, and King got injured AGAIN.

There are several young players that were showing brilliant form for their clubs who Capello turned down in favour of these players and that was his main mistake.

crosscourt
07-19-2010, 08:51 AM
Spaceman Spiff -- you are dead right that we lack players who can win and retain possession. You are also dead right that we had nobody to control the restarts.

cc

Ross K
07-19-2010, 11:08 AM
Breaker,

I absolutely, totally agree...

I mean, come on!... 6 players (at least) given important roles who were, variously, nursing big injury problems, were too old, were too obviously below the required standard, had less than adequate no. of outings for their clubs prior to S. Africa, etc?...

The likes of Walcott, Johnson, Bent, Bentley, whoever, etc. omitted?...

Yes, these are massively vital aspects that Capello got wrong, and they are fundamental.

For which ignominious failure the man should have been sacked - plain and simple...

And that's even before the whole sorry tactical botch ups that saw England playing that embarrassing system, insistence on sticking with Rooney, Heskey, etc and the ignoring of Crouch and Cole etc, the toxic atmosphere in the camp, and the abject inability to get the best out of Lampard and Gerrard.

Ross K
07-19-2010, 11:56 AM
Ross, it seems like you're drunk. A squad that contained players who regularly play in Champions League and Champions League finals? Come on now, you couldn't even make a 18 man matchday roster with all the English players who started consistently in Champions League matches.

Expected to go a round further? Are you talking about the same team that couldn't score against Algeria in an E.A.S.Y group? The same team that labored to a 1-1 draw against footballing giants Slovenia? The same England who couldn't beat a former colony (who, overall, could give a rat's *** about the sport!)? Surely a team like that isn't anywhere near world-class, and you can't get world-class results without a world-class team, especially if you have an old squad led by an outdated coach who can't even speak the same language as his players.

Come off it mate, England just aren't that great, they got whipped by Germany and didn't even top their group (and only scored 2 goals in the process). Not to mention your footballing style is just a physical kick-and-rush. The technical standard of English players is nowhere near that of South or Central Americans, let alone the Spanish, Dutch or the Germans.

First paragraph = silly argument... all the top Champions League teams have a very high quota of foreign players, even Barca... moreover, Chelsea, Liverpool, Arsenal, Man U etc regularly reach the latter stages of the competition, so the English players, even if not vast in number, are routinely playing and pitting their wits and skills against the very creme de la creme of European football.

Second paragraph = nonsensical rant... everything you say there is evidence that Capello indeed messed up pretty spectacularly - which is large part of what I'm saying...

Third paragraph = more random strange mutterings... yes, thanks, I'm fully aware, as was anybody who saw the games, how deficient England were, how very tasty the Germans were, and that (understatement): England do lag a little behind Brasil or whoever in terms of technique... BUT NONE OF THAT'S THE ISSUE???!!!... the issue is Capello's failure to get the team playing to a level that most would concede should be beyond USA and Algeria and would have got us qualified in 1st place... no, I'm not saying England have the players to be the very best in the World (ie, World Cup winners), but I am saying we are not as far off as Capello's mangled, mad management seems to suggest...

Final sentences = I don't know what... Lampard, Gerrard, Cole A, Cole J, Johnson, Carrick, Lennon, Terry, Barry, James, Rooney, Milner, etc... for all their poor performances these are not players who have no technique???... besides, technique has several components and isn't all just flair and skills, as I think you're referring to here - and as the poor showing of both Brasil and Argentina amply illustrates... I mean, yes, Spain is a different class altogether (and did you note how they defend furiously as a team and have a never say die spirit?... er, is that reminiscent of anyone at all traditionally speaking?...), but, no, sorry, Germany aren't actually these super-advanced, technique-meisters from another planet, ditto Holland... what they are are sides whose managers selected appropriate players and allied that with effective tactics, etc.

Trying to make sense of your post makes me think that maybe you are in fact drunk.

Feña14
07-19-2010, 11:57 AM
..
And that's even before the whole sorry tactical botch ups that saw England playing that embarrassing system, insistence on sticking with Rooney, Heskey, etc and the ignoring of Crouch and Cole etc, the toxic atmosphere in the camp, and the abject inability to get the best out of Lampard and Gerrard.

There were alot of problems, absolutely. Playing only two in central midfield these days is asking for trouble, you can just about get away with it on a good day if you have a quality ball winner and a player who can create and drive the team. Lampard got stick but he was pretty much in there on his own, there isn't alot you can do when you have three opposing midfielders swarming around and you only have a half fit Barry for support. Same goes for Gerrard being stuck out on the left (although he didn't do himself any favours by following the ball all the time). Terry was also played out of position against Germany and was forced into covering for Upson and looking after Ozil as Barry couldn't.

There's no doubt the big players didn't make much of an impact, but as you and others have pointed out, when you have to cover for team mates who aren't doing their jobs, it's very difficult to shine.

Xenakis
07-19-2010, 12:02 PM
First paragraph = silly argument... all the top Champions League teams have a very high quota of foreign players, even Barca... moreover, Chelsea, Liverpool, Arsenal, Man U etc regularly reach the latter stages of the competition, so the English players, even if not vast in number, are routinely playing and pitting their wits and skills against the very creme de la creme of European football.

Second paragraph = nonsensical rant... everything you say there is evidence that Capello indeed messed up pretty spectacularly - which is large part of what I'm saying...

Third paragraph = more random strange mutterings... yes, thanks, I'm fully aware, as was anybody who saw the games, how deficient England were, how very tasty the Germans were, and that (understatement): England do lag a little behind Brasil or whoever in terms of technique... BUT NONE OF THAT'S THE ISSUE???!!!... the issue is Capello's failure to get the team playing to a level that most would concede should be beyond USA and Algeria and would have got us qualified in 1st place... no, I'm not saying England have the players to be the very best in the World (ie, World Cup winners), but I am saying we are not as far off as Capello's mangled, mad management seems to suggest...

Final sentences = I don't know what... Lampard, Gerrard, Cole A, Cole J, Johnson, Carrick, Lennon, Terry, Barry, James, Rooney, Milner, etc... for all their poor performances these are not players who have no technique???... besides, technique has several components and isn't all just flair and skills, as I think you're referring to here - and as the poor showing of both Brasil and Argentina amply illustrates... I mean, yes, Spain is a different class altogether (and did you note how they defend furiously as a team and have a never say die spirit?... er, is that reminiscent of anyone at all traditionally speaking?...), but, no, sorry, Germany aren't actually these super-advanced, technique-meisters from another planet, ditto Holland... what they are are sides whose managers selected appropriate players and allied that with effective tactics, etc.

Trying to make sense of your post makes me think that maybe you are in fact drunk.

I think he has some sort of emotional issues when it comes to the England football team, clouds his judgement to say the least. Still waiting for an answer as to why.

Re the actual topic, why don't England copy the Germans and have a simple system that stays the same (I think that's what they have anyway, I stand to be corrected).

The Germans (well, quite a few non Germans on their team actually) have worse players on paper but played well as a team, which counts for more in the end.

How do they do it?

spaceman_spiff
07-20-2010, 01:22 AM
First, I think Capello was either pressured into playing all those guys, or he did it to prove a point. Before the tournament, everyone and his dog said the team would be Rooney with a big man (most likely Heskey, because they think they play well together), Gerrard and Lampard with Barry in the middle, etc., etc. If Capello had gone against that, anything short of winning the whole thing would have cost him his job (see what happened to Dunga when he tried changing Brazil to what was honestly a smart system).

Now that the tournament is over, Capello has kept his job and everyone has realized that those "star" players who had been mainstays in the squad for the last decade actually aren't too good. Now, Capello can completely change the team without facing the wrath of everyone.

At the moment, I think he faces two main problems. First, Gerrard and Lampard play the same role (though with different styles), and it's not a role that any team can use two of at the same time, like trying to play with two 'keepers. On top of that, the role those two like to play is very close to the role that Rooney is best at. So, trying to play all three at the same time is like trying to play with 3 'keepers. You can only have 1, which means the other 2 will be played out of position. Gerrard and Lampard have proved that they lack either the ability or the discipline to play other roles, so that's not an option. Pick 1 and stick the other 2 on the bench.

The other problem is that, barring a miraculous comeback by Hargreaves, you won't have anyone capable of single-handedly controlling the middle. So, you'll need 2 for that.

The good news is that you currently have good enough players to play a system that works well. If you have 2 guys like Parker and Huddlestone hold the middle, you can then have 2 wingers like Johnson and Lennon who are free to run at the fullbacks and a central attacking mid/forward/playmaker (I would put Rooney there because he always wants the ball) playing behind an all-out striker, someone big, fast, and with an eye for goal (Bent is probably the best you have at the moment, though others could step up as well).

In defense, you've got good up-and-coming guys like Hart, Dawson, and Cahill to go along with Cole on the left. Your only real challenge is to find a decent right-back.

If you spent the next 2 years playing with Hart, Cole, Dawson, Cahill, someone on the right, Parker, Huddlestone, Johnson, Rooney, Lennon, and someone big and fast up front, by the time Euro 2012 comes along, you would have a very dangerous team.

spaceman_spiff
07-23-2010, 03:07 AM
Well, it appears at least one English journalist doesn't think the future looks bright:

http://www.football365.com/john_nicholson/0,17033,8746_6274497,00.html

PimpMyGame
07-23-2010, 03:38 AM
There is a lack of depth regarding the quality of England's football team. Four matches in this world cup, Rooney played most of the pitch time even though he had a shocking tournament.

Why wasn't he subbed? Because there is no back-up plan when Rooney isn't on form. No confidence in a back up plan, anyway.

Where are the holding midfielders?

Where is the no-nonsense defence?

Why do we always look laborious on the ball, especially when playing against a really talented team such as Germany?

Where is the smooth passing and fluid movement?

There are too many questions to be answered at once, but I do not blame the manager one little bit. We have far too many prima donnas in the England squad and it is time to turf out virtually everyone over the age of 29, with the possible exception of Gerrard and Ferdinand, who would act as a "bridge" from the old to the new for a limited period.

We start our qualifying phase for Euro 2012 shortly. In my opinion, Capello must prioritise building a new squad over qualifying for a tournament where we will be so far behind the competition it will be embarrassing.

And the FA must find a way of incentivising Capello so he makes the right decisions for the longevity of the team rather than forcing him down an alley which will end up in failure.

I, for one, would rather not qualify for Euro 2012 and have a real team that can compete in 2014 or 2016.

That's all.