FAO Oregon Andy, written without rancour

OK so let's try to take some of the heat out of this.

Firstly, the question of David James, and his game vs the US. Overall I have to agree with the Brits: he did have a dodgy game. With Campbell struggling and eventually withdrawn, he was the senior professional at the back, behind a defence that was a bit thrown-together anyway. When you have a rookie keeper in goal, all that's expected of him is that he make the odd decent save - had Greeno been in goal behind a back line of Neville/Campbell/Ferdinand/Cole, we'd have expected to see the defenders protecting him in all areas and taking the greater part of the responsibility for dealing with balls into the box from wide positions: at least until all parties 'clicked', or until the defence became confident in the man behind them.

But with an experienced international between the sticks the back four's approach should change, because they should have complete trust in the keeper (who has the best view of danger situations) and be led by his calls.

Any keeper can misjudge a cross, spill a ball, lose concentration from time to time. No keeper who does any or all of these on a regular basis should be selected for his country more than twice. James' nickname is Calamity.

England's centre backs were the inconsistent Brown, a hobbling Campbell and later the seriously dodgy Knight: so I wasn't in the least surprised that Sven didn't send on a new goalie. This made it more inexcusable that he played from the start a keeper in whom nobody believes, and that that keeper reaffirmed that lack of belief with another suspect performance.

James is a fantastic shot-stopper, one of the better ones I've seen - but a keeper needs to be much more than that. Jugears Wright is a good shot-stopper too: but (and I confess that I haven't researched this, so feel free to shoot me down if I'm wrong) every time he played for Everton this season they were weaker for it, and often took a beating. Gordon Banks is revered in this country and named by some as the best British goalie of all time and though he's best remembered for that uncanny save from Pele in 1970, my memory of him is of a bloke who made relatively few remarkable saves - because his positioning was almost infallible. The ball always seemed to pop into his waiting hands, as he shuffled calmly along his line. His defence trusted him completely, and he usually delivered.

Secondly, the question of What Yanks Know About Football. It's a game of subjective opinion and yours ought to be as good as anyone else's: but your previous postings wherein you suggest playing in (sorry but there's no soft way to put it) quite barmy formations suggest that though you may love the game and be experienced in watching and playing it, you're clearly missing something fundamental. I have no idea what that may be.

I watched a bit of MLS about a decade ago but found it unfulfilling as a spectacle: it was like watching athletes playing with a ball, lots of clean-limbed young men carrying out moves from the training ground and not a tinge of ingenuity anywhere. What killed it for me was when I finally got to see (IIRC) The NY/NJ Allstars, with the gifted Donadoni in midfield. I'd expected him to stand out like a jewel in spilt corn - but he couldn't, because in such a regimented system there was no room for his football vision, no need for an intelligent pass. Donadoni looked ordinary, while I expect that Barry Horne would've looked special. OK that's probably stretching the point a bit.

Watching the US national teams in more recent times it appears that your coaches are beginning to bring the game on - your teams seem more inventive than they were back then, and you have some competent and intelligent players; you'd have to tell me if that's true. But my underlying point is that you may be seeing the game from a completely different standpoint to British fans. Are you watching effort or competence? If that sounds like I'm being nasty towards you, it wasn't intended.

Oh and by the way: your Machin/Bond question is a bulls**t one. For one thing, it proves nothing other than that you remember some old men when they were young, and for another, well, I can think of three or four things they had in common, and that doesn't prove that I know anything about the game. I'm not questioning your love of the game or your support for City: I'm suggesting that you may be missing something, that's all.

Peace.

Posted By: Suggy on May 30th 2005 at 12:48:16

Message Thread

Reply to Message

In order to add a post to the WotB Message Board you must be a registered WotB user.

If you are not yet registered then please visit the registration page. You should ensure that their browser is setup to accept cookies.

Log in