Forget groin surgery, Steven Gerrard needs a lobotomy

So Liverpool have made it three eye-gougingly bad performances in a row with one notable constant, Steven Gerrard playing centrally in a 4-4-2.

Coincidence? Nada. Media furore? No chance. He may have taken the plaudits on Saturday for his last minute strike but he was truly woeful during the game just as he was against Sunderland the week before and just as he was last night yet still we get pathetic pundits pandering to his ego by lamenting his manager whenever he gets played anywhere other than 'Steven Gerrard's best position'. Surely it's painfully obvious for anyone to see that he just isn't good enough to play in centre midfield in a 4-4-2?

Superior athletic and technical capabilities alone do not make a player capable of playing in such a tactically disciplined role as one of the central two in midfield. It requires a player with solid fundamental tactical intelligence that Gerrard so obviously does not possess. Constantly squandering possession from deep through infantile impatience thus disabling his team's capacity to retain the ball further up the pitch and therefore stifling his own attacking ability, he's astonishingly frustrating to watch. He can not and never has been able to control a game and is more of a liability to a side when played there.

Of course he's a player capable of producing phenomenal feats from out of nothing but he's also a player capable of producing nothing out of his phenomenal potential when played in a role that requires great tactical responsibility. He requires players behind him to mop up, link defence and attack, and retain the shape of the midfield providing a base for attacking play. He needs to be freed of tactical responsibilities to be effective over 90 minutes.

He's not alone in this problem, almost every English midfielder suffers from a lack of football intelligence hence England's disjointed performances and failings. Look at the Croatia game where supposedly 'lesser' players passed the ball around the gaping English midfield like a bong at Woodstock, creating a glut of clear chances to punish players endulging in this embarrassing comic book heroism that the media champions. If only all English midfielders had the brain of Paul Scholes then they might be capable of playing the kind of football that the blinkered media thinks they're capable of.

Lobotomies for all.

England - the land that progress forgot

John Nicholson's piece over on f365.com (http://football365.com/john_nicholson/0,17033,8746,00.html) kicked off the usual furore about how the England manager should select players, suggesting that Capello is serving up more of the same in selecting tired international failures ahead of more modest performers. In the Mailbox, Tim Russell blames the English match-going fans for baying for passion and commitment rather than poise and composure, bringing in Matt L to defend the English fan and propose that they're more educated than given credit for, whilst everyone chucks in their two penneth regarding John Terry's return to the thone as King of the Reprobates.

All in their own way explaining facets of why England isn't the international force it deems itself to be but all failing to acknowledge a rather important point, the lack of tactical maturity displayed by English players and managers. Nicholson is right to lament successive English managers for pandering to big names, engendering a culture of arrogance and entitlement but to pick on Capello before he's had the oppportunity to test his wits in a competitive game is harsh. Who knows how he'll line his side up when the qualifiers begin? Maybe he should give unproven players an opportunity but the squad he has selected for Czech friendly is pretty much agreeable. He's simply selected the best players for each position regardless of their international form prior to his appointment. The problem for Capello is not the players he picks but rather the way in which he sets them out.

Very few English players understand how to play in anything other than simple derivatives of a basic 4-4-2 and the specific roles within it. Sven Goran Eriksson understood the limitations of English players even to the extent of reneging on his plan to play a simple diamond midfield at Euro 2004 after the midfield quartet demanded to return to a simple flat four across the middle. Eriksson can of course be criticised for failing to pick more suitable players in his starting eleven but in terms of shape and tactics he was merely playing to the limited strengths of the players at his disposal. Maybe by picking more suitable players within such a simple system he may have achieved more success through greater balance, maybe not, but in reaching three successive quarter finals (albeit as aesthetically pleasing as watching a cat's anus twitch) his tenure can hardly be seen as a footballing failure when looking at the resources that he had to work with.

Steve McClaren failed for many reasons, notably his total tactical ineptidue. Defeat in Zagreb was not in itself shameful but the hapless attempt to introduce a 3-5-2 system was laughably embarrassing. The players quite clearly did not know how to function within it, which said more about English football than draws to Macedonia and Israel.

English players are generally extremely one-dimensional, with an amazingly narrow frame of understanding. Witness Michael Owen's anger at Kevin Keegan as England manager for seeking to develop his game beyond simply burning past the last defender. In the modern game, with pace and strength now no longer being an exclusively British quality, it is not enough for a striker to be so limited regardless of how quick or strong he is. Fernando Torres and Didier Drogba are both quicker and stronger than Owen, and both are fully rounded individual players capable of supporting the midfield and creating opportunities for their team-mates. The bar has been raised for domestic players and the onus is on them to improve their understanding of the game. To Owen, being asked to become a more rounded player meant a lack of respect for his abilities rather than an opportunity to develop and become multi-functional and thus suitable for playing at the highest level.

Such arrogance is mimicked by Steven Gerrard and his dumbfounded sense of entitlement to a central role regardless of his inability to dictate the tempo and control a midfield game. It's not surprising that Liverpool's best season in recent years occured when Gerrard played predominantly on the right side of a midfield that could fluidly alternate between a 4-4-2 and a 4-2-3-1, a season that also saw the player named as the best in the division by his peers. Yet Gerrard saw playing 'out of position' as a personal affront as though placating his ego was more important than providing balance to his team. His lack of awareness is echoed in endless drivel about his 'best position' doled out by pundits and columnists, who value his 'engine' above his team-mates' ability to control the the game. His 'versatility' to some pundits is seen as a weakness that sees him being played away from his preferred position, in reality he has no versatility whatsoever, he plays in the exact same way regardless of what position he nominally lines up in.

Only a handful of English players can genuinely be considered to be tactically astute in comparison to their continental counterparts, and this is the key problem for any England manager. Do you pick players with lesser technical and athletic ability because they are tactically intelligent and can contain and create against adept opposition or pick a simplistic, limited formation filled with the 'better' players who lack the tactical nous to adapt to other systems against flexible opponents? In Capello, England have a tactically astute manager, like Eriksson but in contrast to Sven, Capello is certainly not a sycophant. But obviously Capello doesn't have the time to overcome the years of hubris nor does he have enough tactically astute players to compose a flexible side to take on all-comers. He can't really win over his critics unless his critics acknowledge the obvious limitations of English players.

Which leads me to English fans' expectations. The old codgers steeped in a long heritage of physical football who yearn for flying tackles, blood-stained shirts, and broken bones versus the high art supporters brought up on Premiership foreigners who enjoy deft touches, triangle passes, and expect composure and patience. Can the latter expect that brand of football from a generation of players brought up in the football culture of the former? It's the crux of the problem. The English yearn to see attacking, skilfull football but don't produce such players, or don't produce intelligent players who can work within a structure that frees talent without compromising defensive solidity. So the fans, and of course the media, need to re-evaluate their expectations and see the bigger picture.

How can England, a team full of tactically naive and technically average players be expected to play either winning or entertaining football? Since Euro '96 England has failed to produce a side that looked competitive in an international tournament. Why is it that the English think they have a chance to compete in any tournament with that track record? It's like the colonial attitude of innate superiority hasn't shaken off. And England won't ever succeed until it has.

Match of the Day - no, no, no

Unjustifiably smug, endlessly banal, sickeningly sycophantic, insidiously insular, and forever infuriating. Match of the Day is back and it epitomises everything that is wrong about the English game.

It wasn't always like this, there used to be a time when I'd savour every minute of the show but I don't know whether it actually was all that good anyway. Maybe growing up I just didn't notice how shallow the show was or maybe it's standards have slipped, either way, when I tuned in last night the theme tune whipped up a nostalgic sense of joy and anticipation that soon gave way to shaking anger at the sight of the panel.

They may as well use archive footage of Hansen for all the lazy cliches and groans that fart out of his face. Similarly Shearer needn't be there at all because he says nothing, absolutely nothing, that can't be perceived by anyone actually watching the screen. When he reminded us that Geovanni of Hull is Brazilian, I honestly didn't know whether he was attempting to be clever or funny and he failed to be either. Does anyone seriously find him thought-provoking or humourous? What's his function? Is it any wonder that we don't produce intelligent and talented footballers or managers when the two Alans are presented as totems of insight and wit?

Match of the Day obviously isn't alone in this feckless phenomena but surely as the most prominent football show it shouldn't wrap itself up in this smug self-reverence that it far from reserves. There are countless reasons to explain why England has failed to cultivate it's massive resources into any notable successes but having a spineless, wilfully ignorant, anti-intellectual, and arrogant mainstream media creates or exacerbates a culture of self-delusion and insularity that will always hold England back.

The Olympic football tournament and the CAS

So it appears that football clubs have won another battle with national assosciations after the Court of Arbitration for Sport ruled that clubs should not have to release their under-23 players for the Olympic Games (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/olympics/football/7518008.stm). The CAS has ruled that the tournament is not part of the international football calender and henceforth clubs are under no legal obligation to release players for the competition.

FIFA, for what it's worth, had reiterated in the past week that clubs must allow their young players to join up with their national squads for the competition whilst allowing clubs discretion with regard to over-23s who had been selected. Most people, I presume having plucked this idea out of thin air, would support this stance. After all, the Olympic football tournament is supposed to be an under-23 event with each side allowed to call upon three older players to participate. It's unreasonable to expect clubs to release their more senior players to compete in what is essentially a youth tournament that occurs in conjunction with the beginning of the Western European football season.

However Barcelona, Schalke, and Werder Bremen lodged a joint complaint to the CAS to prevent their respective under-23 players from appearing at the Games. Regardless of whether or not the Games are perceived to be an officially recognised international tournament, surely it's out of order for clubs to deny their players a probable once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to compete in an Olympic Games? Only an imbecile would not want the opportunity to compete for an Olympic medal?

It's highly likely that Barcelona are now going to demand the immediate return of Leo Messi, who himself has stated that he wants to participate in the tournament, in order for him to appear in Barca's Champions' League Qualifiers. It seems bizarre that clubs so vehemently want to recall their players who are entitled to be aggreived at being denied the opportunity to represent their country. Surely allowing their players to gain confidence and fitness from participating in an international tournament is more important than risking having a player at odds with the management for denying him an opportunity to play in a massive international competition?

Obviously clubs don't want their players to get injured on international duty but no club would dare attempt to remove a player from a European or World Cup squad, regardless of their fitness concerns. Of course, those competitions don't usually disrupt major European schedules, but the Olympics are hardly eating into a big chunk of the season. They're barely disruptive to the domestic calender. And Barcelona, Werder, and Schalke are large clubs who should surely be able to compete without one of their players for two and a half weeks at most? And as soon as the players return, which for some will be very soon if their sides don't progress, they'll be able to blend straight back into first team football as the Games will supplement their pre-season training. Hopefully players will reject their clubs' demands and remain in Beijing if they wish to. There's been a lot of talk about player power recently but here's one instance where most people will gladly side with the individual over the club.

Here's hoping that Messi and company get to stay in Beijing, less for the defiance of the European clubs, and more for the entertainment they'll provide by being there. Under-23 football beats pre-season friendlies, European club qualifiers and Bryan Swanson's shit-eating grin any day.

Jamie's 'top, top' testicles

Aside from being 'literally' the worst pundit in football, why does Jamie Redknapp persist in wearing those super-tight trousers that make his genitals bulge towards the camera? At least he's consistent mind, his incomprehensibly mangled manbits perfectly complement his mental capacities. I mean, I don't want to appear like a condescending cunt (I'm more of a sanctimonious shitface) but why are so many pundits allowed to get away with such basic manglements of the English language? I know that most professional footballers ended their education before they could take their GCSEs but surely producers should be stepping in every now and then to tell Jamie, Alan and co that they're talking absolute shit?

Back to the super-tight trousers , I've noticed that other 'top, top' pundits are similarly afflicted, perhaps pundits' packed pants play a large part in their proficiency in talking absolute bollocks by draining fluid away from their brains. Maybe there should be a pundit moratorium to see if this is a genuine problem? Or perhaps my noticing this phallic phenomena says more about me than anyone else.

Bryan Swanson - Fresh off the Sky Sports News production line of turd

Has anyone noticed the peculiar looking Bryan Swanson popping up on Sky Sports News discussing the latest transfer deals? There's a sinister quality about him, as though he was borne out of a Sky Sports News machine. He didn't come out of the womb covered in feces and blood like the rest of us, he thrust out of the creature that bore him with microphone in hand gabbing shit about contract extensions. With his permanent grin and endless cliched transfer garble, he's like a wind up doll spitting out packaged piffle. He even looks like Buzz Lightyear.

Is this a sign of things to come? Is there a production line of these monsters waiting to pounce on our idiotboxes? Is the mindless, fixed-grin, dour, fucking thick Alan Shearer one of them already?