rational geekery

During this World Cup I've been banging on and on about 4-2-3-1 being the most effective formation in the modern game. I'm also applying my theory to my Barcelona team on Pro Evolution soccer on the XBOX, with stunning results.

(Ok, it helps that I rock. But by adding Mario Balotelli and Michel Bastos to Barcelona's weaker left-side, I've created a much more balanced and dangerous side.)

Legendary Guardian football poindexter, Jonathan Wilson, has written a brilliant tactical review of the tournament that emphasises the dominance of people playing with two covering defensive midfielders — the 4-2-3-1 and 4-2-1-3 formations. A must read.

Tonight Germany face Uruguay. Uruguay will have Luis Suárez back to partner Forlan up front, and Germany will see the return of many pundit's player of the tournament, the 20 year-old Thomas Müller. Uruguay are cautious and rely heavily on their talented finishers to take their chances. I fancy Germany to win as they're tactically more sophisticated and will be smarting after being taught a lesson by the Spanish. This might shape up to be a really, really good game.

So we're out. Now, with the shitty domestic psychodrama behind us, we can really start enjoying this World Cup.

Yeah, the players seriously under-performed, and it's about time these pretenders were honest about the fact that they're nowhere near as good as they think they are, but the coach has a lot to answer for too.

Like Marcello Lippi, Fabio Capello's compatriot, the England coach has been found out by his lack of tactical versatility. The era of Italian tactical supremacy could well be over.

I said as much on facebook earlier today:

I fear for England. 4-4-2 is too unsophisticated against a decent 4-2-3-1. Hopefully the players are savvy enough to change on the fly. Barry is key, but he's not looked great yet in this tournament. Two up front may mean we lose the battle for the ball in midfield — not to mention our distribution has been shocking up to now. Here's hoping I'm wrong.

Post game, the always brilliant Zonal Marking sums it up perfectly:

For the past six years, the major talking point regarding the England team has been an inability to get the best out of both Gerrard and Lampard. Both Lampard and Gerrard? Neither are at their best in a 4-4-2. Nor is Rooney, nor is Barry, nor is Carrick, nor is Joe Cole, nor are any of England’s small band of creative players. Even if Capello thought 4-4-2 was best before the tournament, he surely must have seen that it wasn’t working when England limped to draws against the US and Algeria, and a narrow victory over Slovenia.

England did do a few things right today. Going forward they created chances. Had Lampard's goal been given, maybe England wouldn't have been so exposed by the rampaging German counterattacks. At the hour-mark, England were playing like it was the last 5-minutes, and were suitably punished for this naivety.

So what does England do? Prior to the tournament, and following England's tremendous record in qualification, the FA handed Capello a big fat new contract. So it's unlikely the Italian will resign. No doubt he also feels desperately let-down by supposedly world-class players.

I don't think Capello should resign. But I do think he needs to rethink his approach. There is no doubt the Terry/Bridge saga created a rift. And what the fuckity fuck Terry thought he would achieve with his attempted coup, I have no idea. Terry is overrated and his ego is disruptive to the England project. I would dump him. I know Upson's performances today highlighted England's deficiency at centre-half, but still, Terry is more trouble than he's worth. England must be united behind the coach.

Everyone appreciates Barry's contribution in the anchor role, so why not play two people in that role — like Brazil, Argentina and Germany? What is the point of playing two strikers if you constantly lose the ball cheaply in midfield?

A lot to think about, but if Capello leaves, who else is there to choose from? Since Steve McClaren is damaged goods, it's Roy Hodgson or another Johnny Foreigner. May as well stick with Don Fabio, no?

What a dire start to the World Cup?

I understand that it's important to not lose your opening game. But jeesh; this is pants.

I can accept that England is rubbish. I expected as much. We'll qualify out of very poor group. But beyond the second round? It's anyone's guess. I'm surprised at the dour football on display from sometimes exciting teams. If it weren't for the Germans giving Australia an absolute mullering, I might have just given up on the tournament.

Admittedly the Argentinians were good for the money. They dominated Nigeria, and if it wasn't for some brilliant keeping, they'd have scored a bin-lorry load of goals. But the rest? Shite.

Going back to England. The most important player in the modern football team is the anchor. The defensive midfielder that provides cover for marauding full-backs and distributes the ball intelligently. Claude Makélélé is the archetypal anchor. He was immense in empowering the best attacking players in the world to realise their potential. In Essien, Chelsea have as good a replacement as they could hope for - even if Essien is far more attacking in his play.

Without Gareth Barry England were disjointed. And as the midfield swept forward at every opportunity, they both smothered out the threat of Wayne Rooney and exposed the lacklustre centre-back paring of Terry and Carragher.

This is not the fault of Gerard or Lampard. Both are terrific players. But they're both attacking minded players - England needed a Mascherano, a Pirlo or an Alonso. Barry should suffice, but without him England will be home before the quarters.

Jamie Carragher is a good player. He can play all over the pitch, and two or three years ago, would have made the perfect utility player. He's too slow now against snappy forwards. If we face the Ghanians in the second round, he's going to struggle against their raw pace. And the thing is, if Barry suffers another set-back, we might need Carragher further forward.

Football is so popular because most of us have the emotional intelligence to be able to buy in to the spectacle. The utter frivolity of what is at stake is the perfect excuse for a great big global party, in which people of all ages, from all continents and from all religions, can participate. The simplicity of the rules means literally everyone can understand what is going on. Yes, there have been idiots who use football as an excuse for violence… but the game was always the excuse, and not the cause of that particular type of stupidity. These men do not define the sport, and they are a dying breed. In their place steps an ever growing number of sports fans who just want to watch the game with their friends, old and new.

Are we wasting too much media attention on the unfoldings of a meaningless tournament in South Africa? I find it hard to be annoyed. Once every four years, the eyes of all of humanity turn towards the same place. Everyone, whether they like it or not, is distracted by the same thing. It is not religious, it is not violent, and it cannot be bought. Its a delightful phenomenon, one we should cherish.

A great piece by Robert Sharp.

Also, check out Sim-O's brilliant piece.