The Importance of Sport (NEW CONCEPTS)

[Mick Harper]

So, back to POOFTA vs HOOPLA. These are the factors dictating the length of time when 'playing out time' applies:

1. The obduracy of your defence
Arsenal can afford to adopt HOOPLA if they go up in the first minute, they have one of the best defences in the world. England had a scratch ever-changing back four.

2. The nature of the opposing attack
If it's average, goals will always be at a premium so a full half-hour of HOOPLA might be safe enough. Argentina had a stellar attack only kept at bay hitherto by England retaining possession for long periods (via POOFTA) and energetically competing for the ball everywhere.

3. The capabilities of your upfield players
If they can make use of HOOPLA balls then the time can be increased. There were no upfield England players in the last half-hour of the Argentine game, everyone was manning the low block.

4. The ability to retain possession
England had shown they could do that at 0-0 by playing POOFTA. They panicked when Argentina started pressing at 0-1 and adopted HOOPLA.

5. The importance of the equalising goal
If it's an away tie in a two-legged match, there is no great consequence if HOOPLA fails. In a one-off semi-final in the World Cup, it's another four years of hurt.

[Mick Harper]

My favourite (American) mordant football critic, Zealandism, pointed out something we English don't always appreciate. The Argentines play for their country with a grimness, a verve and a unity of team spirit they don't always exhibit when turning out for their (European) club sides. Think Christian Romero at Tottenham.

It's more the other way about with our lads.

[Mick Harper]

I wonder how we shall fare when Djed Spence succeeds Andy Burnham.

And what about that name? He will be our first PM called Spence. Though we did have a Spencer Percival.

[Grant]

But who to blame for the failure? Here's my theory:

In 2020 we played Italy in the Euro final at home. We scored a goal in the first few minutes. Then we spent the next hour or so sitting back daring Italy to equalise. Of course, they did, and we lost. We later discovered that Italy were shite and failed to qualify for the next two world cups.

Yesterday, we played Argentina in the WC semi-final. We scored a goal after 50 odd minutes and then immediately sat back daring Argentina to score. They did, and we lost. Commentators are telling us how wonderful the Argies are with their aging dwarf in charge. Spain will test that concept.

Now, how many players started both games? Pickford, Stones, Rice and Kane.

My money is on Pickford and Kane as the guilty men. Pickford depresses the defenders by constantly shouting at them. Kane retreats to a defensive role as soon as the pressure is on.

This might be just personal prejudice on my part

[Mick Harper]

I have been watching Arsenal do the same for many years. However Arsenal and England are the only teams I watch sufficiently to be able to draw safe conclusions so it might be a wider, even a general, phenomenon.

You are correct in identifying the goalkeeper as culprit-in-chief, though not Pickford in particular or for the reason stated. At every stage in every game goalkeepers frequently have 'uncontested possession' viz

* ball in hand
* ball at feet
* taking a goal kick

On each occasion he has an unavoidable choice, viz

* play it out
* hoof it up

The choice he takes essentially commits the team to either a game of extensive possession or a game with a siege mentality. Only the goalkeeper has this power but I don't know to what extent his choice is affected by instructions from the manager or by the actions of his fellow players. All I can say re England vs Argentina is

* Pickford mostly played it out for the first sixty minutes
* Pickford invariably hoofed it for the last thirty minutes

It is true that, being one-down, Argentina switched from relative passivity to a full press but since this is likely to be the case for any side going down by a goal with relatively little time left, Pickford/ England/ Tuchel should have had a strategy prepared for it. Maybe they did and maybe this was it.

[Mick Harper]

But to get to the root cause of Arsenal/England Syndrome, we have to consider the psychology of going ahead in a sport where that is normally decisive to the ultimate outcome. There would seem to be two competing frames-of-mind:

(1) We have gone ahead. That would seem to suggest we have adopted the correct strategy and should therefore continue to play the way that has led to this.

(2) We have gone ahead. There is little to be gained by going further ahead but there is a great deal to lose if the other side equalise so we should change our strategy.

It cannot be said that either policy is wrong in itself. It is, as AE ordains, a matter of horses-for-courses. However it is definitely wrong, as AE warns, to have an a priori commitment to either (1) or (2).

[Mick Harper]

The Open has started. Did you know the world's Top Ten golfers consists of six Yanks and four Brits? It's just like soccer: the wider the game spreads, the more entrenched are the Old Guard.

Though I had to smile at the BBC commentator's description of the Open as the greatest golf tournament in the world. She meant 'oldest'.

PS Wimbledon is, apparently, having something of a renaissance among their 'Four Majors'. It probably can now be described as the best tennis tournament in the world.