Here, I will try to present an interesting overview of the playing staff of The Arsenal.
Big Phil (Scolari) back in his Brazil days (and even in present times) is a controversial guy…he courts it for a living. One of the interesting things I have heard from him though is his “classification system” of footballers which he introduced when he coached Brazil.It has been much debated in that country…and a lot of sites exist(ed) which ridiculed it then, mainly because it was developed for him by astrologers, pschologists, etc!. This was before he won the world cup for them ofcourse! Now, I absolutely don’t believe in astrology or anything of the sort…but it is an interesting and quite sensible classification system.
Those of you who understand Portuguese might still find some active links.
His classification system goes like this:
- There are 3 types of “successful” players. This classification really has not much to do with inherent playing skill. It is innate.
- If a player doesn’t belong to one of these types then he is “unsuccessful” no matter how well-skilled.
The 3 types are:
1) Leader: You know all the qualities of a leader. Steely inside. When he is on the pitch unnecessary things don’t go wrong. They would think nothing of getting a red card for the team or going back in bloodied onto the pitch. It involves a GREAT deal of sacrifice. It is mostly an innate quality. The way a pack of wolves know who the alpha-male is without actually fighting. It comes naturally though in some cases it can be learned. From this, I would name the following as “leaders”: Keane, Vieira, Shearer, Rivaldo, Effenberg, Terry, Makelele, etc.
2) Consistent: A high and consistent performance week in week out (on average and baring injury problems). Very hardworking type and rather quiet by nature. Scolari thinks that in some rare cases “consistent” can be “upgraded” to “leader”. There are quite a number of players that fall in this category.
3) Creative: Show-off type. They enjoy flashy moves by nature. They “enjoy” their football and it is an innate quality. These types depend a bit on form. When they are on song they can win very tight games for you. But these types in Big Phil’s view get you into the problems in the first place…and they are the most likely culprits for dropped points in “cake-walk” matches.
4) Anybody who doesn’t fall into any of these is an “Unsuccessfull type”. He also puts players who spoil team-spirit into this category! (eg. Anelka, etc 
)
His idea is that most players probably have a bit of all three character traits BUT one trait is always dominant.
I am guessing that this ranking is a bit relative…as an “unsuccessful” Cygan at Arsenal will probably be a “Leader” at Nottingham and a “GOD” at Oxford!!!
Now: The purpose of this classification is to have as many “leaders” and “consistents” in the team as possible and just a few sprinklings of “creative”. He says the ideal is a 4-5-2 (L-Co-Cr).
The leaders always down the middle. They MUST form the spine of a successful team. The goalie, one defender, one CM, one ST. Any more is great though not necessary. A “consistent” should always partner down the middle. One defender, one CM. The second striker if any can be creative or consistent. “Creatives” should always be moved to the wings. There they cause more damage to the opposition and less to their own team !
And this my friends was how he chose his Brazil teams. And a lot of players who would have otherwise been selected never even got a whiff…(Romario didn’t go probably because of the “team-spirit” reason). He however had a problem, as the best available goalie at the time (Marcos) was classified a “consistent” by his advisers. This is forbidden in the rules. The goalie must be a “leader” so his advisers (or rather astrologers) had numerous hours of talks and retreats with him to convert him!!! Hilarious I know!
Now, lets make this interesting and try to classify Arsenal players by this system. Note to be a winning team we need a 4-5-2. Also we will use a career-average ranking not just last season and only cummulative at Arsenal. For this I will only use players who have played first team for at least one season.
Most have more than one of these qualities but I chose the most prominent.
Lehmann: Leader
Almunia: Unsuccessful
Kolo: Consistent
Campbell: Leader (yes! on average he was a leader)
Cole: Consistent
Eboue: Creative
Hleb: Creative
Reyes: Creative (some will say “unsuccessful”)
Freddie: Consistent
Gilberto: Consistent
Cesc: Creative
Henry: Creative
Flamini: ???
Senderos: Leader
RvP: Creative
Clichy: Creative
Lauren: Consistent
Cygan: UNSUCCESSFUL
Ade, Walcott, Djorou, Diaby, Rosicky etc. can’t be measured before a full season is up.
So in my view, we have 2 leaders, 5 consistents, and a SURPLUS of creative…SEVEN !!! A team with this balance can’t win the league…we might have a chance in cups though.
We need three more leader types. One CD to partner Kolo IF we sell Sol, one CM to partner Gilberto and one to partner Henry. Luckily Henry has taken a crash course called “Leadership 101″ due to severe circumstances and he is learning quite fast! If he (like Marcos in 2002) takes his leadership to a new level, then we fans will have a lot to rejoice about next season.
Now lets discuss !!
37 Responses to “The Leaders, The Consistent and the Creative”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
June 1st, 2006 at 12:06 pm
Except to be even a remotely workable theory you would have to expand your control group from just Big Phil’s Brazil team that won.
With the plethora of league titles, cup titles around the globe every year, I’m willing to bet that you can find a myriad of winning systems & formulas that agree with Big Phil’s theory but at the same time you could find just as many theories that work that disagree with Big Phil’s theory.
Like most theories, especially when it comes to the social sciences (sociology, psychology, anthropology, etc.), you can find that the theory will work in one case but not work in another (if that were the case, in sociology terms all ‘poor’ people would become criminals, would have low education, etc.) & even when it does “work,” it won’t necessarily work all the times it is applied. I.e. Wenger’s formula obviously worked in 98, 02 & 04 but didn’t work in other years. Does the theory change each year or do you stick to the same formula every year?
Big Phil didn’t do anything new. The 49ers of the NFL since the early 80s gave IQ, personality & pscychology tests to potential draftees. For years their draft methods were scrutinized for passing “obvious” talents & taking “risks” on players with less talent but better team mentality, higher work ethic, more potential for improvement, etc.
In sports, the trick is always finding the right balance between talent, work ethic, commitment, determination, drive, etc. In other words, many intangibles for a winning team are needed that can’t be properly quantified & even change from year to year within players b/c of influences, circumstances & pressures both from within & without a person, team, club, etc.
HR depts. use these similar types of classification tests all the time. They work for the most part but b/c they deal with humans it doesn’t mean they are 100% accurate & even within certain “types” of people, the individual makeup of a person can not be truly quantified & can vary from setting to setting & may change over time.
Just like anything else some people are born with certain innate skills, some are able to develop them over time, some will never develop them no matter how hard they try.
June 1st, 2006 at 12:07 pm
That’s me above, damn, auto signout got me
June 1st, 2006 at 12:42 pm
Dude, the discussion is not really about the merits or otherwise of this philosophy……becos there is no such thing as the ONE truth in these kind of things…….
if we are going to be discussing ALL the different philosophies available would we really have time to do anything else?
i just thought it would be interesting to discuss ONE philosophy that has seemed to work before and compare and analyse the arsenal team by it…in a case study kind of way.
besides, the site is becoming a bit more boring with less and less comments…..maybe cos of the WC.
June 1st, 2006 at 12:54 pm
This is actually pretty interesting. And as you said, not much else to talk about anyway. A couple of comments:
- I would put Kolo in the ‘leader’ category - he’s the boss of our defense at this point
- Clichy probably would fit the ‘consistent’ label
- I think we saw enough of Ade to say ‘creative’ (he sure as heck is not ‘consistent!’)
- Henry is a ‘creative leader’ if such a thing exists. His leadership skills came on in leaps and bounds this year.
Not sure how that all impacts your theory and overall balance. I do think a solid, physical, not spectacular, CM is what we need for the day in day out of the premiership - maybe a ‘consistent leader?’ Vieira?
June 1st, 2006 at 1:52 pm
I’m glad your laughing Fred because this type of stuff makes me cry.
For me it’s about the person who doesn’t fit into the system, i.e. like a F. Kafka. As they don’t fit they’re marginalized or worse, as in Kafka’s case. Who gives a “tinkers damn” what they’re classified, there is no person who’s going to argue that Kafka contributed to culture in the west no matter his classification.
Big Phil (Scolari) might be a football manager genius but his system if for fools and ignores realities like team chemistry etc.
Why trust what the stars say when you can ask the maker of Heaven and Earth for his/her input.
June 1st, 2006 at 1:54 pm
correction: …argue that Kafka has not contributed…
June 1st, 2006 at 3:52 pm
Firstly, I think it is important to separate the sensible (understanding the psychology of players and their motivations) from the mumbo-jumbo (their star signs) in this system. Of course managers need to understand their players and how they will fit into the team and the system they want to play. That’s just common sense.
Secondly, the really interesting trend in sport is the “moneyball’ trend, whereby managers examine the statistics of what players actually do on the pitch, rather than on their potential and other intangibles. The Sabremetrics people in Baseball have hit on some interesting methodologies for rating and selecting players. I don’t know how much stats like Opta’s are used to do the same in football, but the idea must be transferable to football.
As an example, Danny Finkelstein has a fascinating column in the London Times on Saturdays (The Fink Tank) which uses statistical analysis to knock down conventional wisdom in football. For instance, he recommended dropping Rooney for Darren Bent for England’s world cup team on the basis that Rooney does not add value to the teams he plays on, even though he is indiviudally gifted. Does anyone know of any managers who use stats to buy players and select their football teams in this way?
June 1st, 2006 at 4:34 pm
Arsenal are in some SERIOUS trouble for shady dealings and potentially staking BEVEREN 1 Million GBP… whom we got Eboue from.
We could be seriously penalized and possibly thrown out of the Champion’s League for this very serious offense, if found guilty.
This is NOT good news my friends.
Its on BBC. They are pretty damned reputable.
June 1st, 2006 at 4:52 pm
I’m sure most if not all of them use statistical measures to some degree or another, and I know that Arsene Wenger loves stats! When we were stuggling in November/December and people were saying we were too soft in the center of midfield he told people to look at the stats, which told him that that was not where we were losing games. I’m not sure how that can be considering Gilberto gave the ball away every time he touched, but then again, he didn’t touch it very often.
I also believe that his faith in some of these statistical models convinced him to let Viera leave because he was winning fewer tackles and completing fewer passes than in years past. Conversely, I think it is also an argument he has used to defend Cygan, so what does that tell you?
As for Rooney, I’m not sure exactly what stats you look at that tell you how a player “adds value” to the team, but in terms of his individual measures there was an article earlier this year (I think pointed out by ScottyUS, maybe he can confirm) that talked about how his stats were off the charts. It said that he ran more and harder and completed more passes than almost anyone in the Premier League - the Troll.
Personally, I think statistical measures are probably a valid tool that have some role to play so long as the right questions are asked and the results are kept in perspective.
June 1st, 2006 at 4:59 pm
At first glance, it sounds kind of silly on the part of AFC. It seems like there had to have been a more transparent way of helping Beveren out with their financial problems. Lets hope our response proves that the Club did everything on the up and up.
June 1st, 2006 at 5:17 pm
This is all seems a bit obvious to me. You don’t need to be Phil Scholari to understand the principle of having leaders in the team or understanding the necessity of getting the right balance of players.
The trick is actually getting players of that calibre to your club, there’s not so many around at the top level.
And I wouldn’t put Rivaldo down as a leader, great goalscorer but this is the player who humiliated himself in front of the whole world when he went down like a **AYE CARUMBA**(censored) at the World Cup from that corner. Can’t imagine Vieira, Shearer or Keane doing that - his career never recovered.
Besides, Arsenal got to the Champions League final without any leaders - unless you’re calling Henry, a player that gives his own team mates dirty looks whenever they misplace a pass - a leader?
June 1st, 2006 at 6:50 pm
I was thinking about the idea of VORP in particular. in baseball that is Value Over Replacement Player and looks at the runs/wins added to a team by a member copared with the average player in the MLB in the same position. In football, you can do a similar calculation and that is what Finkelstein did (see below)…
From May 6, 2006
“Dr Ian Graham, Dr Henry Stott and Sasha Antonyuk took every on-field action of every player and used a multivariate Poisson log-normal model (naturally) to work out the correlations between all of the different actions. They then ran a simulation of an entire league season both with each player and without them.
The work allows Fink Tank to calculate the points added (or subtracted) by a player?s actions during the year compared with an average player in the same position. The results were adjusted for the amount of time spent on the field. The ability to retain your place in the side and stay free of injury is part of what makes someone Player of the Year.
So, on to the results. The graphic gives our top 16 players, although we?re not suggesting that they should be played together in that formation.
The Fink Tank Player of the Year is . . . Jens Lehmann. Compared with the average goalkeeper, we believe that he added 15.36 points this season.
The appearance of Thierry Henry (second place, adds 12.36 compared with the average forward), Frank Lampard (third, 12.11) and John Terry (fifth, 11.05) is unsurprising. Cristiano Ronaldo (fourth, 11.78) is Manchester United?s best player, while Steven Gerrard?s position (sixth, 10.78) is fascinating. Last season, controversially, we ranked him 289th. We feared that this reflected a failure in our methods and that we were not picking up his contribution properly. Well, we used the same method this year. So last year he was just plain bad.
Now for some good news for England. Darren Bent (ninth, 10.07) is a more useful team player than Wayne Rooney (31st, 4.75). So is Jermain Defoe (30th, 4.8), but definitely not Peter Crouch (386th, -1.0).
Surprising? Well, this isn?t the first piece of Fink Tank research to question Rooney?s value. Work on Everton showed they did better without him. Undoubtedly an individual star, it may be that what he does doesn?t help the team as much as you would think.
See http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7973-2167316,00.html
From Nov 20, 2004:
“When Everton had Rooney in the side they were much less effective at nicking the points than when they did not. In the games since the start of the 2002-03 season that Rooney started, Everton scored an average 1.21 goals and conceded 1.21 goals. You would expect them to pick up an average 1.35 points per game. They picked up only an average of 1.06 points.
Now look at the games he did not start. Everton scored an average 1.22 goals and conceded 1.05 goals. You would expect an average 1.45 points per game, instead it was 1.78 points per game. It?s official. Everton are better off, far better off, without Wayne Rooney.”
See http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7973-1366106,00.html
June 1st, 2006 at 6:51 pm
Now that your brought Kafka up, I had to get my two canadian cents in
In his job, Kafka was a workhorse. Put his head down and worked. In Soccer too, there are some players who are classified as work horses. Flamini is one of them. Sometimes these players are labelled as gritty, hardworking, etc…
Kafka turned his mundane stuff into creative work (mind you reading it is takes a lot of effort)..But when he writing his stuff, he treated it like work as well, meaning wrote a little everyday. So it was a chore (as art sometimes becomes). But he is evaluated as creative despite all the non-creative work that went in the creation of his work. Hmm, wonder if the same applies for this game as well.
Now I am starting to babble
June 1st, 2006 at 6:59 pm
Would the workhorse player be classified as consistent? Flamini would fit that bill. A player who puts his head down and works himself into the ground. No creativity, no leadership really but you can expect this player will run his socks off.
Gattuso in AC Milan is another example.
Some teams do need this workhorse player who does not do any fancy tricks, does the dirty work that other overpaid players don’t want to do. Tackle, foul, do whatever to get the ball to the creative players or consistent players.
But then again, such players won’t find themselves part of Brazil’s plan. Everyone who plays for the Brazilian team is expected to be beautiful football. Gilberto I think sometimes acts like a workhorse and his consistency is in doubt…sometimes. At times, he is amazing.
But one fact is very few players do get elevated to the Leader status. And yes, too many leaders on a team can’t work, and neither can too many creative players. Like the saying goes ‘too many cooks in a kitchen’. In a kitchen assembly line, everyone can’t be a creative show off. You need helpers who chop and dice the vegetables for the creative chef to use those ingredients in the master dish.
Same goes for football, I guess
Good post Fred. Like I believe, 11 Henry’s on a team will not make Arsenal the best team.
June 1st, 2006 at 8:10 pm
It is a very interesting theory Fred! But it kinda remind me of playing the FOOTBALL MANAGER, if u add a group of players who’s overall attritube is greater than the opponents, normally u would win.
In reality though, football is a sports really reminds me of LIFE itself. So many intangible factor, the X-FACTOR.
For instance, if we have a team with everyone of the players fill into the above 3 categories u mentioned, in a Cup final, Champions League for instance, 18 minutes into the game, our ‘keeper got sent off, then the whole theory broke down, it’s over.
Or… say, if we have a perfect balance of the players who falled into the above 3 categories, yet there is a team in our league bought themselves a double amount of talent who also falled into the above categories, then we still won’t be able to win the league.
Our 1989 winning season also broke the theory. That was a side probably with ZERO creative, yet still managed to beat a Liverpool side probably got a perfect balance of the above 3 categories.
I think football basically is a TEAM game. The CHEMISTRY of the team, and the SPIRIT of it is equally important. A side can have a perfect balance of leaders, consistent, creative players, yet as a SUM, they don’t play for each other which is also useless.
June 1st, 2006 at 8:15 pm
Very well said! Agree with u 100%!
June 1st, 2006 at 8:17 pm
Look at Chelsea, a team full of leaders, Makelele, Cech, Terry, Gallas, Essien AND flair - yet they couldn’t beat Barcelona. In the end they resulted to digging up their pitch, “doing” Messi and thumping long balls to Drogba all day.
Arsenal, a team with no leaders, were 10 minutes from beating them in the Champions League final - with 10 men.
June 1st, 2006 at 9:36 pm
Your spot on about the 1% inspiration 99% perspiration. That’s the beauty of desire it gives you the ability to endure the 99%. I guess that’s why I think of the God of Love as a creator… 6 days work and one day rest… I’m not getting up on a soap box am I?
June 1st, 2006 at 9:42 pm
My mouth went agast when I heard him report it on BBC-TV World.
June 1st, 2006 at 9:46 pm
How does a mouth go agast?
I guess it makes more sense to say agast than aghast which is a sentiment
Damn sometimes I write some weird (rhymes with tit). It’s the herb speaking!
June 1st, 2006 at 10:36 pm
Hmmmm….
Let’s wait and see….not that we have much option!!
This strategic relationship stuff has been gathering steam for some time and most big clubs are involved with smaller clubs. In our ‘defined world’ it’s probably ripe for some type of oversight and guidelines to be drawn up that seek to ensure it is not abused.
Remember we’re in liti-zone’ currently - spawned with the drama going on in Italy. In liti-zone everyone is nervy and want to be seen to be ‘investigating’ arrangements. Anything becomes fair game for review and litigation.
FIFA will (should) be aware that Arsenal generally do do the right thing and they will want to avoid poking their finger into the proverbial hornets nest of legal action.
This may be a catalyst for FIFA to bring some rules, structure and transparency to such arrangements. I will be surprised if any ‘action’ is taken against Arsenal.
June 2nd, 2006 at 12:03 am
I hope your right Kiwi.
I’m not really fully aware of the investigation yet. I don’t much care that Beveren brought Africans to play in Europe though - since when was that a crime.
June 2nd, 2006 at 12:04 am
Yes they where and I couldn’t have put it better DannyT, thanks.
June 2nd, 2006 at 12:07 am
11 Henry’s on a team - now there’s a thought!
Best defense is a 11 squad of Henry clones. All you have to do is line 5 of them up in a line in front of the goal mouth and the other six could — yes, probably loose.
June 2nd, 2006 at 2:00 am
Interesting article and even more interesting comments. Here are my thoughts.
I fully agree that the spine of the team needs to be strong. Earlier we had Seaman, Adams, Vieira and Bergkamp. Later we had Lehmann, Campbell, Vieira and Henry. Now we only have Lehmann and Henry. Campbell is no longer a leader and Gilberto never was. Toure is very strong, but he is not a leader, yet.
As for reaching the CL final without leaders, it’s quite simple. The CL is all about doing well in 7 knockout games after the group stages. A little bit of luck is involved and anything can happen (as we have seen in the past three years). Winning the league is about 38 games. Consistency plays a lot more part than luck. For that, we need leaders and consistent performers. Leaders, who can pull the team when we are down at Bolton or Blackburn. Consistent performers to win on any day even against the likes of West Brom and Boro.
Chelsea have them. Yes, they bought them, but they have it. We don’t. Can you see us winning the league with this team? It’s difficult. We could very well be on track for 2009, when a lot of the current team will mature into leaders or consistent performers. Senderos may become like Adams and Diaby could definitely be the next Vieira.
What worries me a lot is central midfield. That’s one area where champion teams always have strong players. Look at Chelsea, they had Makelele and Lampard and now have Ballack. If ManU had a better midfield, they could have possibly challenged Chelsea this season. We are extremely weak in this area. Diaby showed great promise but unfortunately got injured.
I really do hope Wenger is working on solving that problem
June 2nd, 2006 at 2:25 am
There is a huge question of ethics here.
Damn the ghost of George Graham is still haunting Arsenal and this is not good. I knew it was coming but not this serious. You can’t blame Arsenal for something most clubs are doing.
As I said sometime back in September- the slave trade of footballers from Africa have to stop and regardless of my loved for Arsenal some of the questions need to be answered soon. For every 100 African kids that end up in Europe only 5 will make it and for a second guess where the rest end up?
Like the GG saga I really hope the club act fast but this does not sound good. I can?t believe David Mellor of all guys defending Arsenal. That says a lot about the state of football.
June 2nd, 2006 at 4:32 am
Speaking of theories and philosophies, I have read a lot about Wenger being totally mad about Prozone stats. Maybe it is because of this that players like Reyes and Flamini (who put in a lot of effort and cover a lot of miles) are liked a lot by Wenger. But it doesn’t explain RvP, who hardly puts in any work rate.
June 2nd, 2006 at 6:06 am
Big Phil put Rivaldo as a “leader” and he built his entire attack around him.
Ronaldinho then was the junior creative partner while both were to support Ronaldo to score.
Their attack was built around him and he was the leader for that team.
And not only for Brazil, for Barcelona as well…..in those days he was single handedly holding them up.
besides ALL leaders have some weird flaws.
Rivaldo is a diver/player actor, Vieira has been known to dive without contact and has a fieiry temper, Keane has an even more fiery temper and has been known to break peoples legs on PURPOSE! (ie. that man city player), Effenberg was extremely arrogant and controversial and he insulted sick people, Shearer is a renowned elbow-er … infact every leader type player i know has some really weird or some times nasty traits….that doesnt detract from their qualities on the pitch though.
June 2nd, 2006 at 6:15 am
also u said that we got to the CL final without so many leaders…but u see we did NOT win it !! and in a cup there is basically little difference in going out in the quaterfinal or losing in the final…..you are not remembered. winning is the most important thing in a cup. i dare say if we had a roy keane type or even our very own Vieira there…the outcome could have been different.
and no i dont think Henry is a leader …. yet!
but i consider senderos and lehmann (and maybe kolo too) leaders and they played a large part in us getting to the final. So it wasnt like we had nobody at all.
we need a vieira type next season….hell, lets just get vieira back !
June 2nd, 2006 at 7:00 am
when we got our keeper sent off……that is when the ‘leaders’ we have in our team count…….i tell u that if we had a keane type guy in the middle we won’t have lost that match.
having the right balance of the 3 categories just means that now u can honestly look at yourself and say u want to contest for the league. if another team or other teams also have the same balance….then the team with the most talent and consistency wins.
our team in 1989 had a LOT of LEADERS !!! And that is why we were close to them on that final day. Creative players dont win u the league, its the leaders and the consistent players that do.
yep, you are right, those that don’t fit or disrupt team spirit are called “unsuccessfull” types and according to Big Phil they should always be discarded
June 2nd, 2006 at 7:04 am
what you said is true……but the CL is a CUP……the strongest teams don’t have to win it…..its a bit like the FA cup in many ways….a Doncaster can take out an Arsenal on a good day for them.
Where as in a league the best/strongest team WILL always win that season.
And in the end there is really no difference between us and chelsea……apart from the extra money we got….the aim of a cup as wenger said is to win it…..it makes no difference if u lose in the final or go out in the group stage.
June 2nd, 2006 at 7:22 am
also note that barca also have their own fair share of leaders and consistent players…..so in such a deadlock situation….i guess it will boil down to the creative players on offer………chelsea had robben and joe cole, barca had messi, ronaldinho and eto……….end of story!
besides who know what would have happened 11 vs 11.
June 2nd, 2006 at 7:24 am
so, i don’t think its possible for a team to win a LEAGUE without this balance……..u look at the winnerrs of all the leagues, and u all see they have the balance. we also did when we won the league
June 2nd, 2006 at 7:42 am
LoveG, i do not agree when u call it “slave trade”. By contrast, i think it offers an opportunity for many African young players to look for a better living in Europe by playing football.
When u mentioned out of 100 of them, probably only one or two made it. But i guess what u meant is made it the BIG TIME. By playing in the bigger clubs. The rest, just because we didn’t hear of them doesn’t mean they disappear in the air. They would probably go on to play in the lower leagues of some smaller countries maybe. From what i known even in England, in the lower divisions there are quite a few African native players playing there.
Either way, they would probably make a better living than in Africa.
Another thing is i firmly believe African football is the future of the game. There are a lot of raw talents there blessed with a tremendous physical gift. All they needed is a better training facilities and coaching. They probably don’t get it from staying in Africa.
If u look at the Africa football now than 20 years ago, what a hugh leap forward! Back then i remember when Cameron beat Argentina it shocked the world, but would u be suprised if an Africa side beat Argentina or Brazil today? I have no doubt in my mind sooner or later there will be an Africa team winning the World Cup.
June 2nd, 2006 at 8:11 am
Wenger has said on Arsenal.com that Rosicky is a direct replacement for Pires, but one whose best years are ahead of him. This leaves our central midfield (the area where leadership and consistency are most important) really weak. Relying on Gilberto + Fabregas with Flamini as backup is not going to work.
June 2nd, 2006 at 12:11 pm
Thanks for the links. This is interesting stuff and would make for a good post on ArseAm at some point. I only wish there was a way we could look more into the details of how these scores are calculated. Then we could get a better look at what it is really telling us.
June 2nd, 2006 at 12:32 pm
It is an exploitative situation though Andez.
How many Africans are making a better living by playing football in Europe? All in all, let’s say for the sake of argument, 500.
These 500 players are paid extremely well compared to what they would receive in Africa, that is unarguable. But where does this money go when they receive it? It is most often re-spent in Europe, strengthening the European but not the African economy.
Furthermore, these world class African players strengthen European leagues, not African ones. Because of this more media spotlight is put on European teams - Arsenal, Real Madrid, Milan, etc. More media spotlight means more money for the clubs, both through more TV revenue and through more fans around the globe following these glamourous teams. African clubs cannot hold on to their best players because they can’t afford to pay them, and the reason why they can’t afford to pay them is because European teams have fashioned their brands to be more attractive to the average punter on the street. This cycle is continually repeated, causing talent to flow from the poorer areas of the world to the richest - Europe.