10 things we learned from Euro 2012

1. Spain WERE boring… until the final

There was much debate in the build-up to the final about whether Spain were boring. On one side were those who argued that playing without a striker meant they lacked penetration. That they were control freaks who were keeping the ball away from the opposition, without actually trying to score. On the other were those who were hypnotised by their endless passing triangles and technical quality. Was their football exciting to real supporters or just to the International Council of Pass Statisticians?

You are feeling sleepy... veeeeery very sleepy

After the final those admirers of Spain’s play felt vindicated and pointed to their demolition of Italy as evidence for the fact they were an adventurous and exciting team. In fact, the opposite is true. The final did indeed show us what this Spanish team were capable of... this wasn’t the Spain the people said were boring.

Yes they started the final without a recognized striker, but this was not the real issue, the use of a 'false 9' has proved successful for other teams. The issue was that they did not show enough attacking intent, preferring to hold possession, rather than pushing players into goal scoring positions and attempting the tricky final pass.

Ok guys, let's keep the ball in here for 90mins

A lot of criticism of Spain because given the wealth of playing resources at their disposal they were surely capable of more. With players like Xavi, Iniesta, Fabregas, Torres, Silva, Pedro, Navas, Llorente and Mata in their squad surely they would produce entertaining attacking football. In fact this 'golden generation' had only scored 10 goals in the 9 knock out games the played during their tournament wins before Sunday’s final. Their conservative team selection and playing style has meant this is a team that was admired by all for their ruthless efficiency, but not universally loved.

It is hard to criticize Del Bosque given winning is the main concern of most supporters. Nevertheless, some more clinical finishing from Croatia and Portugal would have eliminated them from the tournament, after unimpressive performances where their ambition to win was questionable. 

I'm not crying... I just have some hair gel in my eyes

In the final the team sheet was the same but the philosophy was totally different. Maybe the team had listened to the criticism and decided that it was time to show the world what they could do?

Xavi was freed to move higher up the pitch, and the tempo of the passing in midfield was far quicker. Fabregas was making the runs of a striker in behind the Italian defense. Their second goal came from a blistering penetrating run from their left back Jordi Alba. Suddenly instead of being 30 yards from goal and only have having backwards or sideway options, the Spanish players had forward passes available to them. 

This was even more evident with the introduction of Torres and Pedro but it showed that it’s not a formation (in this case 4-6-0) that’s defensive, but the style of play, the attitude and the movement of the players within that system. At half-time in the final Italy had actually enjoyed the majority of the possession, but Spain had two goals. Finally they had found the right balance between possession and penetration.

What's going on, they're actually trying to score?!

Having won the final and won their 3^rd successive tournament the debate has started as to whether this Spain team is the greatest international side ever. While I believe it’s almost impossible to make this cross-era ‘greatest’ deduction in any sport, we can certainly say that winning 3 major tournaments in a row makes Spain worthy of being part of the discussion.

Their most obvious challenger to the title of greatest ever has to be the Brazil teams of 1958-70, which won 3 world cups in 12 years, with extraordinary style and panache. They also and legendary playing squad that included two of the greatest players in the history of the game, Garrincha, considered the best dribbler in history, and Pele, generally considered one of the games best ever players.

I can't believe it, they all think Spain are better than us!

Comparing between eras is almost impossible for many reasons, because of the changes that have occurred in the game. For example, Spain are helped by changes in the laws such as the liberalization of the offside rule and much stronger protection from referees. While Pele was kicked out of the 62 and 66 world cups, Spanish players are very quick to show when they have been fouled, and referees very quick to discipline opposing players.

Don't worry lads, we might be small be we are mighty

We can of course focus on pure achievements and the '58 Brazil team achieved the unique feat of being the only South American team to win a World Cup on European soil. Becoming the first European team to win a World Cup on South American soil in 2014 would go a long way towards achieving parity with that legendary side. If they do it, let’s hope they do it in style.

2. Germany should stick to Blitzkrieg

Despite all the promise and all signs pointing to this being their year, once again Germany came up short. Having won all 10 games in qualifying, all 3 games in the 'group of death' and dominated Greece in the Quarter finals, the signs were good for a first tournament win since Euro ‘96.

Remember the German Kuntz?

Unfortunately for them, when it really mattered, instead of playing to their strengths against Italy in the semis, the Germans adapted their game plan to deal with the opposition threat. To be fair, Joachim Low is very tactically astute manager, and having seen Pirlo dominate against England, it was understandable that he put an extra body in midfield to deal with Italy’s diamond.

Stay close guys, we need to keep it tight

However, by bringing in Tony Kroos for Thomas Muller, and shifting Mesut Ozil to an inside right position, Germany lost their width. And against a diamond midfield, exploiting the spaces available in wide areas is usually key to attacking penetration. 

While Kroos was at least able to maintain position goalside of Pirlo (unlike Rooney in the England-Italy QF), he didn’t get close enough to him. And with Ozil having almost zero defensive mentality Germany’s right flack was open for Chiellini to exploit, which led to Italy’s first goal.

Me defend? Come on seriously?

Germany looked far more fluent, energetic and dynamic in their quarter final against Greece with a front 3 of Reus, Klose and Schurrle. Switching them with Kroos, Gomez and Podolski didn’t really cause Italy any problems. 

After getting dumped out of Euro 2004 without winning a single match, Klinsman and Lowe transformed the German team by introducing their current dynamic attacking style. Klinsman based this tactic shift on the basis that German culture involved being confident, attacking at pace, and looking to overwhelm the opposition with the power and speed of their attacks. 

Sharp dress sense for an attractive playing style

If Lowe had stuck to this approach, things might not have been different for Germany, but at least they would have asked more questions of Italy. A coach can only do so much however, and Lowe could not legislate for Mats Hummel’s only bad 45 mins of the tournament, and Balotelli’s best 45mins of his career.

Seriously, whoever stole my shirt is dead

3. If you're good enough, you're young enough

Theodoros Zagorakis in 2004, Zinedine Zidane in 2006, Diego Forlan in 2010. In Euro 2012 the class act was another golden oldie, Andrea Pirlo.

In a world where managers typically favour powerful destructive players deep in their midfield, Pirlo offered command of the midfield zone through intelligence and technique. The two best passing teams in this tournament made the final, and while Alonso, Busquets, Xavi, Marchisio and De Rossi all played well at various points in the tournament, it was Pirlo who was the most consistently brilliant. He was at the heart of everything good Italy did, orchestrating the play like a classical conductor.

Nice try... see you later lads

There are two ways of minimising the impact of a deep-lying playmaker like Pirlo. Either you ask someone to stay tight to him, like Germany did, or you drop your defense so deep that there is little space for him to play his long passes into, like England did. In the end Germany failed to keep him quiet and England ended up so deep they were rarely able to threaten the Italian goal.

Although imperious in technique Pirlo’s game is naturally distrupted when a high energy player is put in his zone. A perfect example would be Sir Alex Ferguson’s use of Ji-Sung Park again him in Manchester United’s 4-0 victory against Milan in the Champion’s league. Park was always close to Pirlo when Milan were on the ball, but also was able to use his energy to drive past him when United were on the attack, thus exposing Pirlo’s lack of mobility.  

Now this is tight marking

Judging by the first 15 minutes of the England-Italy Quarter Final it seemed Roy Hodgson had tasked this role to Wayne Rooney, with assistance from strike partner Danny Welbeck. It was surprising to see such a lack of defensive discipline from Rooney, given that his willingness to make sacrifices for the team were what made him such a great player, and made the 2006-08 Manchester United team so successful. 

I wish I was on a nice beach somewhere

To a certain extent Rooney was clearly lacking fitness after a grueling pre-tournament holiday to Las Vegas. But also since the departure of Ronaldo to Real Madrid, Rooney has become the ‘main man’ at United. He has shouldered a greater goal scoring burden, but potentially to the detriment of his all round tactical contribution. Is it poor lifestyle choices, is it the lack of Sir Alex’s hairdrier or maybe after a long hard season is it tired legs? Whatever it is, Rooney still hasn’t made his mark on a tournament since Euro 2004, despite England managers regularly building their teams around him.

  

4. Team cohesiveness is as important as individual quality

Both the Italians and the Germans have managed to shed their image of being negative and lacking flair, while still maintaining their organization, efficiency and ruthlessness. The Spanish also showed how important club connections could be in driving a successful international team, in a style familiar to viewers of Spanish football. 

Were the Dutch very Dutch? If you associate Dutch football with the ‘Total Football’ of the 70s, then certainly not. If however you associate them with over inflated egos and a lack team unity then this was certainly typical Holland.

Talk to the hand Bert, this is more like Total Crap

There was much criticism of the Dutch playing style during World Cup 2010, especially after the final, where their primary tactic was to physically unsettle the Spanish. Unless you’re Johan Cruyff, it was difficult to criticize a team that reached the World Cup final. But even in the World Cup they failed to find any true attacking fluidity given the wonderful array of attacking talent at their disposal.

The system their manager Bert van Marwijk preferred was a ‘pure’ 4-2-3-1 rather than the evolved 4-4-1-1 which becomes a 4-2-3-1 as the wingers push on. The idea behind playing 2 very defensively minded central midfielders (Marc van Bommel and Nigel De Jong), is that it allows more attacking freedom to the front four, and strong protection for what is individually a weak defense.

Defensive midfield play the Dutch way

The problem however is that it plays into the mentality of players such as Arjen Robben, who often show little desire to track their opposing full back into the final third. Secondly a purely destructive and cynical central midfield meant their team lacked any cohesiveness, it was almost a back 6 and a front 4. While individual brilliance can sometimes compensate, it often isn’t enough.

As Arrigo Sacchi said, "Today's football is about managing the characteristics of individuals, and that's why you see the proliferation of specialists. The individual has trumped the collective. But it's a sign of weakness. It's reactive, not pro-active."

Yes I'm talking to you Robben, Van der Vaart and Sneijder

Of course Sacchi is a devotee of universality and an heir to the Total Football philosophy believing that if player can operate in multiple positions this increases the effectiveness of the team. 'Attack as a team and defend as a team' is the mantra that, through the influence of Dutch masters at Barcelona, we see in Spain’s play. 

While it is often difficult to convince to today’s star players to sublimate themselves to a team philosophy, van Marwijik clearly decided this would be impossible with characters such as Robben, van der Vaart and Sneijder. Van der Vaart, as in the 2010 World Cup, mostly featured from the bench, and when finally given a start in the final group game against Portugal showed why he couldn’t be trusted positionally in a deep midfield role, leaving Holland lacking defensive shape without the ball. 

A potential solution to the midfield conundrum could have been Kevin Strootman, who is the type of box-to-box player who offers a balance between defense and attack. Unfortunately while Robben kept doing his same trick of running into a crowd and not passing to anyone, and Afellay did… well  nothing, Strootman didn’t get a single minute in the tournament. 

Once again a Dutch team fell short because it wasn’t able to find the cohesiveness to bring out the best from their individual attacking talents… not very Total Football, but still typical Holland.

5. England can be disciplined

Although many lamented England’s inability to maintain possession of the football, and were totally outclassed by Italy in the quarter finals, they at least found some discipline in their game. 

A pleasant surprise was the intelligent and mature performances of Steven Gerrard, who we are more used to tearing around the pitch looking to produce a Roy of the Rovers style moment. Maybe is was the captain’s armband or maybe it was the realisation that 2014 might be his last chance to prove he can play with Frank Lampard.

Finally I get to be captain!

The problem for England was that they were so disciplined that they ended up lacking fluidity in attack. 

There was a lot of criticism directed at Roy Hodgson’s tactics, especially the formation but in reality there was little variety in tactical shape across the tournament. Apart from Italy’s opening game against Spain we didn’t see any 3 man defenses, and Italy provided the only use of a diamond midfield. Otherwise we saw variations on the same theme, i.e. 4-4-2, 4-4-1-1, 4-3-3 and 4-2-3-1. 

While England were strongly critised for playing a 4-4-2, theirs wasn’t a whole world away from the 4-2-3-1 that seems the current fashion in European football. The problem was England rarely played high enough up the pitch, and their transition from defense to attack broke down too early for the wingers to move into advanced positions, or their 2nd striker to link with the midfield and influence the game.

Many in the press lamented England’s inability to produce a player with Pirlo’s qualities and England’s general lack of ability to retain possession. It should be noted however that in Paul Scholes England did have a player of Pirlo’s class but he was never given a prominent position in the England team and retried after Euro 2004. 

Enough said...

Though not in the same class as Pirlo, Michael Carrick is another player who possess a superb range of passing and a very sharp footballing brain. While he doesn’t have the ability to dictate a game’s tempo - in the mould of Pirlo, Scholes or Xavi - international tournaments are typically always played at the moderate tempo that suits Carrick’s passing game. His exclusion was a huge loss for England, especially when Parker and Gerrard clearly struggled to last 90 or 120 mins.

If England are going to do a better job of controlling games and bringing more out of their powerful attacking playings then utilizing players like Carrick and Jack Wilshire will be crucial.

6. A great individual needs a great team

Arguably the strongest player going into this tournament was Cristiano Ronaldo but once again it proved beyond him to lift Portugal to victory. The Portugese defense was excellent through the tournament, their midfield was reliable and focused, especially the highly effective Joao Moutinho. But this wasn’t the Madrid team with whom Ronaldo plundered 60 goals from 55 games, and it showed how important team mates are in making individuals shine.

While Nani was bright on the right wing, Portugal lacked a playmaker in the mould of Mesut Ozil, or a striker of the class or Karim Benzema or Gonzalo Higuain. Even so, while Ronaldo was quiet against Germany and poor very Denmark, he produced a masterful performance against Holland and a wonderful headed goal against the Czechs.

In the same way Messi has as thus far failed to bring his Barcelona form to Argentina, Ronaldo gets a lot of criticism for his international performances. In both cases the criticism is slightly unfair since in both cases the players around them are weaker and their international teams are less cohesive due to lack of time playing together. However, despite falling short of many people’s expectations his majestic performances this year make Ronaldo a deserving candidate for the Ballon D’Or this year.

Oh please not Messi again!

7. BBC’s coverage needs a revamp

This was the first tournament in living memory the BBC’s coverage was probably worse that ITV’s

The thought of having to listen to Hansen go through his usual repetoir of “world class”, “mental strength”, “pass and move”, “into feet” and “mugnificent” during the Premier League season is already filling me with dread.

Shearer was “magnuficent” in his role as the boring man in the pub who generally states the obvious in a very mundane dreary way, and “at the end of day” uses far too many clichés. Dixon is clearly a smart chap but his style means he’s better suited to helping people with insomnia. Martin Keown managed to pull off the impossible by being less insightful than Mark Bright, but they both came a long way short of winning the title for the worst punditry in tournament history. That title has to go to the one and only Mark Lawrenson.

Please someone save me from these morons

‘Lawro’ has clearly lost any passion he ever had for football, or just life in general. He seemed utterly disinterested for most of the tournament, like this was a schoolboy tournament, like he was the greatest footballer of all time and commentating on the Euros was beneath him.

To distract him from his boredom of having to watch and analyse the football he attempted to break the record for the number of sarcastic comments made in a 90-minute period. Maybe I’m being harsh and actually someone has threatened the life of Lawro’s kids if he makes a single positive comment on TV, and if this is the case I’m confident they would have been freed after the tournament.

I could do better than this lot...

While Adrian Chiles seems to be equally disinterested in the actual football, at least he seemed to be genuinely excited at the chance to stoke up a fight between Roy Keane and Patrick Viera. Comments such as "your feelings for Ronaldo are as close as you would ever get to man love, aren’t they Roy?" provided mild amusement, and many of his jokes were so bad that they were actually bizarrely entertaining. Watching Keane try and control himself from laying into Chiles was amusing in itself. 

Seriously Chiles, how did you get this job?

The other ITV pundits were equally refreshing. Carragher was outspoken, although barely comprehendible at times. His regular use of the word ‘caretaker’ in discussing the England captaincy was a highlight of the tournament. Martinez, Viera and Southgate offered insightful views from those at the top end of the game. Of course we still had to put of up Andy Townsend, who insisted on referring to England as “we”… you played 70 times for Ireland Townsend, you are not one of us and never will be.

Unfortunately for ITV viewers generally feel more comfortable in the hands of the public service broadcaster and of course don’t like adverts. For this reason the BBC’s coverage of the final managed to attract 6 times more viewers than ITV.

8. International football still has an important place

While club football clearly dominates and standard between club teams and international teams is growing, an international tournament generates interest like no club competition can. England’s penalty shoot-out against Italy was watched by 23.2 million viewers in England, almost half it’s entire population. No club game can come close to matching that, nor match the solidarity felt within a country in support of their national team.

While clubs and their profiteering owners are happy to undermine international football, it still clearly holds importance with players and supporters alike. Unfortunately for English fans there is no sign of the Premier League making the changes required to help the national team perform, such as reducing the number of teams to 18 or introducing a mid-season break.

9. 16 teams makes for a great tournament

Euro 2016 will be the first tournament to feature 24 teams, so this might be the last great Euros from first game to last. 

Increasing the number of teams makes sense for UEFA’s pockets, since it will mean 20 extra matches at the finals, and a certainty of qualification for the big nations, with their large TV audiences. But quantity in this case certain won’t help with quality. 

I'm not listening to you, I want more games and that's that

The Euros arguably produce a better quality tournament than the World Cup, and one of the key reasons for this is that matches are highly competitive from day one. In this tournament the last day of the group stages was a fascinating battle, often with all four teams in with a chance of qualification. 

If the 2016 format is the same as the 1986-94 World Cups where 16 of the 24 teams qualified for the knockout stages, then with the inclusion of 8 weaker teams, the group stages could simply become a long series of warm-up matches. 

This could also impact the later stages as teams often perform better when challenged early to produce heavyweight performances. Hopefully UEFA can find a solution or Euro 2012 could be the last great tournament.

10. And finally… can we please have some technology!

While it is fair to say the extra officials can only help in the decision making process there were still too many crucial mistakes made in this tournament. 

In a sport where such fine margins decide matches it is frustrating when the officials make mistakes and affect the outcome of matches. It is a positive step that, against Platini’s wishes, FIFA have finally approved goal-line technology for use in top-level matches. 

Hmm let me have another look at that

But goal-line decisions are very rare. We had one big goal-line controversy in this tournament when John Terry cleared Marko Devic’s shot off the line, but it turned out that justice was actually once, since Devic was offside in the build-up. 

The true solution to the problem isn’t the use of complicated hawk-eye systems or magnets in the ball but simply using the existing technology and let the officials have access to the video evidence. While many worry this would break up the flow of the game but football isn’t a non-stop game and the ball is typically only in play for around 60 of the 90 minutes during a match. 

In critical incidents like penalties, red-cards and goal-line decisions, in the time the players are arguing with the referee the viewers at home (and potentially an extra official) often already know what the correct decision should be. 

Video tech has certainly helped the integrity of the result in many other sports and it’s time football followed suit.

We need to talk about Carrick

When the England squad for the Holland match was announced there was much talk about the absence of Frank Lampard, Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain and Rio Ferdinand, plus general confusion at the inclusion of Frasier Campbell over Jermain Defoe, Peter Crouch and Bobby Zamora.

I've heard of Frasier Crane but who is this Campbell guy?

There was even a lot of talk about Paul Scholes being brought back into the mixer for Euros, especially when England manager elect Harry Redknapp suggested it. And this wasn’t just Harry twitching away acquiescing to the common opinion that ‘Scholsey is a twiffik player’, this was a far more direct “You'd love to have Paul Scholes in the Euros... He'd be in your team, he's that good.”

Please someone offer me the England job

It is fair to say Scholes is probably the most talented English midfielder of his generation, and still a master at controlling the tempo of a game with his immaculate close control and one and two-touch passing. However, he hasn’t been the mainstay of Manchester United’s midfield for a long time. That position goes to the widely unheralded Michael Carrick – Carrick has played more games than Scholes in each of the 6 seasons since he joined Manchester United in 2006, averaging over 45 games per season. But amongst all this talk surrounding the England squad, nobody seemed to bat an eyelid at the fact that Carrick once again missed the cut.

If you're good enough you're young enough

Many of you reading this will be thinking "that’s because Carrick isn’t good enough for England". But if this is the case why, with a far wider pool of players to potentially choose from, does Sir Alex Ferguson insist of making him the mainstay of his Manchester United team? Carrick has made over 40 appearances in every season since he signed, winning four Premier League medals and playing in 3 Champions League finals during those 5 seasons. He’s got to be doing something right surely?

The question often asked of Carrick, and even sometimes by Manchester United fans is, “what exactly does he do?” Yes he’s a midfielder, but he’s not a tackler, nor a creator or a goal scorer – all roles that are easy to identify.

Ha ha another trophy and I haven't had to do anything apparently!

The most popular criticism of Carrick is his lack of impact and goals. This is quite unfair given his role in the team and Manchester United style of play. The fact that Carrick doesn’t score many goals or provide many assists is not really important since put simply, it is not his job to do so.

Carrick’s role as a holding midfielder is to break up play when the opposition is in possession and to distribute the ball to more attack minded players. It requires patience, discipline and positional awareness, qualities which are generally underappreciated in the hustle and bustle of Premier League football. 


Additionally he is often accused of making too many sideways passes. This criticism totally ignores the fact the United don’t possess a central advanced playmaker and generally attack focus their attacks through the wings, thus Carrick’s job is often to distribute the ball laterally. And from the deep position he operates in ambitious passes are high risk and can look good without actually being effective, while also often resulting in a turnover of possession. 

Keeping it simple

As Paul Scholes noted about the problems he encountered when playing for England, “You go into the England team and you want to be part of a team that plays well, but there are individuals who are after personal glory. When there is a simple pass of 10 yards, they might try and smack it 80 yards. They will do things to try and get themselves noticed, they get their big move and that is enough for them."

Part of the problem in fully appreciating his contribution is his game consists of performing numerous small tasks, and therefore it’s difficult to notice his impact without concentrating intently on the game. In styles of football where ball retention is considered important, this steady unspectacular player in central midfield who links the defense and attack becomes a crucial figure. Looking at his passing statistics, Carrick has made the 3^rd most passes per game of any Premier League player, behind only Mikel Arteta and Yaya Toure, and this with a pass completion rate of 90.2% (currently 9^th highest in the Premier League).

Best pass completion in the five major leagues? Xavi?
Nope it's Swansea's Leon Britten at 93.3%

Carrick has suffered most from England’s lack of appreciation for possession based midfielders. Spain’s Xabi Alonso’s view on this is unambiguous when reflecting on England's failure at the 2010 World Cup, "England missed a player like Carrick in the midfield, somebody who knows how to be in the right place at the right time... Gerrard gains a lot from having a player like Carrick as a partner, somebody who provides the back-up he needs to be free and bring his power to bear decisively in a game."

If you want to win this then listen to me damn it

As boring and mundane as it seems, like many holding midfielders, Carrick plays a crucial part in making the Manchester United team function properly. As Zinadine Zidane stated about Real Madrid’s decision to sell Claude Makalele to Chelsea and bring in David Beckham that same season, “Why put another layer of gold paint on the Bentley when you are losing the entire engine?”

Don't be silly Claude, of course they'll offer you a new contract...

Once Makalele’s importance was identified and he made a phoenix-like transformation from being one of world football’s most underrated players to one of its most overrated. His legacy was ultimately a new found appreciation of the importance of a good defensive midfielder, but then if this is the case, why isn’t Carrick held in high esteem when playing in this position?

The problem Carrick faces in an English context is that for much of recent football history English teams have been primarily playing a 4-4-2 system where the two midfielders would often consist of one tough-tackling 'destroyer', paired with a more attack minded 'creator'. English supporters are thus used to these two types of central midfielder and the quick direct football that suits this tactical set-up. 


However, with increasing influence of foreign players and managers came an appreciation of a possession based game, and the shift towards playing an extra player in midfield. The destroyer-creator model now had space for an additional ‘passer’, whose primary job is to maintain possession and be the pivot for distribution from a deeper location than the more advanced ‘creator’. We can see in Liverpool’s near title winning midfield of Mascherano (destroyer), Alonso (passer) and Gerrard (creator), or Manchester United’s 2007-08 Champions League winning midfield of Hargreaves (destroyer), Carrick (passer) and Scholes (creator). 

I haven't been the same since you left mate

Unfortunately for Carrick (and Manchester United) severe injury and illness have led to the loss of their two highly influential midfield destroyers, Owen Hargreaves and Darren Fletcher, which has meant Carrick taking on more of the defensive responsibility, and thus carrying the main defensive responsibility in the midfield.

Poor Michael, we've left him to play with Anderson

However, even when playing in this role Carrick has delivered superb performances without gaining very much attention from supporters, including many who frequent Old Trafford. While many can accept his job is to provide simple distribution to his more attacking teammates, they still expect their defensive midfielders to be those tough tackling 'destroyers', in the mould of Makalele or Mascherano. 


While Carrick doesn’t have hard tackling in his game, referees are much stricter on strong challenges, and there has been an increasing numbers of free kicks and yellow cards given for challenges that would have been perfectly acceptable 10 years ago. However, while it often goes unnoticed, Carrick currently ranks equal 10^th for tackles made in the Premier League this season, with 3.1 tackles per game.

Old Skool

Furthermore, the change in attacking tactics, towards short quick passes, means intercepting has become just as important - if not more so - than tackling. It’s not as spectacular or obvious, but intercepting doesn’t risk a booking and if successful gives a higher opportunity to turn over possession and launch a shift counter attack.

The best defensive players are steeped in a tradition that regarded staying in your feet as a virtue and tackling as a necessary last resort. Think of the styles Baresi, Maldini, Nesta, and the reputations of Beckenbauer and Moore. 


As Rio Ferdinand said recently, “Intercepting is far more effective than tackling. It’s not as flashy, so often if goes unnoticed. Michael Carrick hardly ever launches into a slide tackle or gets involved in a physical battle. That lands him some stick. But his stats for interceptions are off the chart.”

Ok I clearly made a typo in the google search...

While not exactly off the chart, Carrick does rank equal 5^th in the Premier League this season for interceptions, with 2.9 per game. And in the Champions League last year he made 48 interceptions, which was equaled only by Schalke’s Benedikt Howedes.

Howedes and Raul celebrate while Vicente Del Bosque watches on

The key to this is of course positioning – knowing where to be and when to be there. This is the key strength of any top quality defensive midfielder, and while Carrick is often accused of an apparent lack of ambition, it would be more appropriately observed that he is never caught too high up the pitch, and is therefore perfectly positioned to break up attacks when required. 

While Anderson and Cleverly provided a very exciting and dynamic combination at the start of the season, United were also very open defensively and allowed more shots on goal than usual. It is no coincidence that Carrick’s return to form has resulted in more defensive stability and helped Manchester United cope with numerous defensive injuries, especially the loss of their talismanic captain Nemanja Vidic.

Ander-son-son-son he's better than Kleberson... but then again who isn't

Of course making the case for Carrick’s place in the England squad based on such arguments leads one to be accused of being a pretentious know-it-all who is over intellectualising a simple game. But I genuinely believe it been a failure of England managers to try and fit as many superstar players into the team without considering a balance that leads to a more effective collective entity. 


A prime example of this collective philosophy can be seen in the two teams that reached the 2010 World Cup final, Spain and Holland. Both played the majority of the tournament with 2 holding midfielders (Alonso and Busquets for Spain, De Jong and van Bommel for Holland), while leaving 2 of the most talented players in world football (Cesc Fabregas and Rafael van der Vaart) on the bench. 


The case for utilizing a double pivot is even stronger when considering that all England’s full backs are strong attacking threats and therefore extra defensive cover in midfield will help mitigate England's vulnerability to counter attacks when their full backs advance.

The only midfield combination in history where van Bommel was the classier player

So while Scott Parker’s form so far this season has made him a shoe-in for a starting position for England’s opening Euro 2012 game, utilizing a second holding player should also be a potential tactic, especially against stronger opposition. However, even when thinking along these lines Fabio Capello favoured the likes of Gareth Barry, Jack Rodwell or even Phil Jones over Carrick. While Rodwell and Jones are certainly players for the future it is the inclusion of Barry over Carrick that remains the most confusing one. 

Hmm if he's so good why does this Busquets guy keep falling over?

Apart from being a so-called teacher’s pet there seems no logical reason for Barry's inclusion over Carrick, as there is no single part of his game that he has the edge of his Manchester rival. Looking at pure stats, in the Premier League this season, Barry has made less tackles per game than Carrick (2.4 vs 3.1), less interceptions per game (2 vs 2.9), has committed twice as many fouls per game (1.4 vs 0.7), has made less passes per game (62.5 vs 69.3) and with a lower pass completion rate (86.4% vs 90.2%). They both have similar physical attributes, and if anything Carrick is stronger technically, with a wider range of passing.

Rugby tackles don't count

Having said all this, it is important to point out that Carrick does have 2 apparent weakness that should be considered. 


Firstly, like many footballers, he is a confidence player, and because of his style of play, when not on song it can look as if the game is passing him by. Sir Alex Ferguson believes he performs better in the second half of the season and his confidence seems to be on a high currently, so this can only be good news for England going into the Euros. 


Secondly, because of his lack of quick feet in possession he performs better in patient tactical encounters, such as Champions League matches, rather than the high tempo blood-and-thunder affairs you can get in many Premiership games, especially when Manchester United play away from Old Trafford. However, international football is typically played at the lower tempo that suits Carrick’s game, and at summer tournaments played in hot conditions, possession is king, and a player of his skill-set would be highly valuable.


As Sir Alex Ferguson has said, "Michael is one of those unassuming quiet guys, who just goes about his job and never gives the ball away. But his range of passing can win you games. He is a real Manchester United player."

You'd assume he knows a things or two about footballers wouldn't you?

Since we started talking about Paul Scholes, let’s finish with some words from Ginger Prince about his underappreciated teammate:

“I can’t see why people have problems with Michael Carrick… I found him brilliant to play with He is not a flashy person or a flashy player but he has great talent. He has great mental concentration. He reads the game so well. He is a dream for any attacking midfielder to play with. He is like a Rolls Royce.”

Carrick: A Rolls Royce or just a Phantom? You decide...