The Ox. Theo, Young and Danny boy

You may have read my recent blog on the French and their chances at Euro 2012. If you didn't catch it here is a quick summary. The French are good and England better not forget it. Yet despite my conclusions on the French team I still believe that England are capable of beating them. In fact if Roy picks the right team I think we should beat them.

Technically France are a very good side. They keep the ball well in midfield and have quality wide players who can create a hat-full of chances if given half a chance. However as England have proved in the two warm up games against Norway and Belgium we are prepared to give up the ball and hit the other teams on the break. This is due to the players we have available compared to other top nations. Our best player with the ball (Jack Wilshere) is injured. France have Nasri, Cabaye and Ribery who are all technically very good on the ball. Yet this doesn't mean we are unable to compete. Are Chelsea really the best team in Europe? No of course not. But due to playing to their strengths they won the most illustrious competition in Europe. England have similar strengths and will have to play to them to have any chance against the French.

We have one of the best 'keepers in Europe. The best left back in Europe. Terry and Lescott are a solid partnership. And Glen Johnson is a lot better defensively than people give him credit for. This solid back four will be protected by the axis of Gerrard and Parker. Two players who wear their hearts on their sleeve and will fight for everything in the middle of the park and both are also very good on the ball. However the mystery will be about who will start on the wings and up front.

Can Welbeck replace his clubmate?

Here it becomes important to examine the French tactically. Their full backs - likely to be Evra and Debuchy - are both good players but tend to leave a lot of space in behind them. Their strength is in their attacking ability and therefore England will need to play wingers who are quick to exploit the space and who are also keen to track back. Both Walcott and Chamberlain fit this description. Their pace would force the French full backs to stay deeper and also maximize England's effectiveness on the break. The two Gunners used correctly could give England the edge in a tight contest.

Ashley Young is almost certain to start in the hole behind the striker where he has been effective in the warm up games. This leaves just the striker. With Rooney unavailable for the game. Should it be Welbeck or Carroll who start upfront? Looking at the French side I would plump for Danny boy. Mexes and Rami tend to leave a lot of space between them as they are often given extra protection by the two defensive midfielders Blanc likes to deploy. Welbeck can utilise his pace to exploit this gap. By doing what he does well and running in behind the defense. Carroll lacks the pace to trouble the French defense and would be unable to take advantage of the high line the French like to play.

So due to the way the French are likely to set up I think that are best chance of victory would be to start with the pacey front four of Walcott, Young, Welbeck and Chamberlain. This front four would also suit the style of play that best suits England as it would be able to create a solid 4-5-1 when we are defending.

Yet, we will probably end up starting Downing, Milner and Carroll losing the game and going out on penalties in the Quarter Finals.

Or maybe not?

jgeorge

Andy Murray - Why the glum face?

As I watched the classic ups and downs of an Andy Murray Grand Slam match with my twitter feed rabbiting away, I found myself dumbfounded by the amount of abuse he was receiving from British tweeters. As he slaved away on a foreign red surface against an accomplished old pro, any support from back home was sporadic at best.

OK so he's not the long haired, tanned, bandana wearing, swashbuckling Spaniard on the opposing baseline. He's a pale, freckly, curly haired Scot. But he's ours and he's great. Often portrayed as a sullen and dour figure, in my experience Murray is far from it. Intelligent and well spoken, Murray is certainly more charismatic, humourous and accessible (his youtube channel and twitter account are testament to this) than the adored Federer. Whose privacy resembles that of royalty. Although being involved in sketches with James Corden (Smithy vs. Andy) and appearing on comedic programmes the public just doesn't seem to get Andy. His dry sense of humour it seems is misconstrued.

Criticism is not just saved for Murray's perceived off court persona, far from it, he is constantly berated for his 'moodiness' during matches. Yes he does shout and rant and perhaps his game would benefit from a calmer approach. But the hypocrisy of a country that heralds John McEnroe, the king of tennis trash talk, is bewildering. Showing emotion in sport is what makes it interesting for me, that's why we love the likes of Ronnie O'Sullivan and Darren Clarke. They bring a human and thus exciting element to traditionally 'dull' sports. Even when Murray broke down in tears after his Australian Open final loss to Federer the British public still failed to embrace him, why?


Twitter even exposed me to criticism of his style of play. Some suggesting he does not try to win points. Admittedly Murray does not have the traditional British grace of a serve volleying Tim Henman, however we all agree that this is nigh on impossible if one wants to be a top 10 player in the modern game. Murray's play is certainly not monotonous, his well publicised drop shot and extroadinary speed and defensive work are nothing short of spectacular. In comparison to his conqueror David Ferrer (match report can be found here), whose formulaic and typically Spanish baseline style is relentless and uninspiring, although undoubtedly effective. Ferrer's consistent tactics have led him to his first French Open semi final and a top 6 ranking. Targetting Murray's backhand for much of the longer rallies before picking the right time to then attack the Brit's forehand side. This 'Spanish way' was the key to Ferrer's success but was not revolutionary nor exciting tennis.

Murray is by far the best British tennis player of the modern era. With 22 career titles and 3 Grand Slam finals, he sits as the 10th biggest career prize money earner in the history of the game. In reaching the semi finals of each Grand Slam last season, he became only the 7th player to achieve the feat. Unfortunately for Andy, the three players ahead of him in the rankings are potentially 3 of the 5 greatest players to ever pick up a racket. A golden age for the sport. This elusive Grand Slam seems to be the catalyst for much of the Murray criticism. At only 25 he has his best years ahead of him and surely will win one of the big four sooner or later. Other british sportsmen have failed to win the biggest tournaments and are adored by fans. Luke Donald and Lee Westwood have been at the top of golf for a few years now and have failed to convert their success into majors, but they are not publicly bashed.

There is this nagging question of nationality, so Murray doesn't like being called English, well he's not. I wouldn't like being called Scottish. His nationality seems to bring his most crude criticism from not only the public but the lower end of the media. The suggestion that Murray hates England and Britain is unsubstantiated and odious. It seems it is the complex of those talking about Murray than one of the man himself.

With Wimbledon on the horizon, which I still believe is his best chance of Grand Slam victory, I urge you all to get behind Our Andy. 


JLloyd