Spain can't take the moral high ground any longer.

Morality is a human attempt to apply notions of good and bad, light and dark to some exterior thing, whether it be behaviour toward others, politics, executions... etc etc. This has included football and the debate is again apparent on the eve of the World Cup final. When the Netherlands, the inventors of Total Football take on Spain on Sunday evening there seems to be an assumption that the game is yet another example of morality. The Netherlands, it is argued, have abandoned their ideals and style for a more pragmatic approach, one that ensures winning is the most important element of the footballing philosophy and style has taken a back seat. It has become secondary, because the art of winning is the more important and enjoyable form of pleasure. The Netherlands have never won a World Cup and are 90minutes away from achieving that success. The team that stands in their way is a Star-studded, reigning European Championship side, which has apparently reinvented Total Football. Spain are the overwhelming favourites for victory, and not just with the bookmakers, their team's style is the most admired in world football, they are many people's preferred team to win.

Yet there is a sense that 'Tiki-Taka', the Spanish variant of Total football shares many of its less likeable qualities. For proponents of that style of entertainment whilst playing, there seems to be the same moral high ground mentality, as if they have a right to such superiority. There is no doubt that it takes consummate skill and outstanding ability to be able to dissect a team as Spain can do, but taking a moral righteousness form such play is dangerous and arrogant. Whilst watching the formation of this style a few years ago, when Barcelona went to Rangers in the Champions league. The match was a dour affair and the scoreline was 0-0. A young Lionel Messi reflected the views of his team-mates and fans by claiming the Rangers had simply played "anti-football" and that their part in the match was the weaker, inferior one. For me, this is a misunderstanding of football. Rangers battled to a draw, they worked hard and gave teams a template in order to stop this style of play, admittedly, devastating at it's best. Rangers' heroics at least earned them praise from Thierry Henry that evening, perhaps a pointer as to why he didn't do as well as he might at Barcelona. I would like to say here that "tiki-taka" for all it pretends to be, the perfect passing game, is still reliant on individual brilliance to win matches. Lionel Messi is the complete example of how, when plan A doesn't appear to be working for Barca, there is always the little flea as a back up, to invent something that can win the match.

This is not to say that it is not a commendable to attempt to mesmerise the opposition with pinpoint passing and dizzying movement. It still is an achievement; but it is not better football. Against Germany, Spain controlled the game from start to finish by retaining possession almost permanently, I didn't feel at any point that the Germans could beat this team, and as such Spain sucked the life out of the match, acting like a boa-constrictor suffocating it's victim, slowly, methodically. In it's own strange way, "tiki-taka" is almost as anti-football as the defensive stance taken by Rangers. It is so apparent that players like Iniesta and Xavi are ruthlessly trained to pass rather than to shoot, and it robs them of that individuality that the very best have. After the Germany game, Miroslav Klose had commented that his team, once they had got possession, if only fleetingly, were so tired from chasing Spanish players that they couldn't do anything with the ball. Spain ensured a one-side match through their tactics, but also a very uninteresting game. This presumes that the object of the game itself is to ensure a contest between evenly matched sides, to entertain the audience, a view that it is also presumed Spain have adopted, the heirs to Total Football . This is categorically untrue. Spain's tactics are as pragmatic as the Netherlands', they aim to win, even if they have to control a match from start to finish, they proved against Germany that to them, only one goal matters.

English football... the world's hypochondriac.

Sociologists seem to examine the effects of the modern world on people, their relationships, their attitudes, how large, even incomprehensible forces affect their lives; essentially what society does to them, for them and what they do for it. The same forces are at work in trying to explain why the England national team couldn't beat a young and so called inexperienced German side in the 2nd round of the World Cup (Although that Germany side contained Lahm and Schweinsteiger, amongst many others with Champions league experience, but also the four younger players, Mueller, Neuer, Khedira and the brilliant Ozil, who won the European U21 tournament in Finland last year, crushing the 2nd best team, England, in the final 4-0) . All week there has been outcry and intense speculation as to the various causes that have led to the demise of English football; and quite simply, there is no demise. The England internationals, as individuals, are extremely talented football players, and some of the better ones, like Rooney, Gerrard and Lampard are considered among the foremost names in world football. England is producing fantastic footballers and will continue to do so. However, with the England team having been considered by everyone within England to have underperformed yet again there needs to be some sort of introspection as to possible conditions for failure.

Firstly, Fabio Capello, who has been criticised for his tactics, his squad selection and his command as manager has not had a good World Cup and is symbolic of the side's fate in 2010. It has led some to call for his sacking, some to question how such a brilliant manager, with an almost perfect record can do nothing to improve the fortunes of this ageing, yet gifted team, leading them to feel that there must be a root cause for such inability, a much deeper, cloudier problem. In this 2010 case, he has explored the same tactical decisions as his predecessors' and has discovered the same problems, visibly showing that England's fine individuals are unable to work together on the highest stage, he knew what he was doing. Capello is comparable to Gregory House. He was hired because he is a manager of remarkable quality, who can see a football diagnosis. The England stars are too big, they are for many reasons undroppable. To put John Terry, or Frank Lampard on the bench is unthinkable as they are two of Chelsea's, England's best team last season, best players. They cannot not be in the team... until now. Their ages, and poor performances have assured that only a few of the will survive toward the next tournament.

Secondly, there seems to be a lack of younger players emerging with enough quality to usurp those in the starting 11. With only James Milner and Joe Hart in the squad making their débuts in recent years, does this mean a lack of quality in English football's grass-roots? It is a terrible disappointment that younger players are not given a chance when there are obvious opportunities, such as on the left wing, where until recently Joe Cole was almost certainly out of the running to make the 2010 squad. Capello's instinct is to entrust in experience, the Italian mantra; and invariably this works for the Italians. However, it may be possible that English footballers simply peak earlier, the best seasons from Gerrard, Terry, Ferdinand etc, are now memories. We are, however competing at the highest level in youth competition, as mentioned before the U21 side reached the final losing to Germany and the U17 team recently beat Spain 2-1 in the final of the European Championships. The highly rated Connor Wickham grabbed the winner, only months ago. That team has some of the best young talent in Europe which suggests that the grass-roots and club format for producing young players is working very well. It is opportunity that is missing. A good example is Danny Welbeck at Manchester United. He had a few sub appearances for United, scoring a 30metre strike against Stoke and making an instant impression on the fans, but lack of opportunities has seen his development tail off. He spent some of last season on-loan at Preston and hasn't really played since then. My argument here is that the Premier league's rigorously libertarian policy of only allowing the best talent in the team to survive is causing gifted younger players to hit a glass ceiling of development because of the nature of the top flight. It is not the fault of anyone however; though not English, Darren Fletcher is a textbook example of how a perceived weaker player (Roy Keane once scathingly attacked him as 'not good enough') can improve and become a quality player, he would certainly have played ahead of Barry in the England side. Younger players should use him as the example to make it. Sheer effort and hard work will mean that those players will be given the chance to take the place of the million £ superstars of the league. Their only solution is to shine when called on, as it is certain they will not be given time. They must be ruthless.

Finally, England must be flexible in their approach. Tactics are perhaps the only thing that matter on the International scene. There should be few certainties for a starting place, save the defence and goalkeeper, many variations and players who are interchangeable. England have all these components available now, they must look to whatever tactic can beat the opponent in front of them. As mentioned in an earlier post, Maradona used 107 players in qualifying for 2010, critics have argued that he was unsuccessful in qualifying but his flexibility and attacking style has been almost unplayable. His defence, it is speculated by some, is shaky, but it forces Argentina to base their play only on attack. It will take similar brilliance to stop them. England could do with taking some advice from Maradona, or perhaps Larry David. There is nothing wrong with the players coming through, the grass-roots system or the manager himself. These are all conditions that we should be pleased with, we should be asking ourselves to do Whatever Works, and aim for that.