Soccer

Subterms

    More stories

    • 63 Shares99 Views

      in Soccer

      Does Soccer Still Need Headers?

      by

      New rules, new science and new tactics are already beginning to push heading out of the game. But doing so could have unintended consequences.It would be futile to predict when, precisely, it will come. It is not possible, from the vantage point of now, of here, to identify a specific point, or an exact date, or even a broad time frame. All that can be said is that it will come, sooner or later. The days of heading in soccer are numbered.The ball, after all, is rolling. England’s Football Association has received permission from the IFAB, the arcane and faintly mysterious body that defines the Laws of the Game — capital L, capital G, always — to run a trial in which players under the age of 12 will not be allowed to head the ball in training. If it is successful, the change could become permanent within the next two years.This is not an attempt to introduce an absolute prohibition of heading, of course. It is simply an application to banish deliberate heading — presumably as opposed to accidental heading — from children’s soccer.Once players hit their teens, heading would still be gradually introduced to their repertoire of skills, albeit in a limited way: Since 2020, the F.A.’s guidelines have recommended that all players, including professionals, should be exposed to a maximum of 10 high-force headers a week in training. Heading would not be abolished, not officially.And yet that would, inevitably, be the effect. Young players nurtured without any exposure to or expertise in heading would be unlikely to place much emphasis on it, overnight, once it was permitted. They would have learned the game without it; there would be no real incentive to favor it. The skill would gradually fall into obsolescence, and then drift inexorably toward extinction.From a health perspective, that would not be a bad thing. In public, the F.A.’s line is that it wants to impose the moratorium while further research is done into links between heading and both Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (C.T.E.) and dementia. In private, it must surely recognize that it is not difficult to discern the general direction of travel.Major League Soccer recently learned of its first confirmed case of C.T.E. in a former player.Albert Cesare/The Cincinnati Enquirer, via Associated PressThe connection between heading and both conditions has been soccer’s tacit shame for at least two decades, if not longer. Jeff Astle, the former England striker, was ruled by a coroner to have died from an industrial disease, linked to the repeated heading of a soccer ball, as far back as 2002. He was posthumously found to have been suffering from C.T.E.In the years since, five members of England’s 1966 World Cup-winning side have confirmed they are suffering from dementia, drawing focus on to the issue. Only one of them, Bobby Charlton, remains alive.One study, in 2019, found that soccer players — with the exception of goalkeepers — are three and a half times more likely to suffer from neurodegenerative disease than the general population. Two years later, a similar piece of research found that defenders, in particular, have an even greater risk of developing dementia or a similar condition later in life. The more the subject is examined, the more likely it seems that minimizing how often players head the ball is in their long-term interests.Head Injuries and C.T.E. in SportsThe permanent damage caused by brain injuries to athletes can have devastating effects.C.T.E., Explained: The degenerative brain disease has come to be most often associated with N.F.L. players, but it has also been found in other athletes. Here’s what to know.Soccer: Scott Vermillion, who died in 2020, became the first U.S. professional soccer player with a public case of C.T.E., as concussion fears rise in the sport.Sledding: Brain injuries in sliding sports — often called “sledhead” — might be connected to a rash of suicides among bobsledders.Football: Demaryius Thomas had C.T.E. when he died in December at 33, but that diagnosis alone does not capture the role football had in the N.F.L. star’s quick decline.In a sporting sense, too, it is easy to believe that heading’s demise would be no great loss. The game appears, after all, to be moving beyond it organically. The percentage of headed goals is falling, thanks to the simultaneous rise in analytics — which, speaking extremely broadly, discourages (aerial) crossing as a low-probability action — and the stylistic hegemony of the school of Pep Guardiola.Sophisticated teams, now, do their best not to cross the ball; they most certainly do not heave it forward at any given opportunity. They dominate possession or they launch precise, surgical counterattacks, and they prefer to do the vast majority of it on the ground. The sport as a whole has followed in their wake, hewing ever more closely to Brian Clough’s rather gnarled maxim that if God had intended soccer to be played in the clouds, there would be substantially more grass up there.Top clubs, like Pep Guardiola’s Manchester City, already do most of their best work on the ground.Logan Riely/Getty ImagesCertainly, it is more than possible to watch an elite game — in Spain, in particular, but in the Champions League or the Premier League or the Women’s Super League or wherever — and believe that the spectacle would not be diminished, or even notably altered, if heading was not only strictly forbidden, but had not, in fact, been invented.But that is to ignore the fact that soccer is defined not only by what happens, but by what might have happened, and by what did not happen. It is determined not only by presence but by absence. That is true of all sports, of course, but it is particularly true of soccer, the great game of scarcity.For much the same reasons that crossing has fallen from favor, so too has the idea of shooting from distance. Progressive coaches — either for aesthetic or for algorithmic reasons — encourage their players to wait until they have a heightened chance of scoring before actually shooting; as with headed goals, the number scored from outside the box is falling starkly, too.That, though, has had an unintended consequence. A team that knows its opponent really does not want to shoot from distance has no incentive to break its defensive line. There is no pressing need to close down the midfielder with the ball at their feet 25 yards from goal. They are not going to shoot, because the odds of scoring are low.And yet, by not shooting, the odds of finding the high-percentage chance are reduced, too. The defensive line does not break, so the gap — the slight misstep, the channel that briefly opens in the moment of transition from one state to another — does not come. Instead, the defense can dig into its trench, challenging the attack to score the perfect goal. It is not just the act of scoring from range that has diminished, it is the threat of it, too.The aerial game is one of threats, and possibility. Eliminating it would inherently change the game.Rob Carr/Getty ImagesThe same would be true of a soccer devoid of heading. It is not just that the way corners and free kicks are defended would be changed beyond recognition — no more crowding as many bodies as possible in or near the box — but the way that fullbacks deal with wide players, the positions that defensive lines take on the field, the whole structure of the game.Those changes, in the sense of soccer as a sporting spectacle, are unlikely to be positive. Players may not head the ball as much as they used to, now, but they know they might have to head the ball just as much as their predecessors from a less civilized era. They cannot discount it, so they have to behave in such a way as to counteract it. The threat itself has value. Soccer is defined, still, by all the crosses that do not come.Removing that — either by edict or by lost habit — would have the effect of removing possibility from the game. It would reduce the theoretical options available to an attacking team, and in doing so it would make the sport more predictable, more one-dimensional. It would tilt the balance in favor of those who seeks to destroy, rather than those who try to create. Clough did not quite have it right. Soccer has always been a sport of air, just as much as earth.If heading is found — as seems likely — to endanger the long-term health of the players, of course, then that will have to change, and it would only be right to do so. No spectacle is worth such a terrible cost to those who provide it. The gains would outweigh the losses, a millionfold. But that is not the same as saying that nothing would be lost.The Great UnknownSpain led England with 10 minutes remaining on Wednesday and was out of the Euros within an hour.Glyn Kirk/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesThe end, for Spain, will always lead back to the start. It was only a couple of weeks before the start of the European Championship when Jennifer Hermoso, the country’s most reliable source of cutting edge, was ruled out of the tournament with a knee injury. It was only a couple of days before everything began that Spain lost Alexia Putellas, the game’s finest player, too.Those are the mitigating circumstances in which Spain’s campaign at Euro 2022 will — and should — be judged, making its quarterfinal exit to the host, England, on Wednesday night somewhere in the region of a par finish for a nation stripped of two of its best players. Regret at what might have been should outweigh disappointment at what came to pass.The reward for succeeding in this tournament, as well as the garlands and the trophy and all of that business, will, most likely, take the shape of considerable pressure at next year’s World Cup; the country that triumphs in the next week will be expected to meet, and perhaps overcome, the challenge posed by the United States and Canada, the game’s reigning powers.Spain will be spared that, at least. And yet it should not be discounted: Despite its reduced horizons, it came within six minutes of dislodging England from a tournament it is hosting, after all. Should Hermoso be fit this time next year — or Amaiur Sarriegi have blossomed sufficiently that Hermoso’s presence is not missed — and Putellas, in particular, have recovered in time, it is not especially difficult to imagine a world in which this week was not an end at all.The emergence of players like Amaiur Sarriegi, 21, will give Spain hope ahead of next year’s World Cup.Bernadett Szabo/ReutersThe Expanding MiddleIn the space of, by a conservative estimate, 30 seconds, the Netherlands might have gone out of the European Championship three times. Had Daphne van Domselaar, the Dutch goalkeeper, reacted infinitesimally more slowly; had Ramona Bachmann of Switzerland made a slightly different choice; had the ball rolled this way and not that, the Netherlands, the reigning champion, might have fallen.The temptation, within any major tournament, is to examine the likely contenders in search of some broader theme, some sweeping narrative. As a rule, it is just below the surface that the tides and the currents are most apparent.So it is with Euro 2022. One of the game’s established powers will win it — England or France or Sweden or Germany — and claim primacy among the continent’s elite, for the time being at least. More significant, though, may be what is happening below them. Belgium and Austria, denizens of the second tier, both made the quarterfinals. Though it ended ultimately in collapse, there was a moment when it appeared a genuine possibility that Switzerland might join them.The Netherlands and Switzerland were closer than expected.Franck Fife/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesThat feels like the calling card of this tournament, more than anything else. That the level of the finest teams in Europe, the ones with abundant investment and industrialized development programs, is screaming skyward has been well telegraphed and amply documented.That the continent’s middle class is expanding is easier to overlook, but it is no less important. Women’s soccer — like men’s soccer — should not just be the preserve of populous and wealthy nations. Strength in these matters always comes from depth. It is not just how high the elite can soar that makes games entertaining and tournaments compelling, but how broad the challenges they face along the way.CorrespondenceAn oldie but a goodie from Alfons Sola this week. “Have you ever thought about just calling it football and stop pretending like it’s soccer?” he wrote, despite (or possibly because of) spending five years living in New Jersey. “We all know calling it soccer is some kind of strange situation that exists in the United States, right?”Well, yes and no, Alfons. In England, for example, there is a venerable magazine called World Soccer. Many people start their Saturdays watching a show called Soccer A.M. If they choose to do so, they can then follow all of the day’s action on a program called Soccer Saturday.I often wonder whether their presenters are told quite as often as I am that the term soccer is an American abomination. Or, for that matter, whether someone like Matt Busby, the legendary manager of Manchester United, was met with sound and fury when he had the nerve to call his autobiography ‘Soccer At The Top’.Forgive me if we are traipsing down a familiar path, but as far as I know, “football” and “soccer” were largely interchangeable in England until some vague point in the 1970s, 1980s or 1990s. Quite what changed to make people quite so angry about the very sight of one of those words, I’m not sure, but I’m going to guess it had something to do with increased American attention on the sport.Regardless, the furor over it has always struck me as odd (especially when we should be far more aggravated by the fact that the word is not, as America believes, “furor” but “furore”). Did you know the Italians call it calcio, like the thing you get in milk? That doesn’t even make any sense. More

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in Soccer

      Report Questions Links Between Manchester, the City, and Manchester City

      by

      A real estate joint venture has been profitable for the soccer club’s Gulf owners, researchers contend, but possibly less so for its English hometown.MANCHESTER, England — In the 14 years since an investment vehicle linked to the state of Abu Dhabi bought Manchester City, the emirate’s wealth has transformed the soccer club from a Premier League also-ran into a serial domestic champion and one of the sport’s global powers.The breadth of that investment, though, stretches far beyond the confines of the club’s Etihad Stadium, according to a report published Thursday by researchers in England. In it, the report’s authors said the club’s owners have benefited from what they called a “sweetheart deal” with local lawmakers that allowed them to buy vast tracts of public land in Manchester at substantially reduced prices.The 65-page report, published by academics at the University of Sheffield, found that Manchester Life, a joint development venture between the Manchester City Council and the Abu Dhabi United Group — a private equity company owned by Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed al Nahyan, the deputy prime minister of the United Arab Emirates and the brother of the country’s president — has resulted in a “transfer of public wealth into private hands that is difficult to justify as prudent.”A Manchester City Council spokesman disputed the report’s conclusions in a statement.“Land was valued by independent experts, using the nationally accepted ‘red book’ valuation benchmark, and we got the best overall deal we could for each site at a time when there was very little market interest in the area,” the city’s statement said, adding, “These were always envisaged as longer-term arrangements — the Council is due to receive several million pounds in this financial year through the first such payments.”Manchester has been held up, in recent years, as a standard-bearer for the regeneration of Britain’s cities, overhauling years of postindustrial decline to recast its downtown as dynamic and desirable. Its construction and property boom has been outpaced only by London; by some metrics, it is England’s fastest-growing city.Manchester City’s ownership group has been central to that, investing millions of dollars in the deprived areas in the immediate vicinity of the stadium that bears the name of the U.A.E.’s state-backed airline, Etihad. When the Manchester Life venture was launched in 2014, six years after the group bought the soccer team, it was designed to extend that investment to Ancoats, a district sandwiched between the stadium and Manchester’s city center.The Etihad Stadium in Manchester bears the name of the U.A.E.’s state-backed airline.Paul Ellis/AFP via Getty ImagesThe researchers claim, though, that A.D.U.G. did rather better out of the deal than its partner. They found that nine sites in the Ancoats district had been sold to holding companies registered in the offshore tax haven of Jersey — but ultimately owned by the investment vehicle — at prices below the comparable market value of similar sites.The Manchester City Council insisted that each of the deals — which granted the United Group’s holding companies leases on the properties stretching for 999 years — told the researchers that all of the proposals “achieved best consideration.” Yet despite a chronic homelessness problem in the city, the developers were excused from meeting commitments on including affordable housing by planning officers who decreed there was enough supply in the area to meet demand, the report found.The report also concluded that the “traceable rental and sales income streams” from the 1,468 homes built on the sites so far “flow to Abu Dhabi interests only.” Although the Manchester City Council claims to have a revenue-sharing arrangement with its partners, the researchers said they had found “no income from the Manchester Life investment in the council’s accounts.”Though the management company that oversees the developments booked 10.1 million pounds of rental income in 2021 (just over $12 million), the researchers found that because its ultimate owner is a holding company based in Jersey, it paid only 4,000 pounds in corporation taxes.“Our assessment of the Manchester Life development is that Manchester City Council ‘sold the family silver too cheap,’” the researchers concluded.That is particularly damaging, they said, in light of the “reputational risks” for lawmakers in a British city becoming sufficiently entwined with a group backed by the elite of an autocratic state, one described by Amnesty International as one of the “most brutal police states in the Middle East.” In recent years, countries like Russia, China, Qatar and Saudi Arabia have all been accused of using money and influence, in sports in particular, as a way to “wash” their reputations. But investments in property and other ventures, and the people that enable them, also have drawn scrutiny.“Longer-term, it raises questions about what values, and whose values, the city represents,” the researchers wrote of the land deals approved by the Manchester council, adding: “This is important because Manchester is heralded as an urban regeneration model that other authorities should follow, but if that model is built upon attracting developers in the short term by selling access to its assets at a discount, then that may not be a sound and sustainable model for others.” More

    • 138 Shares179 Views

      in Soccer

      Uwe Seeler, One of Germany’s Greatest Soccer Players, Dies at 85

      by

      He led West Germany to the 1966 World Cup, but his teams never won a title. Pele included him on his list of the world’s premier living players.Uwe Seeler, who led West Germany to the 1966 World Cup final as captain of the national team, has died. He was 85.Christian Pletz, a spokesman for Hamburger SV, the club Seeler played for from 1953 to 1972, said on Thursday that Seeler’s family had confirmed the death. The cause was not given. A local newspaper in Norderstedt, north of Hamburg, said he died at his home in that city.Regarded as one of the best German players of all time, Seeler was famous for his overhead kicks and his ability to score goals from the unlikeliest of angles.He was also known for his humility and fairness, and respected for his unwavering loyalty to his hometown club. He received offers from clubs in Spain and Italy, most notably a huge offer from Inter Milan in 1961, but he opted to stay with Hamburg.Seeler scored 445 goals in 519 appearances for Hamburg in the Oberliga and Bundesliga leagues. He remains the team’s all-time high scorer in the Bundesliga, the top league in Germany, with 137 goals.Hamburg, which had been the only remaining team to have played every season in the Bundesliga since the league’s formation in 1963, was relegated to the second division in 2018.Seeler scored 43 goals in 72 games for West Germany, which was the runner-up to England in the 1966 World Cup and won a third-place medal four years later in Mexico. He was a member of the German team for 16 years.“While I was at four World Cups, I’d have liked to have won the title once,” he said. “I didn’t have the luck.”“Still,” he added, “everything was wonderful. I regret nothing.”He was voted German soccer player of the year in 1960, 1964 and 1970.Pele, the Brazilian soccer great, included Seeler in his list of the world’s greatest living players in 2004.“His handling of the ball was perfect, his shot precise, and what really amazed me was his ability to head the ball,” Pele said.In a special supplement to celebrate Seeler’s 80th birthday in 2016, the Hamburg club wrote: “If Uwe Seeler laced up his boots, then the opposing goalkeeper could dress up warmly and preferably put on a second pair of gloves, because Seeler scored from everywhere and in every possible way. Whether overhead kicks, flying headers, shots from distance, volleys, lobs, opportunist strikes — he always found a way to get the ball over the line.”Seeler won the German championship in 1960 and the German Cup in 1963 with Hamburg, but he also endured heartbreak with near misses in the European Cup and the European Cup Winners’ Cup. Hamburg lost to Barcelona in the European Cup semifinals in 1961 and to Milan in the Cup Winners’ Cup final in 1968.Seeler, who was born in Hamburg on Nov. 5, 1936, suffered repeated health setbacks in recent years. In May 2020 he underwent an operation to repair a broken hip after a bad fall at home. He lost his hearing in his right ear and had problems with balance after a car accident in 2010. He also had a pacemaker fitted and had to have a tumor removed from his shoulder, the news agency DPA reported.Seeler and his wife, Ilka, were married for more than 60 years. They had three daughters. His grandson Levin Öztunali plays for the Bundesliga club Union Berlin. Seeler’s older brother, Dieter, also played for Hamburg. His father, Erwin, worked on a barge in Hamburg’s port and was also known for playing soccer in that city.Complete information on survivors was not immediately available. More

    • 88 Shares149 Views

      in Soccer

      The Problem in Coaching Style Without Substance

      by

      England’s 8-0 thrashing of Norway was a stunning triumph. But it also exposed a failure of leadership.As the changing room door closed behind them, England’s players could not help but laugh. They were halfway through what was, in theory, the most arduous challenge awaiting them in the group stage of Euro 2022. They were facing a Norway team sprinkled with representatives of Lyon and Barcelona, Chelsea and Manchester City, the powerhouses of the women’s game.And they had, in the space of a single half, scored six goals.It was not a cruel laughter, or a mocking one. It was, instead, a disbelieving laughter, a giddy laughter. The entire experience seemed somewhat surreal to many of the players, as if there had been some sort of glitch in the code. Once they had regained some measure of composure, the first question many asked was simple:What had just happened?Routs happen, of course. It has not been long since Sarina Wiegman’s England scored 20 goals in a single game against Latvia. It has been only three years since the United States did its bit for the talking-point business by beating Thailand, 13-0, at the World Cup, giving rise to at least a week of discussion on the relative ethical merits of celebrating goals in a blowout.Routs happen both in men’s and women’s soccer, and in both cases they generally prompt further interrogation about the health of the sport. In the men’s game, as a rule, that focuses on the yawning financial chasm that has spirited the elite club sides away from their opponents. In the women’s, it is more likely to emphasize the difference in resources that separate richer nations and poorer ones.Beth Mead, England’s hat-trick heroine.Adrian Dennis/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesEngland’s drubbing of Norway, though, did not fit that pattern. Norway does not, of course, boast a handful of impossibly wealthy clubs pouring money into their women’s sides. It is not home to one of the strongest leagues in the world, staffed now by some of the best players on the planet. It does not, on a very basic level, possess as many human beings as England. Its talent pool, as a result, is naturally smaller.But Norway is not Latvia, and it is not Thailand. Its developmental structures have been good enough to produce Ada Hegerberg, gradually reasserting her claim to being one of the world’s best players; and Caroline Graham Hansen, a vital cog in Barcelona’s attack; and Chelsea’s Guro Reiten; and Julie Blakstad, a star in the making; and Maren Mjelde and Maria Thorisdottir, two of the elite players who have been tempted to England by the booming Women’s Super League.This was not a humiliation that could be cleanly attributed to structural inequality, a defeat that could be dressed up as a learning experience, the inevitable denouement of vastly superior firepower. It was not inevitable at all, in fact. It was, in many ways, self-inflicted.What was most striking, during that surreal first half in which England’s delight metamorphosed first into euphoria and then a dizzying, incredulous frenzy, was the precision of Wiegman’s team’s ruthlessness. It would not be quite right to suggest that England scored the same goal eight times. But it would not be entirely wrong, either.The plan was simple. Ellen White, the central striker, would drop deep, drawing with her one of Norway’s two central defenders, neither of whom is blessed with what might be termed searing pace. Beth Mead, helped by the relative inexperience of Blakstad, her direct opponent, would fill the deserted channel. With a single pass, either from midfield or from Lucy Bronze, the right back, Norway’s penalty area unfurled in front of her.Maria Thorisdottir got an up-close look at several of England’s goals.Adrian Dennis/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesMartin Sjogren, Norway’s coach, would later suggest that it was England’s first goal, a rather soft penalty, that had unsettled his team. “We began to crack a little and made some poor decisions,” he said. There is some truth in that. Thorisdottir, having conceded the penalty, seemed to freeze, unsure of her every touch, her every move, as if haunted by her error.Sjogren’s claim is not, though, the whole truth. To attribute Norway’s collapse exclusively to individual mistakes is, at heart, to confuse symptom with cause. The problem, the one that caused Sjogren’s side to bend and break so spectacularly, was not an isolated series of unrelated incidents but a systemic shortcoming. England showed its hand, and its opponent failed miserably to adapt.Part of the responsibility for that lies with the players, of course. Mjelde and Thorisdottir, certainly, are experienced enough to have identified their team’s weak point and reacted accordingly: sitting just a little deeper, perhaps, or refusing to be coaxed out of their line by White’s movement, or drawing Blakstad in closer for greater protection.But a vast majority of it falls on the shoulders of Sjogren himself. A sequence of individual errors could be evidence of some great psychological failing, but it is distinctly more likely to be proof of a flaw in a team’s strategy. High-caliber players make consistently poor choices only when they are faced with limited options. And that, ultimately, is down to the coach.The caliber of player in women’s soccer, particularly in Europe, has risen steeply in recent years. The slick, technical style that has proliferated at this summer’s European Championship has offered ample proof of that. It is hard to make the argument, though, that the quality of coach has tracked quite the same trajectory.Or, perhaps better, the type of coach. There has long been an emphasis on player development in the women’s game, for wholly obvious, entirely understandable and broadly admirable reasons. It is that focus that has allowed the game to foster a whole galaxy of emergent stars — Vivianne Miedema and Delphine Cascarino and Lauren Hemp — and help them flourish.Ellen White scored two of England’s eight goals on Monday.Damien Meyer/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesBut development coaching is a different skill, a different art, from what might be termed results coaching: The first is concerned with process, after all, and the second with outcome. It is hard not to wonder if a coach more focused on the latter might have acted more swiftly to staunch Norway’s bleeding, or even to shut the game down entirely, accepting a 3-0 defeat as the price to pay to avoid embarrassment.It is that which may prove the decisive factor at the Euros over the next two weeks. Most of the genuine contenders for the trophy — England, France, the Netherlands, Sweden, Germany and, at the outside, Spain — have an abundance of attacking talent. Generating players who can decide games is where women’s soccer, like men’s, now pumps most of its resources.It is possible, of course, that the tournament’s eventual champion will simply be the team with the greatest weight of sheer, glimmering ability, the one most capable of expressing its own brilliance, the one that shines brightest. It is more likely, though, that the team left standing will be the one that is best prepared and most willing to make everyone else look dull.Not as Old as They LookKalidou Koulibaly is trading Napoli blue for Chelsea blue.Massimo Pinca/ReutersReceived wisdom would have it that Chelsea’s decision to spend $40 million on Kalidou Koulibaly is a bad idea. He is already 31, and by the time his contract at Stamford Bridge comes to an end, he will be 34. Even if he has proved a wise investment, there is precious little prospect of the club’s being able to recover any of its costs.The general rule of thumb, when it comes to accepted best practice in soccer, is that well-run teams buy young and, with a degree of cold-eyed dispassion, cull the old. Chelsea’s decision to commit so much money to a veteran central defender like Koulibaly, by those standards, suggests that the club’s new owner and sporting director, Todd Boehly, has not quite internalized the game’s abiding logic.That logic, though, feels somewhat outdated. The idea that players are old — and therefore worthless — as soon as they hit their early 30s dates to an era before the sport took things like nutrition seriously, when players did not have personal osteopaths, when their every move, from their early teens, was not governed by the diktats of sports science.It may well be, in fact, that being 31 today has very little in common with being 31 in 2010, or being 31 in 2000. Koulibaly — his quality perhaps slightly underestimated by the fact that he has spent the last eight years of his career in Italy — could yet have six or seven years of elite performance in him.It should be noted that Thiago Silva, the player with whom he will partner at Stamford Bridge, arrived at Chelsea a couple of years ago, at age 35, for what many assumed was a swan song. It has gone rather better than that. Perhaps, for elite players, the clock ticks a little more slowly now.An Update on BarcelonaLast week, you may remember, Barcelona was busily trying to persuade Frenkie de Jong — a player who does not appear to be in any desperate rush to leave Camp Nou — that the only way that he might be allowed to stay is by agreeing to a new, reduced contract.This week, you will be delighted to know, the very same Barcelona has spent somewhere in the region of $65 million to acquire Raphinha from Leeds United, and then granted Ousmane Dembélé — a player who excels in exactly the same position as the Brazilian — a new two-year contract.Joan Laporta and Ousmane Dembélé signing away just a little more of Barcelona’s future.Enric Fontcuberta/EPA, via ShutterstockThese two Barcelonas — the one that needs its current squad to take pay cuts to stay and the one that can lavish a vast sum on new contracts — can exist because the club’s president, Joan Laporta, has hit upon the brilliant strategy of selling tomorrow to pay for today. Barcelona’s parlous finances mean it needs to raise $3 for every $1 it spends. Laporta has accomplished this by selling a portion of its future broadcast income. It may yet cash in some of its future revenue from hosting major events, too.Of the many and varied problems with this approach, perhaps the most galling is that Barcelona is risking its long-term health for players that it does not really need. This is a club, after all, whose very identity is rooted in its ability to nurture homegrown talent.For all its troubles, it continues to do just that. In Gavi and Pedri — a cheap signing, rather than an academy product, admittedly — it is already in possession of a midfield that will last a decade. Ansu Fati, should his injury issues abate, is as bright an attacking prospect as there is in world soccer.And yet still, Barcelona remains addicted to short-term fixes, to stocking its bloated wage bill with players who are, if far from mediocre, hardly the sort worth risking everything. Andreas Christensen, Franck Kessié and Raphinha are all fine players. They all make Barcelona stronger. But are they worth gambling with tomorrow? Come to that, is anyone? Is the idea of a couple of trophy-less years nurturing a new generation so unpalatable to the club’s board and its fans that it is compelled to spend money it does not have?That’s all for this week. As ever, all thoughts, questions, ideas or responses are welcome at askrory@nytimes.com, and some of them are welcome on Twitter, too. And remember: If you’re in the general vicinity of Britain, you are four days away from the last ever Set Piece Menu*, so feel free to come along and wave us off/make sure we’re finishing.Have a great weekend,Rory*Unless we all get fired More

    • 100 Shares129 Views

      in Soccer

      Science and Data Change Soccer’s Definition of Old

      by

      Top clubs have long looked to shed players once they hit age 30. But those presumptions rely on outdated logic, statistics show.LONDON — The exact location of the threshold has always been contested. At Manchester United, for a time, it lurked close enough to 30 for that to serve as a natural watershed. Once players hit their 30s, Alex Ferguson, the club’s manager at the time, tended to grant them an extra day’s rest after a game, in the hope that the break might soothe their creaking bodies.Arsenal’s Arsène Wenger was a little more nuanced. He had a formula. Once midfielders and forwards reached the grand old age of 32, he was prepared to offer them only one-year contract extensions. “That is the rule here,” he once said. “After 32, you go from year to year.” He made an exception for central defenders; they could sign contracts that carried them to age 34.But while the precise cutoff has always been subjective, the broad and longstanding consensus within soccer is that it lies in there somewhere. At some point early in their 30s, players cross the boundary that distinguishes summer from fall, present from past. And as soon as they do, they can officially be regarded as old.Manchester City spent big, and got younger, in acquiring striker Erling Haaland.Dave Thompson/Associated PressThat delineation has long informed both the player-recruitment and the player-retention strategies of teams across Europe. A vast majority of clubs have, as a rule, adhered for years to a simple principle: buy young and sell old.Tottenham’s acquisition last month of the 33-year-old Croatia midfielder Ivan Perisic, for example, was the first time that the club has signed an outfield player in his 30s since 2017. Liverpool has not done so since 2016. Manchester City has not paid a fee for an outfield player over age 30 for almost a decade. Goalkeepers, widely held to boast greater longevity, are the only players granted an exception.Instead, players approaching the twilight of their careers are generally seen as burdens to be shifted. This summer has been a case in point: Bayern Munich has managed to alienate the almost-34-year-old Robert Lewandowski by (unsuccessfully) trying to anoint Erling Haaland, a decade his junior, as his heir.Liverpool, meanwhile, has started the work of breaking up its vaunted attacking trident by replacing the 30-year-old Sadio Mané with Luis Díaz, 25, and adding the 23-year-old Darwin Nuñez to succeed Roberto Firmino, who turns 31 in October. As it seeks to overhaul its squad, Manchester United released a suite of players — Nemanja Matic, Juan Mata and Edínson Cavani among them — into a market already saturated with veterans, including Gareth Bale and Ángel Di María.The reasoning behind this, of course, is straightforward. “The demands of the game are changing,” said Robin Thorpe, a performance scientist who spent a decade at Manchester United and now works with the Red Bull network of teams. “There is much more emphasis on high-intensity sprinting, acceleration, deceleration.” Younger players are deemed better equipped to handle that load than their elders.Just as important, though, recruiting younger players promises “more return on investment when you’re looking to move them on,” according to Tony Strudwick, a former colleague of Thorpe’s at United who also has worked at Arsenal. Clubs can earn back their outlay — perhaps even make a profit — on a player acquired in his early 20s. Those a decade or so older are, in a strictly economic sense, seen as a rapidly depreciating asset.Those two ideas are, of course, related, and so it is significant that at least one of them may be rooted in outdated logic.Liverpool gave Mo Salah a three-year deal a few weeks after his 30th birthday.Athit Perawongmetha/ReutersAccording to data from the consultancy firm Twenty First Group, players over age 32 are consistently playing more minutes in the Champions League every year. Last season, players over age 34 — practically ancient, by soccer’s traditional thinking — accounted for more minutes in Europe’s big five leagues than in any previous season for which data was available.More significantly, that has not been at any notable cost to their performance.“Age has its pros and cons,” the former Barcelona right back Dani Alves, now 39 and determined to continue his career, told The Guardian this month. “I have an experience today that I didn’t have 20 years ago. When there’s a big game, 20-year-olds get nervous and worried. I don’t.”Twenty First Group’s data bears Alves out. Though players in their 20s do press more than those in their 30s do — 14.5 pressing actions per 90 minutes, as opposed to 12.8 — that reduction is offset in other ways.In both the Champions League and Europe’s major domestic competitions, older players win more aerial duels, complete more dribbles, pass with greater accuracy — if they are central midfielders — and score more goals. More than twice as many players over age 30 now rank in Twenty First Group’s modeling of the best 150 players in the world than appeared in the same list a decade ago.The data suggests, very clearly, that 30 is not as old as it used to be.Luka Modric, who will turn 37 in September, joked recently that he might play until he’s 50.Frank Augstein/Associated PressFrom a sports-science perspective, that is hardly surprising. The idea of 30 as an immutable aging threshold predates soccer’s interest in conditioning: The current generation of players in their 30s, Strudwick pointed out, may be the first to “have been exposed to hard-core sports science from the start of their careers.”There is no reason to assume they would age at the same rate, or the same time, as their forebears. “Look at the condition that players are in when they retire,” Strudwick said. “They haven’t let their bodies go. They might need to be pushed a little less in preseason, and their recovery may take longer, but from a physical and a performance point of view, there is no reason they can’t add value into their late 30s.”That longevity can only be increased, Thorpe said, by improvements in nutrition and recovery techniques.When he was at Manchester United, he said, “the rule of thumb was always that players over the age of 30 got a second day’s rest after games. It felt intuitively like the right thing to do.” The truth, though, was that it wasn’t always the older players who needed the break.“When we researched it, when we looked at the data,” Thorpe said, “we found that it was way more individual. Some of the older players could train, and some of the younger players needed more rest.”As those sorts of insights have become more embedded in the sport, he argued, it follows that “more players should be able to do more later on in their careers.” Luka Modric might have been joking when he told an interviewer, before the Champions League final in May, that he intended to play on “until 50, like that Japanese guy, [Kazuyoshi] Miura,” but it is no longer quite as absurd as it might have once sounded.That the clubs do not appear to have noticed — that players over age 30, with rare exceptions, still seem to be regarded as a burden rather than a blessing — is, as far as Strudwick can see, now almost exclusively an economic issue.“A player’s life cycle is an inverted U shape,” he said. “But salary expectations are linear.”A more scientific approach might have flattened the downward curve of a player’s performance graph, or even delayed its onset, but it cannot eliminate it completely. At some point a player will enter what Strudwick called the “roll-down phase.” The one thing that no club wants — that no club can afford — is to be paying a player a premium salary when that moment arrives. That is what motivates clubs, still, to believe that a threshold arrives at 30: not what players can contribute, but what they cost. More

    • 138 Shares179 Views

      in Soccer

      Bad Planning and Errors Led to Champions League Chaos, Report Says

      by

      A French Senate inquiry faulted the authorities for blaming large crowds of supporters instead of owning up to their failures, after violence and confusion marred a final near Paris. PARIS — Faulty coordination, bad planning and multiple errors by French authorities were responsible for the chaos that marred this year’s Champions League soccer final just outside Paris, according to a parliamentary report published on Wednesday that criticized officials for blaming English fans instead of acknowledging their own failings.The scenes of confusion and violence at the May 28 final between Real Madrid and Liverpool were described as a “fiasco,” and with Paris scheduled to host the Summer Olympics in two years, the report urged French officials to dispel doubts over the country’s ability to host large-scale sporting events. The report found that the authorities were unprepared for the tens of thousands of Liverpool supporters who converged on the Stade de France, and in no uncertain terms, it rejected the French government’s initial insistence that the dangerous crush of fans had been caused on that evening by the presence of fans who had fake tickets, or none at all.“To us, it is clear that it isn’t because Liverpool supporters were accompanying their team that things went badly,” Laurent Lafon, a lawmaker who presides over one of the two Senate committees that ran the investigation, said at a news conference on Wednesday.Supporters were also mugged after the game by groups of petty criminals who took advantage of the chaos to try to enter the stadium and to harass fans. Few police officers were stationed to prevent crime, because most were focused on potential hooliganism or terrorist threats, the report noted. The poor planning meant that serious problems were nearly inevitable, the report said. “A series of dysfunctions” occurred “at every stage,” Mr. Lafon said, because soccer officials, the police and the transportation authorities were “in their own lane without any real coordination” — failing to anticipate that a large number of supporters would come and reacting sluggishly when crowds started to build up.Chaotic scenes of fans scaling stadium fencing and of families being sprayed with tear gas at the game — the biggest match in club soccer, watched by hundreds of millions around the world — seriously dented France’s credibility to hold similar high-profile events, like the 2023 Rugby World Cup and the Olympics.Liverpool fans lining up to enter the stadium. The planning for the match has raised questions about France’s ability to host big sporting events.Matthias Hangst/Getty ImagesThe senators urged President Emmanuel Macron’s government to recognize the mistakes, to tweak policing tactics, and to improve France’s strategy for securing large-scale sporting events.“We mustn’t let spread the idea that we can’t organize big sports events,” said François-Noël Buffet, another senator who led the inquiry, on Wednesday. “If the truth had been told right away, we wouldn’t be here two months afterward.”Gérald Darmanin, Mr. Macron’s tough-talking interior minister, had quickly blamed the chaos on 30,000 to 40,000 Liverpool supporters with fake tickets or no tickets at all — in the end, only about 2,500 forged tickets were scanned, the report said.Mr. Darmanin, who belatedly apologized for the organizational failures on that evening, said on Wednesday that the government would follow the report’s recommendations. Those ideas include improving real-time communication between the authorities for large-scale events, systematically planning alternative overflow routes to prevent crowd buildups, and to reduce bottlenecks by finding ways to encourage fans to arrive earlier.“Not only were there dysfunctions, but also errors of preparation,” Mr. Darmanin told lawmakers on Wednesday, adding that authorities would “draw all consequences” in preparing for future events.The report faulted the French authorities for their “dated perception of British fans, reminiscent of the hooligans of the 1980s,” that led them to overstate the threat of violent supporters and to underestimate the threat of petty criminality.“The political will to suggest that the presence of British fans was the sole cause of the chaotic situation at the Stade de France, perhaps in order to hide the poor organizational choices that were made, is in any case unacceptable,” the French senators wrote in a summary of their report.Video surveillance footage from the stadium was automatically deleted seven days after the game, per usual practice, because authorities failed to request copies — a decision that showed poor judgment and prevented them from accurately determining the number of ticketless fans, the senators said. Spirit of Shankly, one of the main Liverpool fan groups, welcomed the report, calling it a “clear message of support” for Liverpool supporters who attended the match. Many had accused the French police of using aggressive tactics, including tear gas, on the night of the game, and were outraged when French officials pinned the blame on them.Riot police took up positions in front of the Liverpool fans during the match. The report faulted French authorities for their “dated perception of British fans, reminiscent of the hooligans of the 1980s.” Matthias Hangst/Getty Images“Spirit of Shankly would like to thank the Senate both for welcoming the testimonies of fans and consequently vindicating them from any responsibility,” the group said in a statement on Wednesday, although it added that it still expected “a full apology from the French government.”The report, which was written after public hearings with government officials, local authorities and fan groups, acknowledged that several factors complicated crowd control that night, including a strike on one of the main commuter trains leading to the stadium, and larger-than-expected crowds of English supporters converging on the stadium.But the senators said the French authorities did not have adequate contingency plans in place and failed to adapt when the situation started to spiral out of control.Stadium employees were insufficiently trained to handle disgruntled or distressed fans, the report said, and the police and transportation authorities reacted far too slowly to redirect the flow of fans and avoid bottlenecks that were created when a pre-filtering system meant to prevent terror attacks was also used by stewards to check tickets.There were not enough signs and staffers in place to guide supporters, the report added, and there was no system in place to update supporters on what was going on — including on the fact that the game had been delayed, “which would have avoided stampedes to get inside.”A report commissioned by the government came to similar conclusions last month, and UEFA, European soccer’s governing body, is carrying out its own review. The French senators blamed UEFA for its ticketing policy, arguing in their report that it should make “unforgeable,” paperless tickets mandatory for major events like the Champions League final.Tariq Panja More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in Soccer

      Bad Planning and Errors, Not Fans, Led to Champions League Chaos, Report Says

      by

      A French Senate inquiry faulted the authorities for blaming large crowds of supporters instead of owning up to their failures, after violence and confusion marred the match near Paris. PARIS — Faulty coordination, bad planning and multiple errors by French authorities were responsible for the chaos that marred this year’s Champions League soccer final just outside Paris, according to a parliamentary report published on Wednesday that criticized officials for blaming English fans instead of acknowledging their own failings.The scenes of confusion and violence at the May 28 final between Real Madrid and Liverpool were described as a “fiasco,” and with Paris scheduled to host the Summer Olympics in two years, the report urged French officials to dispel doubts over the country’s ability to host large-scale sporting events. The report found that the authorities were unprepared for the tens of thousands of Liverpool supporters who converged on the Stade de France, and in no uncertain terms, it rejected the French government’s initial insistence that the dangerous crush of fans had been caused on that evening by the presence of fans who had fake tickets, or none at all.“To us, it is clear that it isn’t because Liverpool supporters were accompanying their team that things went badly,” Laurent Lafon, a lawmaker who presides over one of the two Senate committees that ran the investigation, said at a news conference on Wednesday.Supporters were also mugged after the game by groups of petty criminals who took advantage of the chaos to try to enter the stadium and to harass fans. Few police officers were stationed to prevent crime, because most were focused on potential hooliganism or terrorist threats, the report noted. The poor planning meant that serious problems were nearly inevitable, the report said. “A series of dysfunctions” occurred “at every stage,” Mr. Lafon said, because soccer officials, the police and the transportation authorities were “in their own lane without any real coordination” — failing to anticipate that a large number of supporters would come and reacting sluggishly when crowds started to build up.Chaotic scenes of fans scaling stadium fencing and of families being sprayed with tear gas at the game — the biggest match in club soccer, watched by hundreds of millions around the world — seriously dented France’s credibility to hold similar high-profile events, like the 2023 Rugby World Cup and the Olympics.Liverpool fans lining up to enter the stadium. The planning for the match has raised questions about France’s ability to host big sporting events.Matthias Hangst/Getty ImagesThe senators urged President Emmanuel Macron’s government to recognize the mistakes, to tweak policing tactics, and to improve France’s strategy for securing large-scale sporting events.“We mustn’t let spread the idea that we can’t organize big sports events,” said François-Noël Buffet, another senator who led the inquiry, on Wednesday. “If the truth had been told right away, we wouldn’t be here two months afterward.”Gérald Darmanin, Mr. Macron’s tough-talking interior minister, had quickly blamed the chaos on 30,000 to 40,000 Liverpool supporters with fake tickets or no tickets at all — in the end, only about 2,500 forged tickets were scanned, the report said.Mr. Darmanin, who belatedly apologized for the organizational failures on that evening, said on Wednesday that the government would follow the report’s recommendations. Those ideas include improving real-time communication between the authorities for large-scale events, systematically planning alternative overflow routes to prevent crowd buildups, and to reduce bottlenecks by finding ways to encourage fans to arrive earlier.“Not only were there dysfunctions, but also errors of preparation,” Mr. Darmanin told lawmakers on Wednesday, adding that authorities would “draw all consequences” in preparing for future events.The report faulted the French authorities for their “dated perception of British fans, reminiscent of the hooligans of the 1980s,” that led them to overstate the threat of violent supporters and to underestimate the threat of petty criminality.“The political will to suggest that the presence of British fans was the sole cause of the chaotic situation at the Stade de France, perhaps in order to hide the poor organizational choices that were made, is in any case unacceptable,” the French senators wrote in a summary of their report.Video surveillance footage from the stadium was automatically deleted seven days after the game, per usual practice, because authorities failed to request copies — a decision that showed poor judgment and prevented them from accurately determining the number of ticketless fans, the senators said. Spirit of Shankly, one of the main Liverpool fan groups, welcomed the report, calling it a “clear message of support” for Liverpool supporters who attended the match. Many had accused the French police of using aggressive tactics, including tear gas, on the night of the game, and were outraged when French officials pinned the blame on them.Riot police took up positions in front of the Liverpool fans during the match. The report faulted French authorities for their “dated perception of British fans, reminiscent of the hooligans of the 1980s.” Matthias Hangst/Getty Images“Spirit of Shankly would like to thank the Senate both for welcoming the testimonies of fans and consequently vindicating them from any responsibility,” the group said in a statement on Wednesday, although it added that it still expected “a full apology from the French government.”The report, which was written after public hearings with government officials, local authorities and fan groups, acknowledged that several factors complicated crowd control that night, including a strike on one of the main commuter trains leading to the stadium, and larger-than-expected crowds of English supporters converging on the stadium.But the senators said the French authorities did not have adequate contingency plans in place and failed to adapt when the situation started to spiral out of control.Stadium employees were insufficiently trained to handle disgruntled or distressed fans, the report said, and the police and transportation authorities reacted far too slowly to redirect the flow of fans and avoid bottlenecks that were created when a pre-filtering system meant to prevent terror attacks was also used by stewards to check tickets.There were not enough signs and staffers in place to guide supporters, the report added, and there was no system in place to update supporters on what was going on — including on the fact that the game had been delayed, “which would have avoided stampedes to get inside.”A report commissioned by the government came to similar conclusions last month, and UEFA, European soccer’s governing body, is carrying out its own review. The French senators blamed UEFA for its ticketing policy, arguing in their report that it should make “unforgeable,” paperless tickets mandatory for major events like the Champions League final.Tariq Panja More

    • 113 Shares149 Views

      in Soccer

      Two Chances, Two Goals and Two Wins for Germany

      by

      Spain had more of the ball and did more with it. But Germany, the standard of excellence at the Euros, did enough to reach the quarterfinals.LONDON — It was the ruthlessness that caught the eye in those few vital moments, the cold and clinical efficiency of it all.Spain looked, in many regards, to be a better team than Germany at the European women’s soccer championships on Tuesday night. It had more of the ball and did more with it, and it offered more style and more industry and, at times, even a bit more bite. And in a showdown that was widely seen as a meeting of a continent’s soccer past — Germany has won this tournament a record eight times — and its soccer present, it was Spain that, for frequent stretches, offered a glimpse at European soccer’s future.The problem for Spain, though, was that it gave up two golden chances, Germany pounced on both of them, and that was that. The Germans won, 2-0, to claim a place in next week’s quarterfinals, and the Spanish were left to wonder if this tournament would really be their coming-out party after all.“There were two big mistakes that we paid for,” Spain Coach Jorge Vilda said, “but we know that’s how it is against Germany.”These are already looking like the Euros of What Could Have Been for Spain: if the veteran Jenni Hermoso hadn’t sprained a knee ligament a month before the tournament; if the world player of the year, Alexia Putellas, hadn’t torn a knee ligament only days before the opener; if this cross had delivered a little more bend and that shot had arrived with a bit more curl.Center backs Marina Hegering, left, and Kathrin Hendrich helped Germany post its second shutout at the Euros.John Sibley/ReutersGermany has had nothing of those concerns. Its deep and talented team merely went about its work again on Tuesday: clearing the shots that needed clearing, saving the ones that sneaked through, winning the battles that needed winning. Style points hardly mattered when the final whistle blew. Germany, which has scored six goals and surrendered none since arriving in England, had what it had come to take.In some ways, oddly, Spain’s second game at the Euros was an improvement over its first. In its opener, it had conceded a goal in less than a minute. On Tuesday, it took nearly three to do the same.The goal had come seemingly out of nothing: Spain was calmly working the ball around the back, maneuvering out of some pressure, when goalkeeper Sandra Paños collected it in her goalmouth and fired a clearing ball directly into Germany forward Klara Bühl’s midsection. Bühl settled the ball, sidestepped a defender and coolly slotted it under Paños and into the side netting.Goalkeeper Sandra Paños and Spain surrendered an early goal for the second game in a row.Dylan Martinez/ReutersStunned by an early goal for the second game in a row, Spain dusted itself off and went back to work. In its opening game against Finland, it atoned for its early mistake by scoring four goals. On Tuesday, it went searching for them again, controlling possession by more than two to one, completing several hundred more passes than the Germans, stroking the ball around the grass in a soothing geometry of neat zigzags and diamonds and triangles.But the goals never came. And then, about a half-hour after the first goal, Germany won a corner, fired it toward the forehead of striker Alexandra Popp and watched her nod it past Paños. Spain led nearly all the statistics by then, including oohs and ahs, but trailed in the only one that truly mattered.Germany’s victory was more than symbolic: By winning and taking control of Group B, Germany most likely will avoid a quarterfinal meeting against England, which thrashed Norway on Monday night, 8-0, in Group A — even if that collision arrives eventually.“In Europe, we have the best teams in the world,” defender Marina Hegering said. “If you want to reach the final, you have to beat everyone.”On the other side, the defeat came on what was already a grim day for Spanish women’s soccer. Hours earlier, F.C. Barcelona, Putellas’s club team, had confirmed that her knee had been repaired by a surgeon, but that she would most likely miss as much as a year while she recovered. Her injury already has affected Spain’s prospects at these Euros. Now it might bleed into its hopes at next summer’s World Cup.But that is a tomorrow problem for Spain, which will look to bounce back against Denmark on Saturday, and hopefully again after that in what is now a looming quarterfinal against England.Germany, meanwhile, marched methodically ahead with its second straight shutout, looking like soccer’s past still has quite a bit more time to go. More