Bronze

Wins just happening.

~ bowlingatvincent ~ Leave a comment

It’s dangerous but it feels important and maybe even right to stick down a few things about the Lionesses. Knowing they will be judged – not by many, of course, but judged. These things are true for me. Let’s get the vilest or most contentious one out the way first-up.

The penalty fluff-out means we can’t go calling these women #warriors*. It was an international embarrassment and it was bad for the women’s game.

(*OK. Qualification  numero uno. You could probably describe Bronze’s performance as heroic, and therefore warrior-like. She brought everything. I might argue that the only other England player to play up to their level – and therefore express courage in a different sense – was Kelly, who came on and performed).

We can’t describe Hampton’s performance as unequivocally heroic, because she was mediocre during the second half, and wasteful with those strangely over-pumped hoofs up the park – twenty five yards beyond her attack. (Probably adrenaline or stress but weirdly in-keeping with the general level of mis-execution). Yes she may be the best keeper in the tournament for her driven passes and general work, and yes she went into the shootout with three hundredweight of cotton wool up her nozzer, but how many penalties did she actually *have to save?*) Let her enjoy her moment, absolutely, but this was a win conjured by abstracted qualities, barely (if at all?) expressed.

Blimey. What does that even mean?

It means England have quality – they have the second or third best squad in the tournament – and this can out in extraordinary, fascinating, infuriating or cruelly redemptive ways. Russo can ‘earn’ you a win for her lionhearted and endless running, despite her repeatedly poor finishing. (Missed headers in the tournament, rather feebly missed shooting chances and a continuing and concerning lack of fox-in-the-boxness. But all that wonderful other stuff!). Greenwood can earn you a win for her rare steadiness and drilled crossfield passes. James can earn you a win, with her electrifying brilliance. Or maybe Sweden can just out-capitulate you in the lottery that is the shootout.

England can be truly lousy, defensively, from Carter’s workaday limitations to Williamson’s fabulous-but-flawed, non-physical, almost metaphysical reliance on wit and game-reading skills. They can be painfully easy to play through or around: Sweden did that, first half.

Esme Morgan, who replaced her injured skipper, is a profoundly good footballer but she is almost nailed-on to offer a howler, as she did late in extra-time, almost ‘fatally’. Walsh is a sort of elite water-carrier very much in the mould of the modern Academy Era: deeply proficient at rebounding passes and playing safe and short. But like those central defenders, you wouldn’t mind playing against her. There is something there that you can really open up.

But hang on. We should note to the universe that Ingerland did stir impressively to grab back a) a chance and then b) the initiative with firstly a great goal (made by Kelly and finished by Bronze) and the momentum-capping scramble ninety seconds later. Russo might even have won it before extra-time had she not failed to sort her feet again. However, England’s fresh legs looked like they might carry them through, as the 90 minutes expired.

Extra-time was almost all Sweden. The multiplicity of changes (and/or tiredness mental or physical, and/or possibly inadequate direction) saw Wiegman’s side look listless and open as overtime ticked away. Sweden, not the Lionesses, had heads up and energy re-primed. England had little of the ball, making almost no phases of play. (In fact England rarely do this – other than those sideways or backwards rebounds between central midfield or defenders. Walsh making 80 passes with almost none of them counting). Then we had those penalties.

I dislike pens but concede immediately and pitifully that we probably have to go there in the modern era. These were garbage: an embarrassment. The players and staff will know that and do that juggle where they both acknowledge and move on. But they should note that because of Mead’s anaemic performances over many months and James’s in-out temperament, they may need to be taking pen 12 and 13.

England have been fortunate again in the draw and I expect them to make the final. They should. They may go on and win it, dynamically and with style. They do have quality. But almost everywhere you look, they also have soft-spots. Players who get that glazed eyes thing or that rush of fear. Wiegman really must be exceptional at galvanising something but it’s hard to identify what it is. Because errors. Because despite the evidence of wins, she will know she has players who cannot execute really simple things, in the moment.

Be honest, despite this evidence of comebacks and ‘resolve’, which of them feels deeply and inviolably resolute? Or perhaps more exactly, which of them has you confident that they will deliver? Maybe Bronze and Greenwood. All of Toone, Mead, Hemp, Stanway and James do feel bit willowy*, do they not – or susceptible to pressure? (Is that* a cruel word to use? If so, apologise. Reaching for the truth of this. And I acknowledge that Stanway and Toone – arguably all of them – do have a certain kind of toughness. These things are complex).

So wow; we have quite a phenomenon here. The cool record shows England, who really do have top players, are also consistently defying this litany of perceived vulnerabilities. Meaning either I’m wrong with much of the above – entirely possible, of course – or that perhaps their wins, or any wins do *just happen?* And perhaps this is wonderful?

In Question.

~ bowlingatvincent ~ Leave a comment

It would be absurd, plainly, to suggest that there’s a significant mentality problem with the Lionesses: (duh, ‘they only went and won the cup’). But as a fan and follower it does feel like that, a little. Many of us, I think, slip into anger at the nervousness plaguing so many players and/or so many of the early minutes of a ‘typical’ England performance – or should that be non-performance. There are too many howlers.

Again, last night, Wiegman’s side under-achieved pretty extravagantly, being wasteful, slack, lacking purpose or focus. Bright was understandably (and I thought rightly) in there for her physicality and strength against strong and athletic players, but her first contribution was an embarrassment, and she – of all people – seemed to lack the gumption and the will to drive through the spreading nerves and get to her natural (if limited) game.

She was by no means the only one. If you were to drop into that cheap marks-out-of-ten thing, Bright might raise a 4, but who would be above 6, from last night? Williamson, certainly: she may have felt both angry and yes, embarrassed at the level of passing and control and execution around her. The skipper was the proverbial head and shoulders above her team-mates, being the only one playing genuinely heads-up football. (The other prime candidate, generally, would be Walsh, but she was another profound disappointment, disappearing back into the dullness of the most unproductive of water-carrying roles: everything square or ‘safe’; keep-ball but no product. Worse, it often felt that wasn’t making angles to receive passes – so being relatively unavailable, as well as unthreatening).

Russo was wonderfully game and mobile, as always, at least offering some confidence and that potential for linking play. But her ‘killer’ passes or strikes at goal were notably feeble, sadly. Mead and Hemp are excellent players, but their propensity for early nerves and subsequent, intermittent failure to execute even simple passes or heavily rehearsed moves appears reinforced. Stanway had a poor game, Toone was anonymous and despite the additional presence of Bright, the defence again looked vulnerable – again, particularly in central areas.

I get that they were playing France, one of the best sides in the world. But patently England are one of the best sides in the world; they just haven’t played like it, for a year or more.

So we have to question Wiegman as well her players. Job numero uno for any coach of any team is to breed a confident environment: get players happy and able to express. (I’m not thinking we’re seeing that – you? No). We’re dealing with abstracts and moods and personal/psychological stuff, here, so let’s not pretend that this is simple… or entirely manageable, even. And yet it’s still the first box that a manager or coach has to tick. And that manager or coach will be judged, forensically or through anger and disappointment, on the quality and fluency of their side *through his prism*. Are players are giving a fair account of themselves? Or is lack of something – let’s call it confidence – undermining what they do?

If we zoom in then tactical matters and matters of pattern or playing style reveal themselves. But that prior and wider view is a) often more honest – in the sense that it’s more widely felt and understood – and b) it’s hard to shake.

The team humour resonates with fans; they share the nervousness and actually share it around; in the stadium. In this weather-vane ethersphere, the Lionesses are currently mid relative-trough; starting badly and getting caught in cruel, infectious, debilitating cycles of mis-step and angst. Small breakouts into almost-football but then another unforced error. It’s horrible to watch. Coaches have to stem this by either re-invigorating confidences, or doing the shouty-sweary stuff, to get people focused – to get them ‘doing their f*cking jobs’.

Stanway’s job is to cover the ground and make passes. Toone similar – although she darts more and gets into scoring positions more. But she, too, is not making the passes. Bronze may be and may think she is a worldie beyond criticism. But her defending is slack, and given those talents and that force, she’s nowhere near to maxxing-out her influence.

Wiegman is entitled to be thinking about the unthinkable: switching Carter to right back, bringing the left-sided (and tough, and strongish dead-ball merchant, and pinger of decent passes) Greenwood back in – let’s face it, she should have played last night – and either dropping Bronze or pushing her forward. The midfield needs a re-fresh and England’s strongest defensive line-up might be Earps / Carter / Bright / Williamson / Greenwood. (Morgan looks a player but is maaybee too like Williamson: Bright is on a warning but she was the best player at the Euro’s and she does offer old-school defensive virtues, plus a threat from set-pieces – or should). Bronze, such is the scope of her game and her dynamism, could displace any of the three current midfielders and probably bring greater consistency and penetration. (Not saying this happens, but the prevailing out-of-sorts-ness needs a remedy).

We/you/I could write a book about Earps: possibly even about her first contact with the action, last night. Was she already crocked – or how much was she already crocked? She just got in a slightly ungainly position to strike the ball, left-footed, then ouch. Something popped or cracked a little, without any clogging from an onrushing striker. We may never know whether Ar Mary – whom we genuinely love, for her Proper Football Passion – has been a wee bit selfish, in hiding or minimising an injury, so as to stay in the side. (We’ve all done it, yes?)

That story may be a thing of beauty and intrigue… or relative ugliness and deceit. Her switch for the impressively calm-looking Hampton was not what any side would want. But did it reduce the effectiveness or flow of the Lionesses? No. They were bitty and sometimes raw bad in any case. Their prospects for qualification look ‘in question’. Wiegman has work to do.

The Yorkies went mad.

~ bowlingatvincent ~ Leave a comment

The Lionesses’ surge to the final of the Women’s Euro’s may be a genuine phenomenon and a boon to the game across the UK, as opposed to just England. (Let’s hope). Despite The Authorities yet again underestimating and under-valuing these women themselves, and the importance of what they can and now are doing. Plainly, last night’s game could have been based at a venue at least twice the size of Bramall Lane; the players and the profile of the event arguably deserved that. No surprises that the Sports Admin Posse failed to rise to, anticipate or respect the inevitable Good Vibes Boom: that would mean understanding both the game and the population around it.

Having said that, of course England fed off the energy of the crowd in that ‘new’ Northern cauldron. A crowd that again seemed distinctive, with different voices, maybe fresher voices carrying the team home after another mixed start.

Spain absolutely slaughtered England in terms of style points and possession, for more than an hour. They found acres of space in front of Lucy Bronze and toyed with her at least as much as they did with her fellow full-back – yaknow, the one The Pundits called for to be dropped. Sweden could never outplay England in quite the same way that Spain had, but Bronze, increasingly looking like one of those worldies who’s started to believe her own publicity, was awful, defensively, early-doors. Slow to press and slack with her passing. In short, Sweden should have been 3-1 up inside ten minutes.

In the context of a 4-0 win in the other direction, this may not matter. It may indeed be churlish to be ‘concentrating on this’. But I do so because France and/or Germany will be. Either of these sides seem nailed-on to score against an England defending poorly out wide and so easy to pass through in midfield. Even the brilliant doughtiness of Bright and the wise, calm, cultured nature of Williamson may not be sufficient to hold the proverbial fort should their next opponents be offered space to race or pass into and time to cross or cut back.

There is universal acclaim for Wiegman, the manager; understandably so, for her record and her care. Players are apparently extraordinarily well-prepared and seem to be trusted to a high degree to both ‘stick to the plan’ and adapt. This is the great and generous way – the holistic way. Enable players and let them grow. It is in this context that the team selection should be seen.

Some of us might have dropped Hemp or even Kirby; both were below par in the early rounds. Others might have shed Daly. Many of us are even now wondering what Wiegman might be saying to Bronze, before the final: an old-fashioned bollocking, perhaps? Unlikely. Asked about the period in which England were again somewhere between ‘mixed’ and under the cosh, the England manager shrugged and said simply “again, the team found a way”.

At every level, you’re in Dreamland as a coach if your players show initiative, guts and ‘trust the process’ (that is delivery of their skillset). Mead epitomised this. Her form and use of the ball has been patchy, in my view and, despite the deluge of fawning over her goal-rush – 6, now and out in front for the Golden Boot – she will know that (or should). So what? After having a quiet early period, she neatly gathered a cross, swivelled automatically and struck the shot sweetly across the keeper. One nil. And England were off.

The goals were extraordinary. Good, from Mead, bit odd, from Bronze, as her decent-but-not-more-than-speculative nod bounced through. Russo’s backheel was manifestly an electrifying outrage; so much so that the bewildered Lindhal was woefully ‘megged. Kirby’s chip was nearly an absolute peach… but again the ‘keeper has to save it. Four bloody nil. No wonder the Yorkies went mad.

It’s already been a kind of triumph. It may be the kind that proves irresistible. But it may not. For all England’s brilliance in attack, they have looked nervy, looked bad in the early knockings too often for their support to be unconcerned. The formidable athletes in the French side may have a field day: England might be gone before they’ve started. It could happen.

Serena Wiegman will know this. She will have A Plan. But she will also be gifting her players – the same players – the right and the responsibility to sort it out.