In a somewhat controversial decision that has been a shock to England's system, most England supporters have found themselves scratching their heads at the omission of Arsenal winger Theo Walcott. The pocket-size attacker had seemed to have been a shoe-in for Fabio Capello's final 23-man squad. Not many would have questioned the legitimacy of Theo Walcott's inclusion in the South Africa squad. So it certainly was a shock, especially from a man that the whole of the England nation had blindly put all their faith on to choose the best group of players to bring England World Cup glory. But the more interesting question is not necessarily why Theo Walcott hasn't made it to South Africa, but who instead took his spot on the plane?
Walcott's competition included the likes of Joe Cole, James Milner, Aaron Lennon, and Shaun Wright-Phillips. The first two were always going to make the trip to South Africa on the merit of their overall versatility. Whether that is reason enough will not be the issue on debate here however. The more valuable comparison is between Walcott, Lennon, and Wright-Phillips. On face value, the three players are practically identical in play-style. They're all wingers with great pace, a remarkable turn of speed, and frightening acceleration. So why has Capello decided to choose them at the expense of Walcott?
Out of the three, it is incontestable that Theo Walcott plays for the more prestigious club. Indeed playing for Arsenal awards Walcott some playing experience - notably Champions League football - that the likes of Lennon (Tottenham Hotspur) and Wright-Phillips (Manchester City) simply don't have. Although the argument can be made in favor of Shaun Wright-Phillips whose 3-season stint at Chelsea has rewarded him with such big-game experience. One question many observers have is why didn't Capello just take all three of them. Even though the three wingers share on many levels, in both strength and weakness, I believe there exists inherent differences via which Capello made his decision. Out of all of them Wright-Phillips is the one which offers more. On top of his pace, Wright-Phillips boasts of superior dribbling ability that his other two competitors simply don't have. In effect Lennon and Walcott focus more on making overlapping runs and employing one-twos to use their pace and beat their man. This dependence on their pace for effectiveness and lack of a plan B when defenses sit deep in front of them is the weakness in both Lennon and Walcott's game. Conversely it can also be an asset as it keeps the opposition in check and prevents them from pressuring too high up the pitch, and thus allowing more space to other midfield players. Their biggest weakness however is a lack of a final ball. In terms of crossing ability, they are weak by wingers' standards. Then how would one choose between them? Club training is the answer to that question. Paul McCarthy, sports editor From the British newspaper News of the World, relays reports from the England camp that Capello thought "Walcott was too much of an Arsenal player" and that he drifted in too much and played too many little passes and wasn't direct enough. Arsenal is known for their passing football whilst the counter-attacking style of Spurs has given Lennon more directness about his game. Of course this is not to say that one is superior or more effective than the other.
Of course taking three players of such similar ability would have been redundant and counter-productive. Shaun Wright-Phillips most likely got the nod on his superior dribbling ability, his positive performances in England's qualifying campaign, and his accrued experience. Indeed this England squad, as well pointed out by The Guardian, is "the oldest (and most experienced) ever" with an average age of 28.7 years old. As such most star wonder players -such as the likes of the impressive Manchester City winger, Adam Johnson - have been omitted from the squad at the expense of age and experience. It is indeed in true Italian fashion that Capello has assembled this group. But does Lennon really deserve his spot in front of Walcott? Both have had their share of injury problems and have consequently barely played for their clubs this season. Then why was Lennon picked? Is the club training argument really sufficient? By comparison, Lennon lacks the big game experience that Walcott boasts of and as such makes him a weaker option than Walcott. Or perhaps Capello has decided to replace club form (a variable not applicable in this situation anyways) with morale. Therefore he chose Lennon, a player whose team has just broken into the top 4 as opposed to Walcott whose Arsenal team has failed to win a trophy for the 5th consecutive year. The reality remains that only Fabio Capello knows why he omitted Walcott, but all of England fans will be pinning their hopes on his very revered judgement.
No comments:
Post a Comment