Man United's Januzaj makes right choice: not to choose

The international break approaches us like the semi in Duel – from a speck in the distance, it sneakily becomes overwhelming. Today’s World Cup Qualifiers include important matches between the Euro 2012 hosts in Kharkov and a Sweden/Austria matchup that might determine Group C’s playoff entrant, while the contest in Mexico City could keep the hopes alive of both Panama and Mexico.

The European confederation enters the week’s festivities in a curious manner: five separate national Football Associations are “keeping tabs” on a single player, Adnan Januzaj, a winger helping to dispel Manchester United’s Moyesian malaise. It emerged on Monday that all of the Belgian, English, Serbian, Turkish, Albanian and embryonic Kosovar Associations feel as if the Premiership’s most babyfaced star might be tempted to play for their country.

It’s not unknown for a player to choose his nationality based upon his residence or passport in many sports, but football is undoubtedly the most high-profile. To take two higher-profile examples, Croatia forward Eduardo spent the first sixteen years of his life in Brazil, while James McCarthy was born and raised in Scotland but represents Ireland, the country of his grandparents. Tug-of-loves in International football occur about as regularly as they do on Coronation Street.

However, Januzaj’s situation is different. The player is only eighteen and hasn’t represented any country in youth football; although on the exterior it feels … unwholesome for him to play for the Three Lions after two years in the country, should he feel the appropriate affinity for England, Januzaj should be entitled to cast his lot in forever with them, after he has served the requisite time. The same goes for Belgium, Serbia, Turkey (who are notoriously convincing) and even Kosovo, pending … well, a bunch.

Adnan Januzaj should be absolutely allowed – and encouraged – to choose whoever he wishes. Unlike days past, nationality is a now a fluid concept; perhaps even it is a decision that young men should take more seriously than who they play their club football for. What would have the impact been on Wilfried Zaha – and the Ivory Coast – had he opted to play from them instead of England? For Januzaj there might be even more stark implications, what reaction would there be from Kosovars should he choose to play for Serbia?  Choosing a nationality, even just for a chance to play at the World Cup, should not be easy. Therefore, Januzaj is wise to take the time he needs rather than accepting whichever call-ups hit his door first.

The same choice has recently been faced by the likes of Victor Moses, Wilfried Zaha or Raheem Sterling. If only they had the foresight and wisdom to simply make a statement to the effect of Januzaj – I’ll play for who I like, when I’m ready – they might have saved themselves a significant amount of confusion. 

Socceroos bound for Rio despite managerial misgivings

After cutting it far too fine for comfort, the Socceroos can finally begin to prepare for the 2014 World Cup in Brazil. An eighty-third minute headed goal from Joshua Kennedy sealed a 1-0 victory against old rivals Iraq and progression from the final round of Asian Qualifying. While the display against essentially a second-string side was hardly awe-inspiring, it was enough and the antipodeans now take their place alongside Japan, South Korea and Iran as AFC representatives at the Big Dance.

Uzbekistan and Jordan will compete in a two-legged playoff in early September for the final available Asian qualifying position. Whichever squad that makes it to Brazil will certainly prove a fillip to their nation, but may not impact the makeup of the second round: of the Asian clubs bound for Rio, Betfair.com has Japan the shortest of the long-odds at 126:1.

While it's taken nearly three years, Australia coach Holger Osieck seems to have finally hit upon the best makeup for his side.  Over his tenure, Osieck has dithered through an extensive playing roster without ever tipping his hand towards pragmatism (and continued appearances by the likes of Sasa Ognenovski and Alex Brosque) or an attempt at an exciting future featuring Tomas Rogic, Tommy Oar and Robbie Kruse. This has hurt the team, as players both young and old never seem to know whether they had roles to play in attaining a World Cup berth. Had the Socceroos not won last night, this lack of clear vision - and a penchant for sexist jokes - would have thrust the German onto perilously thin ice.

The lineups deployed in these past two crucial qualifiers suggest Osieck believes - as do the majority of the Green and Gold Army - that success lies not in wholesale youth or experience, but somewhere firmly betwixt. The crucial players in Tuesday evening's win were Oar, Rogic and resurrected thirtysomethings Ognenovski, Neill, Kennedy and Mark Bresciano. Had the Socceroos been without Al-Gharafa's Bresciano over the past six months, they would be - at best - face a nerve-racking playoff to cement next summer's Samba Tour.

After two years of curious selections, it may be that Osieck has happened luckily upon his best lineup at the critical time.  The alternate viewpoint states that Australia's mixed results are a function of rarely having an entire squad available due to the travel involved in representing Australia.

Educated onlookers favour the former, especially based on the teams Osieck selected during turgid losses to Jordan and a draw with Oman: the Socceroos relied too heavily upon a square, lateral gameplan that lacked in fluidity and impetus. The re-emergence of Oar and the boost Rogic and Kruse obtained from transfers has thrust a more joyful approach upon the men in gold, resulting in a 4-0 thumping of Jordan (the nation's biggest win in a match that mattered since their 6-0 thrashing of Uzbekistan in the 2011 Asian Cup) and now, ultimately, acceptance not just as the Socceroos' future, but also their present.

To paraphrase Napoleon: it's better to be lucky than good, and Osieck appears to have stumbled upon his most fruitful combination.

Despite the pressure of expectation, Osieck has recently displayed a happy recognition of when to make the correct substitutions at the most important moments. Last night, he got it right again - removing Australia's most effective forwards this decade (Tim Cahill and Brett Holman) and inserting forgotten man Kennedy - a man built to dominate Asian football - who scored only minutes after arriving on the pitch for the 'Roos for the first time since 2011

That he has finally, finally, seemingly integrated the talented youth into the cadre of hard-bitten vets and finally exemplified his once-vaunted game-management skills, the future looks brighter for Australian football than it did only a fortnight ago.

With the pressure now off and Australia hoping for an improvement from Pim Verbeek's ill-begotten 2010 World Cup.

Soccer in the snow: should USMNT's victory count?

On Friday, the US Men's National Soccer team defeated Costa Rica in a crucial W0rld Cup Qualifying encounter. The match was played at Dick's Sporting Goods Park, in Denver - the famed "Mile High" city - and amid torrents of snow.

The final result was 1-0 to the home team, who were spurred on by an excellent performance from in-form goalkeeper Brad Guzan, and an opportunist's goal from Spurs striker Clint Dempsey.  The result leave the US second in the CONCACAF qualifying table, while Costa Rica (who appeared at the big dance in 1990, 2002 and 2006) are affixed firmly to that same table's lowest regions.



The upshot of the match, however, has been that the Costa Rican Football Federation has filed an official complaint about the match, citing concerns for their players' physical wellbeing.

One wonders if the complaint is based not so much upon player safety concerns, but in Los Ticos having to play in a stadium which received 2.35" of snow.  Such conditions would be very unfamiliar to many of the Costa Rican players: the average low temperature for Costa Rica during it's coldest month is 17 degrees celsius.

But is it such a crime for a home team to play at in advantageous conditions?   Bolivia's national team is remarkable at home and poor away due to the altitude level of their national stadium.  Qatar - and the other Arabic nations - play in suffering heat.  Each of these climatic or location advantages produce results for the home team.  That's what home-and-away ties are supposed to do - give each team one match at advantage and one at disadvantage.

And, in the immortal words of every youth coach, ever: "Both teams have to play with the cold, not just one".

Sticking points faced by the USSF include it's sheer size, varied climates and stadia, which are in stark contrast to opposition nations boasting only one suitable major arena (like Jamaica, Costa Rica or El Salvador).  While temperature must have entered discussion in the selection of Denver for this qualifier, the rotating stadium system employed by the US Soccer Federation (USSF) means proving any forthcoming allegations of blatant favouritism would be extremely difficult.

Legislation against venues and their weather conditions is a slippery slope, as FIFA's aborted case against high-altitude football grounds proved in the latter part of the last decade.  While it seems rather ruthless for a country of 300 million to seek such benefits from their home stadia - especially when playing a country whose population is roughly the same size as Boston - they have every right to do so.

International break? Give me a break!

It’s international week again and, for the fourth time in as many months since the Euros, the football world lets out a collective “meh”.

Today’s friendlies mean nothing to anyone.  Except apparently FIFA, who decided to schedule a round of non-competition internationals to fuel their dual fantasy that International friendlies are as important to crowds as the local stuff.

It’s not that friendlies aren’t important, but poorly timed.  English Premier League clubs have managed eleven league matches each since the season began in August.  By today’s end, we will have seen seven international matches.   Joe Hart, the England goalkeeper, has already played 26 matches since June.

In November, you can be certain of three things: that some domestic seasons are just getting interesting (like the English Premiership or the A-League, where league saviour Alessandro Del Piero’s coach has just resigned), that playoffs are in full swing (as with the Asian Champions League and MLS) and that Chelsea  have begun their annual holiday.

In arranging this new slate of games, FIFA’s reasoning is almost sound.  They finds themselves trapped in a corner of a world demanding constant attention: with a six month break between matches, the administrators risk the International game being even further overshadowed by local affairs.   It’s not too long a bow to draw to suggest a random football fan from Jamaica, Uzbekistan or Egypt knows more about this year’s UEFA Champions League machinations than their home nation’s last friendly result.  Their half-baked solution?  More international football.

The fact is that the marketplace is flooded with football.  You’d think the market is so large that flooding it would be something of a logical impossibility, but you’d be wrong.  Almost without exception, every domestic league in the world has operated within the past month; not only were the European Championships this summer, but also the Olympics and the annual Carlos Tevez transfer saga. 

Football fans have had no respite from Zlatan Ibrahimovic, Sasa Ognenovski and Ashley Cole’s Twitter account for over a year.

International football is, simply, a wonderful product.  The World Cup is a celebration of football the Champions League Final can never replicate.  Almost every major International tournament comes with a wholesome quality lacking when players are bought or sold for exorbitant sums.  You can think of International football as Organic football, taking time and care to mature.

Those who control future international fixturing now face a decision.  When controlling such a unique (organic) product, you can approach the market in one of two ways: make your offering boutique and desirable, or compete against products which are different/plastic/a billionaire’s playground (delete as appropriate). 

International football should always be relevant; however, competing with a glitzier – but not necessarily better – product, it has fallen into byline territory.  It’s time for football federations the world over to market International football as what it is: a boutique product that offers much that the domestic game cannot.

Minnows deserve their puncher's chance

Proboxing-fans.com's lexicon of pugilistic nomenclature defines a “Puncher's Chance” as “[a fighter] who doesn't have a very good chance of beating the other fighter, who is probably more skilled, but could still pull off the win by landing a great punch and knocking his man out”.

Basically, a puncher's chance is what it says on the tin. It was the concept that defined all six Rocky movies (particularly the last) and underlies any sporting contest where one party is heavily favoured. This is never more true than in tournament football, where a 'keeper can get hot or a fluke deflection can win – or lose – a match or even a trophy.

As World Cup qualifying gears up, we're faced once again with the old chestnut of competitive balance in European football. This was brought to a head last week when big-name team England were pitted against San Marino in UEFA Group 8 qualifying. Predictably, the Three Lions put five past a team featuring a pair of brothers who run a moving company.

And, once again we're faced with calls to make principalities like San Marino, the Faroe Islands, Liechtenstein and Andorra undertake pre-qualifying in order just to get a puncher's chance. This doesn't just apply to Europe but also to several small nations in Oceania (perhaps finally consigning Archie Thompson's dubious International goalscoring record to the footnotes of history).

Yes, watching teams drubbed 31-0 may be boring; however, allowing teams that puncher's chance – no matter how infinitesimally small it is – is also the right decision.

Sometimes you have to endure humdrum sport because it's the right thing to do – just think of baseball's regular season. Football truly is the world's game and as a result it behoves FIFA to ensure the World Cup is equally accessible to all countries. For many players – home-leaguers, removalists and soda salesmen – a matchup with Steven Gerrard and Ashley Cole will probably represent the highlight of their career.

With each added qualifying game, the puncher's chance decreases. How often can lightning strike?

Sport has become more and more streamlined over the past two decades, football especially so: the past twenty years have seen both the European Cup and UEFA Cup re-organised and rebranded into money-spinning leagues. Were the same to occur at the International level, not only is the park footballer robbed of his moment, but any chance of upset – or even unexpected challenge – is automatically gainsayed.

For a sport so openly seeking egalitarianism (the one defensible reason for the Blatter regime's failure to implement goal-line technology is/was a desire for the sport at the park to played in almost exactly the same way as the World Cup Final), offering everyone the same opportunity is the fairest only way forward.

It's hardly like the lack of competition damages the sport. In contrast, it's likely to inspire youth who on one magical evening got to see a spectacular Wayne Rooney free kick and returns home to practice and improve. That teen could become Rooney mark II; he could also coach his local junior side.

American Samoa has only the remotest puncher's chance of defeating New Zealand in a home-and-home matchup. But they still deserve the opportunity.