2013-05-18T22:54:57-04:00 William Barns-Graham http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/author/index.php?author=william-barnsgraham Copyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for William Barns-Graham Good old fashioned elbow grease. tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1957140 2012-10-11T07:06:26-04:00 2012-12-11T05:12:01-05:00

William Barns-Graham http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-barnsgraham/
The former was most recently espoused by Tony Pulis, every 'purist's greatest enemy. Although I personally like football played in a more attractive way as a spectator, I have no qualms with Pulis' methods - they're effective, pragmatic, can be good to watch in a certain way and Stoke's style adds to the diversity and difficultly of the Premier League thus making the league a more interesting watch. It's when Pulis gets on his anti-purist rants and to an extent extols his own purism that he becomes frustrating - in the way that Wenger's 'pure' purism annoys many. Diving should be something that unites both sides because of general condemnation of it, but with Pulis and others it's a symptom of the foreign game as "poncy foreign players" become the depiction of the anti-Pulis. They are not, and diving is not - just ask Jermaine Pennant.

His calling for 3 match bans is utterly ridiculous. At the moment a dive is a yellow card offence and the last time I checked, yellow cards do not warrant suspensions. Could diving ever realistically be a red card offence? If you think that red card offences are usually matters of harmful or violent conduct - such as stamping on opposition players - then obviously diving isn't as it whereas diving is a form of cheating that only has repercussions within the game, violent tackling and conduct has repercussions on the physical well being of the opposition player. You get red cards for two yellow cards, so if a player gets two yellow cards, then they will be sent off, and that's already part of the game.

Red cards for being the last man making a goal preventing foul are more interesting. Like diving, a cynical last man foul is a form of cheating the opposition in respect to a goal. In my view there is a difficulty with the last man rule as it stands anyway, namely that if the cynical foul occurs in the penalty, the fouling player's team gets a double whammy of going a player down and probably a goal down - this tips the balance too far the other way and often ruins what would otherwise be interesting equal contests. However, the difficulty with this law is that if the attacker beats the offside trap and the goal preventing foul occurs 30 or 20 yards from goal, then the sending off might be a fairer leveller, but you're not supposed to have one law for in and one for outside the penalty box.

Diving too would face a similar problem should it become a red card offence because for it to be a legitimate red card offence, it would have to take place in the penalty area - a dive 30 yards out from goal can hardly be a red card offence. Even so, I believe a yellow card to be a fair punishment for diving and even if it would to become a red card offence, it could only ever be a one match ban in the same way as a two yellow card or a 'last man' foul red card is. Pulis, by calling for a three match ban, is calling for diving to be the same as violent conduct, and as already noted, there is a significant difference between the two. That Pulis claims came on the same weekend that his only players have been caught stamping on opposition players to no such media response, it seems that Pulis disproportionate response can at best be seen as a distraction mechanism.

Then there's the other cancerous diving discussion - the 'foreign players' bought it into the game one. Firstly there's the fact that this is irrelevant. It's not a defence of the malaise of diving within the English game to point out that its original cause was elsewhere. It's still wrong that English players dive and it is part of the English game now (only John Terry denies it) so whether it was twenty years ago or not is irrelevant. If anything, English players, individually, have less excuse as their diving cannot be accounted for by a defence of cultural habit. When Danny Welbeck and Ashley Young do their weekly plunges, or longer established stars Wayne Rooney and Steven Gerrard do so, they are doing so despite having been told by their coaches since they were kids, probably, that what they were doing was wrong. At least if diving is a thing that is encouraged abroad, the foreign players have the excuse that they are doing what is normal where they come from.

Either way the argument is irrelevant, diving is wrong wherever it occurs and English players are just as guilty now and probably always have been once "jumpers-for-goalposts" tinted glasses are removed. What can actually be done to solve the problem in the Premier League, and indeed all games? FIFA vice-president Jim Boyce believes some retrospective treatment should be made and perhaps this could be possible - just not to the extreme extent that Pulis is advocating. It is currently a yellow card, but as things stand the FA do not do retrospective yellow cards and this seems reasonable - it would be quite a workload! To make diving an exception to the no retrospective yellow card rule would have some difficulties in that there are various yellow card offences that people would want to be given the same treatment - dissent for example. However, the with red card offences, retrospective treatment is only given if the referee submits a reference to the incident in his post match report. It could be possible for referees to submit a reference to a penalty incident in which he feels cheated after game, and then for retrospective treatment to be given. However, this can only be given as a yellow card, because it would be unfair for a ban to be given - the player is equally guilty if caught as if when not caught.

There is also the added factor that incidents of diving are often not clear. Michael Owen recently noted how we went down easily after feeling contact in the area in two World Cups, but denied that this was diving. There is also the argument that a foul can be made without contact, because the falling player is trying to avoid the fouling contact. So even if retrospective action was bought in, there would still be grey areas, as referee Pierluigi Collina said at the same event as Owen. Either way, these more intricate discussions about how to cure the cancer of disease are more interesting and important than the sensationalist diatribes of the likes of Tony Pulis.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1869941 2012-09-10T06:26:53-04:00 2012-11-10T05:12:01-05:00

William Barns-Graham http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-barnsgraham/
So when it comes to that oh so difficult second album, how do you create something that captures the mood in this peculiar way again? By playing to the strengths of their debut album and defining their sound more entirely within them, on Coexist The xx succeed in further encapsulating 'their sound'. They've increased the minimalism (is that an oxymoron?) and further increased the reverb on the guitars that allowed xx to be described an as indie rather than an electronic ambient album (perhaps a factor in the success of the debut) to increase their ethereal fogginess. Opener 'Angels' subtly glides along Beach House evoking guitars, high pitched bass and Romy wispily singing "Light reflects from your shadow/ It is more than I thought could exist/ You moved through the room/ The breathing was easy/ If someone believed me" . Romy and Ollie continue to delve in the shady delicacies of love (and stuff) to create easily engaging if sometimes bland lyrics on Coexist and this is again seen on 'Chained' with Romy and Ollie's textured combinations singing "we used to be closer than this/we used to be closer this/we used to get closer than this/ is it something you missed". Over floating synths that sound a bit like Boards of Canada, and clicking rhythms as Jamie xx's own influence is subtly felt, the song sees the trio continue to combine effortlessly to create brooding catchy songs amid their murky atmospherics. 'Chained' is the closest that they get to their peak of subversive catchiness on xx's 'Crystallised'. The other classic xx track (if that's already a thing) is 'Tides' where Ollie and Romy again combine in that infectious way, singing "you leave with the tide and I can't stop you leaving" over musique concrete glitches and some staccato-ed guitars that create that lovely melodic ease of listening that made tracks like 'Basic Space' classics of the late 00s.

The xx also show ambitions to develop their sound beyond this minimalist efficaciousness, infusing the clubby aspects from the various remixes from the xx era to allow for an overall house feel to develop at points of Coexist. At points this serves to undermine the sense of space and shade that epitomises The xx and leads towards the dull side of subtle nuance. On 'Fiction' the song is tightly structured by dancey grooves as Ollie dourly croons "fiction when we're not together/mistaken for a vision, something of my own creation", but despite the attempts to use dissonant piano interjections to keep the song moving, it rather fades like the type of fiction that you force yourself to read to the end out of a sense of duty rather than turning the pages over without a glimpse of thought. 'Sunset' also errs towards blandness as housey rhythms never really break into a melodic epiphany but it rather trods along and is carried rather than shaded by the typical xx atmospherics.

But there are points when these developments do indeed acts as developments that enrich the xx's already familiar sound rather than constrain it. On 'Reunion' you hear the Caribbean sounding steel pan drums that have defined Jamie xx's solo work amid slow building guitars and hushed vocals in a song that's almost designed to be remixed. It works as track in its own right though as a muted bass provides a decent harmony to what turns out to be a typically xx sounding coda with Romy and then both Romy and Ollie repeating "Did I see you see me in a new light" over a 4/4 clubby rhythm. 'Swept Away' also builds along clicking rhythms and intermittent piano chords as Jamie xx's presence is again felt alongside more prominent bass beneath melodically matched guitars and vocals.

If anything, 'Reunion' and 'Swept Away' present a slight evolution in sound that will serve The xx as well for at there are moments on Coexist where you ponder how far their minimalist atmospherics can take them. On 'Try' in particular, the reverbed guitars and singing interchanges become a bit self-parodic and slightly banal. An increase in the influence of Jamie xx amid Ollie and Romy's sometimes rambling duets could serve to maintain the edges that allow The xx to be effortless cool and engaging and prevent these edges from being frayed by repetition and dullness. Bands who define themselves a 'sound of their own' have to develop within their pocketed allure and resist becoming subsumed by it. On album closer 'Our Song' reversed guitar swirls suggest another development that may allow the sound to continue to grow and the album in general takes The xx in a positive direction, rather than standing still.

The difficulty in following a debut that many felt was a 'breath of fresh air' is that unless you successfully alter your sound completely, that breath won't be so fresh second time. Coexist is not as striking and not as catchy as the debut xx but there is enough within it to suggest that this shady trio are no one album wonders.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1821496 2012-08-22T10:21:33-04:00 2012-10-22T05:12:07-04:00

William Barns-Graham http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-barnsgraham/
Formed in Oxford, by Andy Bell, Laurence Colbert, Mark Gardner and Steve Queralt, Ride's first release, Nowhere, became a classic of the late 80s/early 90s shoegaze scene. Shoegazing, which I've already referred to quite a lot in this blog - it's my current phase let's say - was but one stream of the dispersing directions that rock music had already taken since the late 1970s. With the 60s and 70s rock movement effectively a descendent of 20th century American blues (especially the 12 bar blues), it wasn't until the arrival of punk that the classic and typical structures of rock music began to change. Rock music in general, post Led Zeppelin, was beginning to exhaust the blues structure and too often became an indulgence in the various whims of self-indulgent guitarists trying to become the new Jimmy Page or Jimi Hendrix. Punk saw a rejection of this extravagant musicianship and a gigantic shift towards simpler, catchier and anarchic songs, whose purpose was not to show off the guitarist's mastery of the pentatonic scale, but instead to be loud and abrasive, pertaining to rebellion, rather than proggy psychedelic revelling. Despite punk's intentional ambivalence towards musical structures and so on, this initial challenge to the established rock formula changed modern music for ever and opened up a line of musical lineage that would ultimately culminate in Ride and the rise of Britpop afterwards.

Following the bombastic years of Sex Pistols, Buzzcocks and co, it was in post-punk that new guitar bands found a confidence to, within the 3-5 minute structures installed by pop music, create a new sort of expressiveness in their music - punk may have initiated the shift, but post-punk is as important for being a thriving genre post-12bar-blues. Incorporating elements of art rock legends such as Velvet Underground along with the influences of Krautrock and the rise of electronic music, bands like Television and Talking Heads paved the path for atmospheric and emotional rock music that could survive quite independently of the previously blues and folk shaded rock. While bands like The Cure and dream pop band Cocteau Twins were influential bridges between post-punk and shoegaze, it was the distortion heavy, angst ridden lineage of Joy Division through to The Jesus and Mary Chain that was more influential in creating the new techniques that would ultimately influence bands like Ride. Joy Division's low-fi atmospherics and The Jesus and Mary Chain's revolutionary distortion manipulation on Psychocandy saw guitarists begin to be able to use the sheer power of noise to create a grandeur of dreamy haze rather than bombastic riffs and solos. Concurrently the Metal scene used this distortion to create increasingly heavy riffs and increasingly extravagant solos - i.e. bands like Metallica and Iron Maiden. But while the 1980s metal scene's influence has been largely self-contained within 30 years of various subsequent metal music, the alternative use of distortion used by bands like The Jesus and Mary Chain went on to influence a wider field of music including electronic, ambient, alternative rock, noise and dream pop music among many other genres.

Although My Bloody Valentine's heavenly Loveless became the legendary lynchpin album for this reverb and distortion heavy dreamy rock music that became known as 'shoegaze', Ride's Nowhere was also a fine example of how far rock music had come since the increasingly leather trousered days of the late 70s. Indeed the early 90s is possibly the most underrated period of musical creativity in history. Shoegaze had found its ultimate platonic form with Loveless, metal was being subsumed by the peculiarly named 'alternative rock' movement as the new genre for the 'outcasts' with bands like Pavement, Sonic Youth the Pixies and even the Smiths following in the steps of REM to make catchy, poppy but still 'alternative' music; the Stone Roses were also leading the Madchester scene of drug infused psychedelic rock and grunge was kicking off in a big way with Nirvana's Nevermind round the corner. Add to this the underground rise of 'intelligent dance music' with trip hop band Massive Attack releasing Blue Lines and Aphex Twin releasing his Selected Ambient Works following Brian Eno's various ambient masterpieces in the 80s, as well as the meteoric rise of hip hop with collectives like Public Enemy and A Tribe Called Quest growing through the late 80s into the early 90s, and you have a whole wave of intelligent and dignified new musical genres being created out of the more caricatured diversity of the 80s. Even metal was beginning to develop a greater integrity as Rage Against the Machine's pedal heavy funk metal merged punk, metal and hip hop, while Tool were beginning to merge prog and art rock with metal to create some pretty epic music. As I say, it was a much underrated time for music.

Ride as forerunners of the shoegaze movement along with My Bloody Valentine definitely deserve their place among this great list of seminal groups. Nowhere has always been viewed as their classic and it is certainly their most quintessentially shoegaze album. 'Kaleidoscope' is a classic shoegaze track, evocative of Bloody Valentine's Isn't Anything period, while slower song 'Polar Bear' bears all the poppy emotiveness that underlined a lot of the shoegaze period. While title track 'Nowhere' sounds like a Jesus and Mary Chain throwback, there are also plenty of hallmarks of 90s nuances to come. 'Seagull' with its funky bass and psychedelic foretells bands like Kula Shaker, while the nasal vocals and harmonizing cello on 'Vapour Trail' sound very Oasis (for whom Bell would go onto become the bassist). But what made Nowhere such a great album was Ride's ability to create an overall dark and cold atmosphere via individually catchy and poppy songs. Perhaps it is on 'Unfamiliar' that Ride's greatest trait is exhibited: harmonizing droning vocals with catchy guitars to create a song that is both extrovertly poppy and internally complex and distracting.

That Ride were able to follow up Nowhere at all should be noted (My Bloody Valentine have famously not yet released a follow up to Loveless), but that they did so with an album as fine and creative as Going Blank Again is quite remarkable. Still fundamentally a shoegaze album, the guitars are still reverbed up and put into full dreamy escapist haze mode, but on Going Blank Again Ride are clearly captured by the aforementioned wave of creativity going around at the start of the 90s. Poppier and certainly lighter than Nowhere, Going Blank Again has probably been more influential to subsequent 90s bands. Soon to be characteristically 90s sounds emerged on the track 'Chrome Waves' with its synthesized strings and hip hop inspired beats (Ride noted that hip hop beats were a major influence at the time). The harmonizing 'aaahs' in the background to 'Mouse Trap', an otherwise classic shoegazing track in the Isn't Anything mould, were also quintessentially 90s while 'OX4' - a song about doing dope in Oxford - surely must have touched Britpop legends like Blur and Pulp. Going Blank Again also collects a wider span of Ride's influences. Already mentioned is the impact that hip hop had on them and you can also hear Jonny Marr's influence on the sunny, giddy guitar licks on 'Twisterella', the closest Ride come to a 'happy go lucky' song in this period. On album opener 'Leave Them All Behind' you get a Krautrock-like jam of 8 minutes of psychedelic riffs that just keeps on giving - the track could last many minutes longer if it wasn't for Ride's poppy constraints. 'Leave Them All Behind' can also be said to be a defining moment for 90s psychedelic rock as the squelchy wahhed guitars were to be later found on Kula Shaker again, as well as popping up in some unexpected places - America's poppy post grunge Third Eye Blind certainly seem to have been affected by Ride's guitar work on Going Blank Again. Typical of the time it was made, there's a lot happening on Going Blank Again.

Also typical of the year of its release - 1992 - is the Nevermind problem. As with many other alternative rock albums that year, Going Blank Again's sales were affected by the phenomenon that was Nirvana's Nevermind which saw grunge become the flavour of the month to the expense of shoegaze. While gunge became a sensation, shoegaze remained the foil for the dreamy outcasts who escaped the world via an internal haze of reverb rather than the more overtly rebellious angst that defined the grunge movement. Nonetheless, as with other great shoegaze bands like My Bloody Valentine and Slowdive, Ride's legacy was strong enough to endure, such was the quality of their music. Ride's influence in particular, although not as grand as My Bloody Valentine's, was diverse and often surprising. Their mark on Britpop was not just confined to Bell's membership of Oasis but can also be found on their music, especially on Going Blank Again; their psychedelic guitar work is echoed on wide variety of bands such as Kula Shaker and Third Eye Blind; and the fact that they became a nationwide success despite coming from the previously low-key (in terms of music that is) location of Oxford inadvertently inspired future giants Radiohead as well as other Oxford bands like Foals to outgrow their quaint hometown (I highly recommend the 'Oxford scene' documentary Anyone Can Play Guitar for evidence of this).

The early 90s was a booming period for new music and new genres, one that perhaps has not been matched since. Ride certainly had their role to play within this with their two LPs from the period Nowhere and Going Blank Again. Overshadowed and perhaps underrated, recent rereleases and the 2001 best of compilation should hopefully preserve the great music they created during this period. Already regarded as one of the great shoegaze bands, Ride should also be regarded as one of the great bands of the 90s.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1810816 2012-08-20T10:07:27-04:00 2012-10-20T05:12:04-04:00

William Barns-Graham http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-barnsgraham/
One of the predominant topics of opening weekend discussion is, of course, how the new teams will fare. People who watched barely any Championship football the season before make judgments on the prospects of each of these teams by looking at how many names they recognise, often ignoring the often exceptional performances of the relatively unknown players in the Championship the season before. Wise sages then announce "I think they'll struggle" when talking about the new additions - revolutionary stuff it is to say that teams coming from a lower level are going to be the weaker teams at a higher level. So wanting not to sound trite, and reluctant to make judgements about teams that I admittedly do not know as well as the more established premier league teams, I will instead consider the approaches that the promoted teams seem to be adopting for the season ahead and will draw upon my empirical knowledge of previous promoted sides in an attempt to evaluate at least what problems each of these teams are likely to face.

From the opening weekend it has become quite apparent that two of the three teams have broadly different strategies for the season ahead. West Ham appear to be employing the direct and robust style of play that has become the Allardyce trademark while Southampton look to play a free flowing attacking side, who like to cherish the ball and 'play a bit' (to borrow a classic Jamie Redknapp catchphrase) a la Swansea, Blackpool and Reading's first stint in the Premier League. Reading seem a bit trickier to surmise from last weekend's offerings. They seem to have plenty of pace in players like MacAnuff and Le Fondre, and have some experience in players like Guthrie and Pogrebniak. Whether they fit into the Swansea or the Stoke mould I'm not quite sure yet, though I'd anticipate the former.

Southampton were easier to place. Not afraid to have a go at City and able to use the ball creatively to launch threatening counter attacks, Southampton showed that they have plenty of the tools needed for Premier League survival. Lallana looked cool and composed in midfield, their defenders were seriously challenged by City's attacking plethora but seemed to have the necessary anticipation and intelligence to deal with most other attacks reasonably well, while up front in Lambert they have a striker who seems capable of scoring a dozen or so goals, which is obviously vital for any promoted side. They certainly remind me of teams like Blackpool, Burnley and Reading (in the mid-00s) such is their endeavour and lack of fear and restraint. This approach has had mixed results. Famously Blackpool thrilled the footballing nation with their bravery and almost innocent naivety to go to places like Arsenal and Utd and try to play them at their own game. It resulted in a few considering thrashings (6-0 at Arsenal) but it also earned them some memorable scalps (winning at Liverpool of course). Reading earned similar superlatives with the side lead by Kevin Doyle and Steven Hunt that finished 8th in the league (2006-7). Although Reading's approach was initially successful, it often doesn't work and such teams have tended to be undone by poor defences and profligacy in the final third. For all of Blackpool's admirers, they earned immediate relegation, as did Burnley, and Reading's initial success unfurled in the following season leading to relegation.

This confident fearless approach was best exemplified by Brendan Rodgers' Swansea side last season. Whereas Blackpool and Burnley could be described as being gung-ho with their attacking endeavour, Swansea played a possession based game of technical mastery in midfield, defensive composure and a mixture of pace and clinical finishing upfront. While previous promoted sides have struggled to adapt to playing without the ball having been able to dominate teams in the Championship, Swansea attempted to run games in the Premier League as well and they were successful in doing so. They even managed to outplay the usual possession lynchpins of the league when they beat Arsenal 3-2 in January. It was the kind of football that people often lament the English game for being unable to foster. Of course Swansea are Welsh, but their nerve and confidence to play a Barcelona type game with previously Championship level players was both brave and successful. Furthermore, judging on last weekend's evidence, they seem content to continue in this light and Laudrup's additions of Michu and de Guzman seem quite capable of allowing Swansea's possession football to evolve and continue in its success. Southampton seem to have taken note such was their composure and willing to try to use the ball against City last weekend. Whether they too can emulate Swansea's success is yet to be seen, but if they do, then the technique based football that British football has for so long eschewed, may begin to become the blueprint for all upcoming sides.

Traditionally, English football has resembled something more akin to Stoke's physical and direct football of the last few seasons. The long ball (and of course the long throw) up the pitch, bypassing the midfield battle to instead engage in an aerial battle in the opposition's area, may seem outdated in Catalonia or the streets of Rio, but it became their way of winning points. While purists lambasted Stoke for not 'playing football' (though what else they were doing I'm not sure) Stoke saw it as the pragmatic approach - why play Arsenal in a passing match when you know you'll just end up being thumped 6-0? Pragmatism was vindicated as the Britannia Stadium became the great battleground of the Premier League, with 'purer' sides such as Arsenal and Tottenham perennially struggling to cope with the physical bombardment that Stoke unleashed. Now in their fourth season of Premier League action, Stoke are now seen as Premier League regulars and the Britannia remains one of the toughest away fixtures.

This approach is hardly unprecedented - of course it isn't, it's either the 'old-fashioned' approach or the 'right and proper' way, depending on whomever you are talking to. That West Ham - traditionally one of them 'football playing' clubs - seem to be going for this approach is due to one of the style's most notable proponents of recent years. Hammers manager Sam Allardyce's success at Bolton now almost a decade ago was based on an ability to 'have a go' at the opposition in a physical way as well as in a footballing way, and with Kevin Davies playing as a battering ram at the fore of Bolton's attack for numerous of years, Bolton, like Stoke, became a team that the purists grow to love to hate. Again, it was the likes of Arsenal and Spurs who perennially got battered on blistery winter evenings at the Reebok, and with Stoke taking over from Bolton in this respect in recent years, the oft-mentioned question asked in football has become "Could Messi do it on a wet Wednesday evening at the Britannia?" It is a question that I suspect will never be answered (though I think most reasonable people know the answer).

Allardyce has again installed Kevin Nolan as fundamental to this approach - the battling midfielder is one who is able to mix sturdy tackling with plenty of goals. With Carlton Cole set to be the target man up front with the pace of players like Vaz Te on the flanks, West Ham have a team that is built towards speedy and direct counter attacks. Whether they can mix this with the defensive solidity that has underlined Stoke's recent successes, remains to be seen (I will certainly have to be convinced by their defenders), but with Allardyce at the helm, you can be certain of a certain robustness. At the same time, it would be too easy to caricature this approach as being solely focused on physical imposition. Allardyce's purchases in years gone by have been some of the most striking made by the supposedly less exotic sides in the leagues - Bolton's signings of Anelka, Okacha and Djorkaeff back in the mid-00s all suggest that Allardyce has always been willing to mix physical power with technique and flair. It may be important for Allardyce to do the same at West Ham such is their perceived heritage for free flowing attacking football (not that that heritage has done them too well in recent years).

Whether it's the Bolton and Stoke high ball way or the highly praised way of Swansea, one low way that seems to be losing popularity is the stoic 'park the bus' way that some sides have previously taken up. Most notable among these has been Alec McLeish's Birmingham side from a couple of season ago. Based on the successful defensive partnership of Scott Dann and Roger Johnson, Birmingham survived with relative ease in their last debut season, finishing ninth. Although they weren't the most exciting club to watch in terms of goals, their success was largely due to an ability to keep clean sheets and get just about enough goals to win some games and draw many others. While Birmingham received accolades for their organization and solidity, the following season, a failure to build upon these successes by developing anything resembling an attacking style, lead to boredom and antipathy towards their perceived negative side. A remarkable Carling Cup delayed this criticism, but when they were relegated there were very few neutrals who were particularly upset. McLeish's subsequent difficulties and sacking at Villa seem to have further compounded the criticisms against such negative play and have also highlighted that, without an ability to score goals and play some kind of expressive attacking football, teams will definitely struggle.

There are various approaches to Premier League survival, and while the Swansea way is the most attractive and pleasing on the eye, the league would be a worse place if the likes of Stoke and Bolton hadn't been around to give the league those grotty, intimidating fixtures that other leagues do not have. But if every McLeish Birmingham side were to be replaced with another Swansea, and dare I prematurely say it, another Southampton side, then that can only improve the league and the British game in general.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1790154 2012-08-16T11:49:39-04:00 2012-10-16T05:12:28-04:00

William Barns-Graham http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-barnsgraham/
Whatever it is that motivates van Persie or Modric, it's certainly not the same thing that motivates the often lauded and increasingly rare 'one club men' who play out the entirety of their careers for clubs that they have either supported from youth or clubs that they simply feel comfortable, loved and at ease at. Paul Scholes and Ryan Giggs' devotion to the Man Utd cause has become legendary, while Barcelona and Real Madrid, for all of the transfer activity that goes in and out these great clubs, can always rely on club stalwarts like Xavi and Iker Casillas to always be around to lead their great teams onto perennial glories. But the reality is that most players are not 'one club men'.

Most players aren't fortunate enough to be able to play out such careers. Take new Arsenal recruit Lukasz Podolski. He began his career at Cologne and his loyalty to the Cologne cause has been evident throughout both of his stints there, but the reality was that his talents outgrew the capabilities of the club and such talent would have been wasted had they not been able to be exhibited on the Champions League stage. Thus his first move to Bayern Munich. For his second move Cologne's relegation from the Bundesliga certainly precipitated his move to Arsenal - Podolski, the youngest player to reach 100 international caps, could hardly be plying his trade in the second tier of German football. His contract had only one year to run and so the clubs, able to negotiate a fee that satisfied both club's needs, were able to facilitate a move that would match his ambitions.

So why can't van Persie's ambitions be treated with the same level of understanding? Arsenal as a regular competitor in the Champions League and a club with seemingly genuine aspirations for a title challenge (note their new signings) are a club with pretty lofty ambitions themselves - they're hardly in Cologne's position. But having not won anything for 8 years now, van Persie must have some justification for believing they won't win another trophy next season. So it's about medals? Ultimately winning is the aim of the game but the question I'd like to ask is who the greater player is: former Man Utd player David May (who carries a treble of medals from 1999 alone) or Premier League legend Matt le Tissier? Most people would say the latter, but you would hardly deny that Ryan Giggs, a player with seemingly an infinite supply of trophies, is one of the greater winners of recent times.

What motivated le Tissier then? Well he was another one of those one club men but for a smaller club who didn't have much of chance at winning anything. Devotion to the club was certainly a major part of his motivation, but the fact that he was a club hero because of it surely would have been a motivating factor. Had he left to Man Utd in the early 90s and won loads of trophies as merely part of the team, he would have had a more successful career in terms of trophies, but he wouldn't have been the Southampton legend that he is and always will be.

And what about a player like Steven Gerrard? That a player of his quality hasn't won a Premier League medal is peculiar. He could easily have moved to Chelsea in the mid-00s and have won plenty more trophies, but instead he has been the club leader, the club legend and the player responsible for the few trophies they have won - notably the 2005 Champions League triumph for which he was performances will always fondly remembered by Liverpool fans. Surely as an individual feat, this personal triumph far outweighs any of the many many medals won by bit-part players like David May (sorry Mr May this all probably seems a bit harsh as you were a decent player but you are a decent example here, as another decent player Oleg Luzhnyi also would be).

So in the case of van Persie, couldn't he have been motivated by the goal and opportunity to lead his team to an historic trophy win? It seems not. Although van Persie would undoubtedly be massively important to any Utd triumphs this coming season, winning with Arsenal would have definitely surpassed such achievements - he would win as a club legend rather than as part of an already successful team. The same goes for Samir Nasri and countless other players who have left upcoming teams for the guarantee of trophies at already successful clubs.

But who can blame van Persie for choosing an easier way to victory - if Man Utd win multiple trophies this season and Arsenal win nothing again, his decision is immediately vindicated and he'll have more to show for his outstanding talent at the end of his career. It may be the easy road to victory, but it would be victory nonetheless. And it's hardly as though he would have taken the decision lightly - he would have known the role that Arsenal have played in his development and the patience they paid him during his injury woes, but he only had one year left on his contract and it was his right to refuse to sign a new one. The same goes for Nasri. And while van Persie's controversial statement and Nasri's perceived petulance may irk fans, the actual decisions themselves are fair.

There will also be accusations that these players move clubs to receive more lucrative wages. Money as a motivation is something that particularly irks fans. What's the difference between £100,000 and £120,000? Isn't £100,000 enough? This complaint is an odd one though when you consider that in any other profession, it is perfectly acceptable to make career choices that maximise earnings. Why should football be any different? It is a job after all - Tottenham's Benoit Assou Ekotto notably remarked that his motivation for football has little to do with the joy of the game itself but he plays it because it is his job. This seemed to betray the luck and fortune that such a man would have to have the sufficient talent to be able to play the game professionally that millions worldwide will pay significant amounts of their own money to play and watch out of such 'love of the game'. But why should particularly footballers share this passion?

What motivates footballers is a complex matter and one that causes much anger and debate among fans, but ultimately they are entitled to their own wishes as long as they fulfil the obligations that their contracts entail - the castigation of Tevez for refusing to play while contracted to Man City and Modric for refusing to train at Spurs are more justified than the denouncements of disloyalty paid to the likes of van Persie and Nasri. While fans of all clubs will hope for all their heroes to live up to the noble one club legends of the clubs history, often the players have no reason to match their motivations - van Persie was not born an Arsenal player and owes the club nothing beyond contractual obligations. Arsenal ended up getting £24 million for a 29 year old striker who didn't want to play for them and had been injured for a significant amount of his time there. For all of the despondency that many Arsenal fans will be feeling, that is a pretty decent bit of business.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1790147 2012-08-16T11:47:09-04:00 2012-10-16T05:12:28-04:00

William Barns-Graham http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-barnsgraham/
In an Olympics that highlighted Britain's modern, post-fall-of-the-empire-melancholia-new-found-confidence, dynamism and secureness with its new world standing, the insistence on exhibiting the 60s-90s swells of British musical heritage seemed a bit out of place. Sure it was somehow apt that in an Opening Ceremony that wanted to display Britain's proud history as well as its modernity, nods and hints to our numerous revolutionary acts from ages gone by seemed somewhat apt. But the closing ceremony seemed at odds with the preceding two weeks of contemporary sporting and organizational brilliance, two weeks of contemporary national euphoria based on Britain's achievements in 2012 rather than age old institutions dating from before 1112 (i.e. the now seemingly annual Royal love-in) and musical movements of decades passed.

Priya Elan wrote in the Guardian's music blog to a similar effect that the ceremony's emphasis on the 90s was particularly striking - he compared it to a height of Britpop Brit awards doo and you can see why with the after party's photos of the sudden Spice Girls and Liam Gallagher love-in. But the general emphasis on Britain's musical past including and dating from decades beyond this is my bone of contention. I saw one 17 year old (I was a prefect for his yeargoup in my last year at school) post a Facebook status saying that he was fed up with the ceremony's insistence on being a "musical history lesson" and my immediate response was sheer anger - how can you be so foolish to not be contented with legends like Annie Lennox, The Who and Queen! But on reflection, he made an interesting point - the show could have done a lot more to advertise London in 2012, rather than London in 62, 72, 82 and 92. The Olympics itself didn't dwell on the past so why did both ceremonies (for the opening to do so was fair enough, but for the closing one to do so as well, did not).

Defenders of their generation may point to the disappointing performances of some of the contemporary acts - Emeli Sande has received some criticism for her perhaps flat performances, Muse's song was pretty dreadful and I will admit to finding Elbow underwhelming (they're not my favourite band I'm afraid). Despite this, the legends weren't that great either - George Michael outrageously took the opportunity to plug his new song, Lennox's entry on a gothic ship was bewildering and Brian May's self-indulgent guitar trickery seemed bizarre considering he now looks more and more like a professor from Harry Potter. Although many will complain about indulging tween pop acts like One Direction, Jessie J and Taio Cruz and many will not be enamoured by the various nods towards the UK grime scene, their appearances were ultimately successful, populist ploys - teenage girls around the world would have been screaming and swooning when Ed Sheeran came on stage and he should have been allowed to play his one of his own songs. More importantly, they represent London today - the aim of the games.

There is an abundance of current British music that the ceremonies declined to showcase to the world and which we generally decline to boast about in our general media and so on. Pioneering electronic acts like Burial, Aphex Twin and Four Tet, for example, would have been more reflective of Britain's current contribution to the contemporary music world (though the first two would definitely have declined such is their reclusive nature). Britain had the opportunity to show and market its current and upcoming musical innovators but instead they chose to showcase the innovators from eras gone by - a history lesson rather than preaching its current crop. That Danny Boyle chose to play multiple tracks by noise producers Fuck Buttons in the opening ceremony is more reflective of what Britain should be priding itself on music-wise in the 21st century - current innovators who highlight that great on-going British creativity.

This summer the 60s have provided that great proverbial pomposterous elephant that refuses to trudge out of the music room; its immobility somehow evocative of Cliff Richards' years of refusing to stop singing at Wimbledon before the roof thankfully spared us of his 'services'. It's pretty impossible to ignore it. The Beatles changed the face of pop music, The Who were the great proponents of youthful rebellion, Led Zep gave the world hard rock, Pink Floyd gave the world Dark Side of the Moon and so on. Britain can hardly be bashful about this grand pedigree and it was right that they were given their due consideration in the opening ceremony that boasted Britain's history as well as its present. Their popularity is still massive as well. Various bursts of retromania down the years have allowed their presence to always be felt and there is the age-old fact that good music, as any good art does, remains good despite the shifting contexts of history. In an era where entire libraries of musical periods and movements are available within a few clicks on the internet and often for free, the emphasis on when the age of the band playing and the age of the listeners has been much diluted and that is undeniably a good thing. Recently I went through a phase of listening to early 90s shoegaze rock despite the fact that it's all around 20 years old and was originally made before I was born, but this doesn't matter anymore - the entire history of music is available for music lovers to immerse themselves in and to fall in love with as though they were there, listening to their debut LP at the time. This of course has to be celebrated.

But while the music remains great and loved, the insistence on wheeling these grand old names out at any occasion becoming trite. They've established their place in our musical hearts and affections, so let new bands and artists do the same. That's what celebrating British music should be about. Continuing their pedigree and letting new generations have their own movements and hoping that these movements too can have a lasting legacy. Whether they do or not is irrelevant. The early 90s alternative rock band Pavement had a line in their great song 'Gold Soundz' that went "Because you're empty and I'm empty/and you can never quarantine the past". It is often difficult to do this - to 'quarantine the past' - such is the brilliance of these great old bands, but as this summer gradually fades into autumn, the Indian Summer years of these great bands should be allowed to gradually come to an end. Their legacy is made, we need not overstate it and allow The Who's lyrics to become more dated, Paul McCartney's voice frailer and we certainly need to prevent John Lydon from doing any more butter adverts. In an era when the Prime Minister is a Smiths fan, it has to be accepted that the youthful rebellion that these great stalwarts exuded has been diluted by their ages - The Who's generation are now mostly retired. "Hope I die before I get old" - you didn't die, you got old.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1736485 2012-08-03T06:32:22-04:00 2012-10-03T05:12:02-04:00

William Barns-Graham http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-barnsgraham/
The complaint from Little is a bit harsh for a few reasons. Firstly, and this is perhaps a weak but still relevant point, GB have probably benefitted from the friendlier less hostile atmosphere that surrounds a home-held Olympics in comparison to the media frenzied, all-or-nothing Euros. Just look at the attendance of the GB matches and you can see happy faces, genuinely willing the team on, rather than sceptics waiting to sharpen their pseudo-punditry knives for scathing criticism. Furthermore the shortage of time to prepare the team was due to the relatively unprecedented nature of GB having a team at the Olympics. Having not had a team play since Zeus and co defeated the titans (using the esteemed 4-3-3 formation I'm reliably informed), novelty has certainly aided the good feeling towards Pearce's fellowship of the Olympic rings. Even had GB been totally outclassed and thrashed by each of their opponents, they wouldn't have received anywhere near the same antagonism that attaches itself to England at every tournament. If Hodgson had a free shot at the Euros, then Pearce comparatively has a shot that is stark naked and frolicking through fields of Scottish heather (come to think of it, ignore the Scottish bit).

If you add to this the diminished calibre of GB's opposition, then it becomes apparent how nicely things have worked out for Pearce so far. Senegal have been the biggest test so far such was their sheer physical strength and athleticism (and their vicious application of it). GB for the first hour looked by far the better team making Senegal's technical and tactical weaknesses apparent. Senegal got the draw through their greater fitness at that stage of the tournament, but as the first half exhibited, they were not that great a team which was why they had to resort to sheer physicality. UAE were decent, technically good and also able to play attractive football, but GB's talent simply was greater, while Uruguay were clearly not particularly well prepared for the Olympics - sluggish, unfit and lethargic, all very preseason. Compare to this England's opposition in the Euros - the talented (if brattish) France, the nemesis Sweden and the buoyant hosts Ukraine in the group stages before taking the defeated finalists and defeaters of Germany Italy to penalties (yes we were outplayed but Hodgson's defensive organization did succeed in preventing Italy from making it count). GB take on South Korea in the next round, which will be trickier than many expect. GB should win against them, they'll probably play Brazil again in the semis and then we will see just how good Pearce really is - isn't the classic criticism of England that they always lose against any team that is actually any good?

The worrying thing for England is not that they chose a conservative manager rather than A brave one. The problem is that Pearce has been able to deploy a more attacking side because he has had players that Hodgson didn't have at hand - Ramsey, Allen and Bellamy. England were criticised for not being able to keep the ball but Hodgson can hardly be blamed when the best ball keeper in the England squad was probably Jordan Henderson. Without Wilshere through injury and with GB's impressive Cleverly not a realistic option for the Euros also due to injuries last season, the other options for young, dynamic, possession orientated midfielders were either not ready for England (McEachran for example) or too Welsh (Ramsey and Allen). In having Ramsey and Allen available and also at the perfect age for the tournament being played, Pearce has had a luxury not afforded to any England manager - players who can control the midfield through the simple art of keeping the ball and distributing it carefully rather than bombastically. Ramsey in particular has caught the eye with some dynamic performances combining intelligent possession with dynamic running (his form bodes well for Arsenal). If England had Ramsey and Allen to go alongside Wilshere in the future, there'd be significant cause for optimism. But alas, as Giggs was England's missing ingredient on the left wing for so many years, so it seems England will again look to their neighbours and see the missing ingredients from their own team.

Without such luxuries can Hodgson really be blamed for installing organization and defensive rigidity rather than attacking expressiveness? Hodgson's approach was probably the best given the players England had available - without England's best ball cherishing midfielders in Wilshere and Scholes, England were left with a combination of players better suited to the counterattack than to a possession based game that they would simply be outplayed at. Pearce has players that allow GB to play attractive football and credit is due to him for making the best of the players he has available on such short notice in this respect. Hodgson too should still be given such credit. What will be of interest is if Hodgson's conservativeness will continue to do the same in the next two years.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1709117 2012-07-27T07:06:53-04:00 2012-09-26T05:12:33-04:00

William Barns-Graham http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-barnsgraham/
The attacking talent is clearly there: Neymar, Oscar, Ganso, Hulk, Damiao and many others all make up another very exciting generation of Brazilian attackers. Their defence is also decent - Thiago Silva is one of the best defenders in the world with the likes of Juan and Marcelo developing alongside him. Finding the best way to gel this all together is of paramount importance though, as the seriousness of their interest in the Olympics and the Confederations Cup (their only competitive matches before the World Cup) shows. Having the talent on the field is one thing, but to do so with a coherent strategy and team ethic is another. Spain have both. Brazil need to have both as well to win the World Cup.

Brazil always go into World Cup with a great talent and flair. Just in recent years, they had Ronaldo blasting his way through defences in France 98 until the mysterious circumstances surrounding his anonymity in their defeat to France; Japan and South Korea 02 saw the three Rs - Ronaldo again, Rivaldo and the blossoming Ronaldinho - swaggering on the counter to win the tournament; in 06 it was supposed to be Ronaldinho at his peak, leading Brazil to retain the trophy before Zidane outclassed him with one of the great individual performances of World Cup football (alas the picture atop this blog); then in 2010, Kaka was supposed to be the player who linked Brazil's solid defence to their blistering attacks, except Holland were more effective and Snjeider was able to dominate the middle of the pitch. It seems that Neymar is going to be the star of the next Brazil team, and probably the one of the stars of world football for some years to come. By 2014 he'll be up there with Messi and Ronaldo amongst the world's best players we're told - some say he's already at that level.

Despite the growing strength of the Brazilian league and South American football in general, it seems that for the foreseeable future, Neymar will have to move to Europe at some point to truly prove this. The Champions League is the main tournament of club football, and to be honest, of world football such is the higher quality that comes with sustained club football over the sporadic bursts of international football. So to be truly compared with Messi and Ronaldo his main opportunity to prove himself is in the Champions League. Nonetheless the World Cup will provide a great stage for his talents to shine whether he moves across to Europe or not. His ability is great - great feet, pace, tricky dribbling and an able finisher. There are hundreds of YouTube clips showing him blistering and beguiling his way through various defences. But he's no Messi yet. Should he come over to Europe (probably Spain) it will take him a year or two to be able to replicate these performances against the better defences in Europe. Certainly, the Champions League would provide a real test of his talent especially in the latter rounds when the defenders start to become world class. He reminds a bit of a 2006 Ronaldo at the moment - very talented and great against most teams, but defendable (plus he seems to be as likeable as Ronaldo was around that time). Like Ronaldo, he'll need a couple of years as an important player at a top European team to take him to the higher, best in the world level. It seems that for Neymar to the truly effective player that Brazil will need him to be in 2014, a move to Europe can't come soon enough.

But Brazil's capabilities of winning in 2014 will depend upon their team efforts a lot more than Neymar's prodigious talent. Should they come up against Spain, they will need to get the ball in the first place in order to get the ball to him or to any of their other exceptional strikers (Hulk, Damiao et al). In the centre of midfield they've got some technically gifted, almost Spain-esque players. Oscar and Ganso in particular look like find midfield distributors (plenty of Neymar's goals for Santo have been assisted by Ganso's left foot). What will be important for Brazil is what they do without the ball - will they be able to close down well enough to disrupt the opposition's quality on the ball. The difference between South American and European club football is that in Europe there is nowhere near the same amount of time to exert yourself on the ball. Although the likes of Sandro and possibly Ramires are players who will work hard for the team to retain position, Brazil would be foolish to rely on just a couple of deeper-lying midfielders to do all the off the ball work. Spain are brilliant at working for the ball as a collective; Brazil will have to do the same - Neymar and Hulk will have to work just as hard as Sandro to hassle opposition.

The other ramification of this difference between European and South American club football is that in South America it is much easier to get the ball up the pitch quickly. Ganso and Oscar can turn deep possession into attack within a few seconds, but such is the combativeness of European football, they won't be able to do this so easily. They will not be able to simply get the ball to Neymar every time they collect it. Top defences are able to close out players. This has been the problem for Messi at international level - because Argentina focus their game so much through Messi, when he has been closed out of games by quality defences (i.e. Germany in 2010) they have been left relatively toothless despite their other talents. The key to Brazil will be not to play through Neymar in the final third, but to rely equally on their other attackers to take up responsibility and become equally important players as Neymar. One of the key differences between Messi at club and at international level is that at Barca, if a team seeks to close Messi out of the game, then Iniesta, Xavi, Villa, Busquets and so on will instead take control of the game and cause damage. You have to defend against the entirety of their midfield and attack, not just Messi, so Messi gets more space. Brazil in 2006 were too reliant on Ronaldinho being able to run the show, so to speak, but once France closed him out, no one else was able to take control as Zidane instead ran the show. Brazil will have to control and attack collectively, rather than rely on just a plan A.

Against European teams the game will not be as end-to-end as it is in South America (the recent game between Brazil and Argentina would not have been seen at the tighter more tactical Euros recently). Brazil have the talent and ability to cause teams serious problems once the game opens up. Whether they'll be able to open up games against Spain or Italy will be a fascinating challenge for them over the next two years. It may just be the case that for Brazil to be able to do this, experience of top level European club may be necessary for the development of the combativeness, organization and commitment that is required to supplement Brazil's great talent should they seriously compete to win the World Cup.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1642667 2012-07-02T08:15:55-04:00 2012-09-01T05:12:12-04:00

William Barns-Graham http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-barnsgraham/
Last night's win did make the arbitrary argument in favour of Spain more compelling, and it certainly cemented their place within the history of the game as one of those teams that changed the way the world understands the game. Tiki-taka with its consummate mastery of the maintaining of possession and the constant off-the-ball pressure that facilitates it will have a lasting legacy over the game. It is rooted in a previous brand of football that was able to fashion its own legacy - the Total Football of the Dutch in the 1970s. Cruyff's influence on the training techniques at the famous La Masia academy in Barcelona from his early 90s stint as Barca manager undoubtedly contributed to Spain's extraordinary production line of technically gifted players. The emphasis on cherishing the ball and intelligent weaving chances, rather than brutally chucking the ball forward to a 'big man up front', was forced upon these prodigious talents from youth. The oft-mentioned but devastatingly true fact is that players such as Xavi, Iniesta and Fabregas would not have developed in the same way if they went to English academies. Paul Scholes is often used to refute this character assassination of the English game, but Scholes is an exception that rather proves the argument here - how many other players like Scholes have England produces in the 50 years before hand? England have had only a handful of players gifted with anything near the technique of Spain's 'carousel' over the last 50 years whereas Spain currently have an abundance. Just looking at Spain's bench is enough to convince anyone that the Spanish production of technically excellent players, talented enough to slot quite easily into this history making team, surpasses that of England and most other nations to an embarrassing extent.

The influence of Total Football on this current Spain team, and the current Barca team also, cannot be understated. The players idealise the Cruyff's Barca team of the early 90s - Guardiola was not just significant as a manager to many of these players, but he was also, as a player, the boyhood hero to Xavi, Iniesta and Fabregas. Indeed, when you consider the premise and conclusion of what Total Football attempted to achieve - for a team to be filled with players with the technical ability of the best midfielders and for all these players to be able to swap positions to no detrimental effect on the team - then Spain can be said to have fulfilled the standards previously set by Total Football. To poor Shearer's shock, there were no strikers, but a 4-6-0 formation, which, in attack, became a 2-8-0 such was the willingness of their full backs to attack. The two at the back, Pique and Ramos, are also players with great technical ability on the ball and either would be quite easily be able to play in midfield. Even Casillas is a goalkeeper known for his ability as a distributing goalkeeper, passing the ball back into the game with short passes to the defenders, rather than lobbing it forward for a flick on to nowhere.

But for all the philosophy and mastery of their tiki-taka keeping of possession, it is the constant off-the-ball pressure and their immense collective work-rate that has won Spain these tournaments. Whereas the famed international Dutch teams of the 70s were ultimately outfought in the two tournament finals by the industry of West Germany in the 74 World Cup and the greater will of Argentina in the 78 final, Spain are a team whose determination and effort are difficult to surpass. The number of 1-0 wins that have contributed to each of their three titles shows that, for all of Spain's attacking brilliance in games such as the 4-0 win over Italy, it is these other aspects of their game that have won them tournaments. Moreover, aside from perhaps Villa's talismanic contribution in South Africa, Spain haven't won any of these tournaments through sustained individual brilliance. They are fundamentally a team that is more than the sum of its parts, and when you consider the parts, that makes them quite a team.

If the great teams are the teams that have somehow changed the way we watch and play the game, Spain have undoubtedly done this. They have raised the bar - Spain are certainly superior to the 2006 Italy side and anything that preceded them for a long time, including the successful French team at the turn of the millennium - and the next few years will be dominated by attempts by other teams to raise the bar again, to overcome this classic Spanish vintage. Spain will keep up their standard. Xavi and Alonso, the elder statesmen of the current team, have at least the 2014 World Cup still to look forward to, while the likes of Silva, Iniesta and Fabregas will be at supposed their peaks then. Couple with this the emergence of younger technical wizards such as Thiago Alcantara, Mata and Jordi Alba (one of the stars of Euro 2012) among many others, and Spain's era of dominance could quite conceivably stretch to engulf a few more tournaments in victorious tiki-taka ticker-tape. It is up to everyone else to prevent the Spanish bull's continued march, to find a new tactic that can somehow counteract tiki-taka and to raise the bar again. Otherwise, only time can fade away this Spanish era, and time is currently on Spain's side. Whatever the tactic may be that overcomes Spain, it will have to include the togetherness, energy and discipline that this Spain team has mastered.]]>