Time Shearer acted his age

Simon Kuper Sunday May 28, 2000

On the evidence of yesterday, England might be all right at Euro 2000. True, no danger at all comes from their left flank. True, none of their defenders can play a one-touch pass, or even trap the ball first time. True, Gary Neville's chief offensive contribution is his throw-in. But there is one thing England can do better than any other team in football: hit free-kicks from flanks and head them in. Without working out any particular ploys, they have become a dead-ball team.

The sequence usually runs as follows: Alan Shearer, shielding the ball, is fouled from behind. (When Steve McManaman returns to the side and starts running with the ball, it will be another source of free-kicks.)

The free-kick is then taken by David Beckham. At this level he operates like a specialist kicker in American football. The game goes too quickly for him to take much part but he is produced to kick dead balls.

He swings the ball into the box, where Shearer, Scholes, Campbell and almost all the other England players out-jump their opponents. Foreigners cannot head the ball. As one of them once said: 'If that was the point, the game would have been called headball.'

Sometimes the England man heads the ball in, as Scholes has done on various recent occasions and Keown and Shearer almost did yesterday. Or there is chaos, and the ball falls to Michael Owen, which is no bad thing either. After 24 minutes, he almost wriggled a corner into the net after a jumping Paul Ince had pushed over a defender. The goal after 39 minutes came from a variant of this method. Shearer won a throw-in on the right, flattening two Brazilians in the process. The throw was headed on by Beckham to Shearer, who reached Owen, who scored.

The goal exemplified England's other weapon, this one a new discovery: Shearer as provider for Owen. For most of the first half, the England captain played about 10 yards behind the Liverpool man, as Teddy Sheringham had played behind Shearer at Euro 96.

The new combination works. Like Laurel and Hardy, Shearer and Owen have complementary physiques. Shearer can win and shield the ball in midfield, while Owen has the pace to beat the last defender.

England were at their best with Shearer behind Owen. 'They did very, very well,' said Kevin Keegan. The problem is that Shearer still covets a fantasy of himself as the front man. Before the game he noted that both he and Owen liked playing on the 'defender's shoulder', and hinted that he would rather play with Emile Heskey.

Shearer is too slow nowadays to play up front. However he is the team captain, and so still seems to have some power to demand of Keegan as he did of Glenn Hoddle that he gets his turns at the front.

This happened in the game in Saint Etienne against Argentina at the World Cup, where David Beckham's red card was not England's only disability in the second half. The other was that Shearer apparently insisted on play ing up front, forcing Owen, of whom the Argentine defence lived in terror, to retreat into midfield from where he posed no danger.

It was similar at Wembley yesterday. One reason why England lost their threat in the second half was that Shearer began creeping in front of Owen. This didn't work. It was dysfunctional, like Hardy and Laurel: Owen lacks the brawn to shield the ball in midfield, and Shearer is too slow to do damage up front.

England can perform reasonably well at Euro 2000 if Shearer fully accepts that his job is to feed Owen. He will still be allowed to appear in the penalty area for free-kicks.

And he must also accept that all free-kicks belong to Beckham, even if there is a chance of a shot at goal. Just because Shearer is the team captain doesn't make him the team dictator.

-- Anonymous, May 27, 2000

Answers

Do you not feel that it is a bit of pre-tournament Shearer bashing? I actually disagree with most of what he says. In my opinion, Shearer`s game is goverened by who is playing with him in the England team, who they are playing, and the opponents game plan. He varies his game accordingly, though not necessarily out of choice. I don`t think he is as selfish as the writer makes out. Yes he wants goals, and he gets them, but he is a team player and a good captain who adds stability and continuity to the team.

In fact, it was a bit of England team bashing. Not just Shearer. I don`t think they ever seem to have enough playing time together, and it does take time for new combinations of player to gel. Which is why I have always thought England plays best when there are groups of two or even three players from the same team involved. It takes some of the second guessing out of it - knowing how a team mate is going to be thinking.

Didn`t agree with his argument that Owen should be `fed` by Shearer. If that happens to be the situation that presents itself, then that`s exactly what Shearer would do. But what was he suggesting? The youngster with the speed, and silky skills should just hang around in the box waiting for the ball? Surely not. It makes more sense to me for Shearer to be the target man for the long balls - Owen can get up there along side the defenders quick enough.

Beckham is another favourite media target now. Personally I admire him and obvious skills. He does do more that just put long balls in and take free kicks. But even if he didn`t, so what, if it works well because we`re play well in the air, and it gets us results, well, that`s good enough for me. (:o)

-- Anonymous, May 28, 2000

Pre-determined media hogwash. Write the bones of a story in the pub one night and find some "evidence" to back it up (we've all done it on the BBS before, eh??).

You're right Gal. A lot was incorrect. If I'm not wrong (probably am as it was viewed through a haze of Belgian beer!) in that Argentina match Shearer played more at right back/wing-back after Beckham went off. Sure, he also found time to hit the front which only goes to prove his workrate.

Same yesterday. Shearer was our most effective defender at dead ball kicks heading clear all the near post corners. It's only a shame he wasn't on the far post when they scored. You can be sure he wouldn't have left the gap that (Neville?) did.

Why can't they just write something positive about the national team and the skipper without having to revert to sly digs? Bah. Press. Don't you just love hate 'em.

-- Anonymous, May 28, 2000

Not worthy of considered comment.
The usual tawdry bullcr@p journalism - by someone who no doubt will be fawning all over the team if they do well.
BTW, it was pleasing to hear the crowd chanting Alan's name yesterday, so presumably they don't agree with the now ritual Shearer bashing by the Press. Fortunately, they don't have much longer to get their pathetic, undeserved digs at the man.
Tossers!

-- Anonymous, May 28, 2000