England Euro 2012 Ratings & What Do The Stats REALLY mean?

So England go out at the quarter final stage, maybe as we'd all expected. Optimism was low going into Euro 2012 and I've heard it said that England have maybe over achieved by reaching the Quarter Final stage. That's rubbish, you'd expect England to be better than Ukraine and Sweden and make it to the Quarters. Surely that was an expectation? Going out at the Quarters fair enough, that is obviously our level, but to say we have over achieved by getting out of the group isn't fair.

I'm not a big fan of stats, but when your goalkeeper and centre forward (who came on as a sub) are the top passing combination you know something is wrong. The reason I don't like stats is because they can be con-strewed to say whatever you want, depending on the context. For example, England had on average 39% of the possession in their four games, their lowest figure at a tournament since Euro 1980 and Italy had more shots on target in their quarter-final match than England had in total in their four matches in Ukraine. That makes it look like England have been awful, but they haven't been that bad. They haven't set up to dominate the ball and the chances, if we'd have gone out and tried to hammer teams like we've done before, Hodgson's side would have taken even more hammer.


Playing devil-advocates here but Joe Hart and Andy Carroll combined as the highest passing combination during the Quarter-Final, but what does that say? Joe Hart is an accurate kicker and Andy Carroll dominated his aerial contests? Or England were quite happy to lump it long? 

Milner and Young made 29 crosses in 4 games, but only 3 found a team-mate. What does that ACTUALLY tell you? Milner and Young weren't accurate enough with their crosses or nobody was in the box for them to hit? Or does it mean that the attacking English players didn't attack the ball enough? I think you see what I'm getting at. Statistics are all well and good, but what do they actually mean? 


If you've watched the games you'll know that Young and Milner's productivity in the wide areas and hitting the box with quality balls was poor. You'll know that England didn't keep the ball well enough and therefore went long and that's why the Hart-Carroll combo was the most frequent in the Italy game. 


Statistics aside, and having watched every minute of England's Euro 2012 campaign, here are my thoughts: (1 = might as well not have bothered going, 5 - average, 10 - worldie)


Joe Hart - 6 - did fairly well. Is a fantastic keeper and will be England's undisputed No. 1 for years to come. Maybe could have relieved pressure with a catch and roll out from time to time, but easier said than done under pressure.


Glen Johnson - 5 - got caught more than you'd want in the group stages but got out of trouble a couple of times with his pace. Patchy going forward and gave the ball away too much, average tournament but not terrible.


John Terry - 8 - fair play to him. I said pre-tournament I wouldn't have taken him, but he's had a great tournament. Lacking pace, but we always knew that. Only got caught a couple of times trying to anticipate the ball because he knew he wasn't quick enough. That aside he was solid, kept the back four organised and was surprisingly one of the better English players.


Joleon Lescott - 7 - good season with City and didn't really put a foot wrong in an England shirt. Didn't help that he nor Terry has much pace but didn't do much wrong, did his job and if you don't really notice him at centre half, that's probably a good thing. Remember we only conceded 3 goals in 4 games. 


Ashley Cole - 8- two good tournaments now for possibly the best left back in the world. Was good going forward and solid defensively. Knows what he is good at and forced wingers to try and beat him. Class act, but very poor peno.


James Milner - 6 - did what he was asked I presume. Helped Johnson out on the right hand side in defense but wasn't good enough going forward, hasn't got a change of pace or trick to go past his man. Straight up and down player and no creativity. Don't think anyone expected him to play, but helped Hodgson's defensive set up.

Steven Gerrard - 9 - man of the tournament for England, only Gerrard looked like creating anything for England on a regular basis. Supplied Carroll for the first goal against Sweden with a world class knock and whipped in some other threatening crosses. Won more tackles than anyone in the whole England team and really was a box-to-box midfielder. Positioning was superb too. Tried to do a little too much at times as he has at Liverpool, maybe through a lack of creativity from others, but ended up losing the ball.


Scott Parker - 8 - can't fault what he did. Worked hard, got stuck in and positioned himself well too. Grafted his nuts off as you'd expect but then again you'd expect that from anyone pulling on the Three Lions. Never in the same mould as Xavi or Iniesta with the ball. Allowed Gerrard to express himself and go forward with confidence that he would sweep it up.


Ashley Young - 4 - appalling display. After a decent season for United I had high hopes for him both beating his man and being able to get a goal. Looked like he didn't have the confidence to go past the full back, delivery was awful and didn't threaten the 'keeper, staying on against Italy was a surprise. Has to score from 12 yards.


Wayne Rooney - 4 - got a goal that your mum could have scored and that was it. Caps two poor tournaments for him. Looked unfit, as sharp as a bread knife and didn't show any ability that we see in the Premiership in a Man Utd shirt. As one of the 'world class' players in the squad you'd have wanted more from Rooney. No creativity, no dynamism, no end product. If he hadn't have been a petulant child in the qualifiers this might not have been the case.


Danny Welbeck - 5 - got the winner against Sweden in possibly the game of the tournament and fair play to him for that, but didn't link with the out of sorts Rooney as we've seen in the Prem. A lot to learn at international level including being able to hold the ball up to bring others into the game, when the ball went up top, it was coming straight back...which might explain some of the possession stats.


Theo Walcott - 7 - didn't play much in the tournament but when he did against Sweden he changed the game. Pinged one in from the edge of the box and then beat his man to provide the 3rd. Good impact change and did well in that game. Brought on against Italy but didn't get into the game, and didn't impose himself on the game like he did vs Sweden. That stops him being an 8.


Andy Carroll - 7 - scored a bullet header and won his fair share of aerial battles. Looked threatening at times and put himself about, did what Welbeck didn't and got hold of the ball a bit more. Flicked it on too much against Italy and it kept coming back at us.

Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain - 6 - could have played a bit more because he looked like he'd have done a job for us. Probably missed out to fit in with Hodgson's defensively minded set up and with a different manager may have got more of chances. Can't fault what he did when he played so gets a 6.


Roy Hodgson - 7 - got the team playing as a team for once and wasn't naive to think we could go out and try and hammer teams. We've seen it fail so many times in the past and set up in a manner which was befitting of the standard of our players. Did a decent job, handled himself well and players seemed to respond to that.

UEFA AS CLUELESS AS THE FA

So who'd have though it, there is someone out there who has less sense as a governing body than the English FA. With previous blogs demonstrating my frustration at the English FA over various matters, it comes as a slight shock to me that Uefa are also incredible stupid.


While they have flown under the radar in recent outcries against Sepp Blatter and FIFA's decision to award the next two World Cup competitions to Russia and Qatar, Uefa's inability to make decisions which make common sense have been highlighted by the Euro 2012 competition in Poland and the Ukraine.

Let's start from the very beginning, who on earth decided it would be a good idea to host a tournament in two of Europe's most dangerous countries to go and watch a football match? There is only possibly Italy, where there could have been more and serious violence. Furthermore, racism is a known problem in these countries and players have been subject to racial abuse playing for club or countries in these countries before.The book stops with whoever made this decision, get the host nation(s) right and you can minimise any trouble. It would also mean I wouldn't be able to write about what I am about to.


Racism has been prevalent throughout the tournament, starting before anyone has even played a competitive game when the Dutch team was subject to racial abuse while training. It hasn't gone away and it hasn't been a isolated incident either. Uefa are 'investigating' several issues of racial abuse will anything come of them investigations, probably not. At least if they are 'investigating' these incidents they will be doing it thoroughly (having taken so long) unlike our FA which jump to conclusions and go on the 'probably' nature of racism. Maybe a mixture of the Uefa approach and our FA's approach might be the future??


While they are deliberating over the racial issues, which have to have been expected given the countries which the games are being hosted in, they haven't wasted any time in fining the German FA for their fans throwing, and wait for it, paper planes onto the pitch during one of their games. Oooo-no the fans are throwing paper onto the pitch! What next? You'll be picking up fines for your fans singing too loud or something!!


Throw Nicklas Bendtner into the mix with his Paddy Power boxers on and you can tell Uefa are really losing the plot. Agreed, it was a blatant case of ambush marketing (where one company who isn't a sponsor of the Euros uses the competition to boost their brand) but was the £80,000 fine really in line with their previous sanctions? Especially considering the seriousness of the misdemeanors: 

• October 2000 Patrick Vieira says Sinisa Mihajlovic called him a black bastard and a fucking black monkey, which Mihajlovic denies. The Serb also claimed that Vieira had started it by calling him a gypsy. Uefa's punishment? Two-match ban for Mihajlovic.

• June 2007 Serbian fans aim racist abuse at England's Nedum Onuoha at the Under-21 European Championship in Holland. Uefa's punishment? Serbian Football Federation is fined £16,500 for "the racist chanting of supporters and the improper conduct of their players".

• June 2008 Some Croatia fans are found guilty by Uefa of "displaying a racist banner and showing racist conduct" during a Euro 2008 quarter-final against Turkey. Uefa's punishment? The Croatian Football Federation is fined nearly £10,000.

• February 2012 Porto fans subject the Manchester City striker Mario Balotelli to prolonged racist abuse in the Europa League tie. Uefa's punishment? Porto are fined £16,700.

Don't forget the Russian FA was fined the exact same amount as Bendtner for their violence with Czech fans and the stadium staff at the very first game of this tournament. How can you justify fining him that much money with the above standards set by Uefa?! It's mystifying! If that wasn't enough, Bendtner will miss a game for his troubles. 

I can understand, to a degree, fining him, as you have to keep the integrity of the tournament's sponsors but banning him for a game is just simply crazy! 

One last thing to add to the wishy-washy approach by Uefa's disciplinary panel Manchester City were fined £24,740 for appearing for the 2nd half of a game 1-minute late...