Malouda: Training Is “Terrifying”. Wah. Wah.
By: chris | December 4th, 2007
Florent Malouda has taken great exception to the training methods in London. Malouda, as most may know, is the guy who was tackled by the ghost of Christmas past during the final in Berlin, giving ZZ the chance to put that PK off the bar, as well as being a pretty decent winger. The assumption when Chelsea bought him was that he’d come in a fill Arjen Robben’s boots, which were all too often hanging off the end of the trainer’s table (nothing has changed in Madrid, thanks for asking), only they didn’t mean literally. Malouda, on top of The Queen of Diving, is also injured. And pissed. Because he thinks the “brainless” training methods are to blame.
“Training sessions here are terrifying,” Malouda said. “They are just like matches, and you go flat out. During the actual games it is as though everybody’s brains are switched off.
I’m sure all of you are dumbfounded that a Frenchman is wussing out in practice (Allen Iverson would be proud). What I want to know is this: If practice is ‘terrifying’, and matches are just like practice, does this mean he’s terrified by matches? And if so, then what the @#$% is he doing accepting a paycheck playing professional football. Maybe he’d be better off on clay (I’d say tennis but I fear grass surfaces in general may be a tad much for him to handle).
Florent didn’t stop there, taking shots at teammates who are a bit piggish (I know, I’m scratching my head in wonderment as well):
“The people at Chelsea don’t control what the players eat. You can help yourself to whatever you like, drink Coke or anything.”
Coke?!?! Hard practices?!?!?? Oh the horror! (This is where we prepare for the story that Florent will be out for another 6 months because Frank sat on him and injured his woman parts.)
I’ve often harbored far fetched fantasies that someday we’d have an exchange program between sports, one transferring coaches on year long loans. Where, say, a baseball coach gets to coach a basketball team, or an American football coach takes an overseas jaunt to Europe for some real footy. You know, like Dick Vermeil going to Barca and embracing Ronaldinho in a blubbering man hug on the sidelines the next time Dinho is booed off the pitch because he spent the previous night groping teenagers at a disco. Or Bobby Knight running out onto the field and murdering Antonio Cassano (that’s BK choking his own player at practice, for those wondering). Or Isiah Thomas being allowed to coach a women’s team. Because I’d love to see Bill Parcells at Chelsea, and I’m sure we’d all enjoy the first time he called Florent “she”. Aptly, of course.
Anyway, Florent, be a man and suck it up you Sally.
(Inara also has the story of the French pansy du jour on lock.)
The Offside Blogging Team can also be found at these Offside blogs:
Roma | World Cup | LA Galaxy | Serie A | Les Bleus | Gli Azzurri
 |
Soccer Forums | Team/International Results |  |
 |  |
Category: 
Subscribe
|
Print
|
Share
      |
Comments
-
Well tactical savvy and technique are a much different subject than the rigor and mentality of training sessions. There’s nothing to say that a rigorous and “last game of my life” attitude can’t be technical as well. I won’t argue most on the mainland appear to have a greater sense of technique compared to the island, but I would also venture to guess the same mentalities could be found in one or more clubs in France amongst the sophistication. It could be a very small part, but it’s a much deeper issue for the lions.
Posted from
United States
-
I think there’s something to David’s argument, though you’re right that it’s not the whole picture. Everyone worth listening to in English football basically agrees that there’s a problem with how English academies teach players, and that English academies rarely, if ever, produce young players with the sort of technical savvy or flair that South American or Continental European academies do. But, yeah, there’s also the fact that the English think they are the top of the pile even when they’re not even in it. It’s hard to improve when you blindly believe you’re already the best.
Posted from
United States -
David does have a very good point. About 30 years ago, France completely overhauled their youth development programs, which led to some of the finest footballing academies in the world. No country produces so many talents on a yearly basis like France, and yes, many of these players get polish elsewhere, but they are taught how to play and how to think in France. Not just that, they are also taught discipline and rigor, not just tactical savvy and technique. But what sets France apart is that their academies also instruct the coaches. Spain, the Netherlands, and Italy caught on in the late eighties/early nineties, but England is only starting to pay attention in how to develop players.
It’s not just skills that you learn at these academies. It’s mentality. Part of the difficulties in playing with your NT is that you have to adapt to a different style than you’re used to and learn how to work with players that you see maybe ten days a year. A good international player needs flexibility. And that is one of things missing from the way Englishmen view the game. Lampard can only play his way, Gerrard can only play another. They are so set in their molds that they just can’t do anything else. They don’t know how to work together. That’s something that needs to be taught from the earliest stages of a player’s career.
Posted from
United States -
Well that’s discussing youth development, which is different than the type of training you’re going to get for Chelsea or Bordeaux. And it’s quite obvious something needs to change at the lower levels if they want to pump out world class talent. However, I still don’t think changing training methods is going to do enough for the national team. (They have, after all, won all of one major trophy.)
Posted from
United States -
“No country produces so many talents on a yearly basis like France”
Well that’s not a ridiculous and subjective statement. There’s a long line waiting to disagree with you.
A lot of this has nothing to do with the the point of original discussion. Youth development is a huge issue with national performance. The “rigor” at Chelsea, however, has nothing - or very little - to do with the plight of the Three Lions. Methods of youth (lack of) development at the academies, yes, absolutely. But there are plenty of clubs that work like Chelsea in other countries with varying degrees of success. And a few in England that don’t, yet still can’t get England to win anything.
Again, the original quote:
“They are just like matches, and you go flat out.”
Nothing said about technical quality or sophistication. Only referring to the level of intensity.
Posted from
United States -
I don’t think it’s a ridiculous statement at all. European wise, at least. Brazil and Argentina produce more. But I think Germany is catching up, as is Spain and Italy. But France does have a head start on churning out youth. On the flip side, it causes them to be considered a feeder league.
As for rigor, yes it does have to do with England’s performance because Chelsea’s attitude is reflected all across the EPL. Malouda’s point was that his teammates play more with their hearts (and not as much with their heads). English players aren’t taught to take a deep breath and think about what to do - they just do what feels right. Players like Pirlo, Fabregas, and Juninho - when was the last time England produced a player like them? Michael Carrick? If you take away the foreign talents in the EPL, what will you have left? The EPL would be on par with your beloved Liechtenstein second division.
The English have always played their football that way, are taught to do it that way, and when foreigners came into the league, they are the ones who added the flair. But the basic version of English football hasn’t changed. Their favorite tactic is still hoofing the ball up the pitch. Ask them to string three passes together and they won’t know what to do.
Take a look their opponents - Netherlands, Spain, France, Brazil, Portugal, Argentina, Germany, Italy. These countries play smart football. England play in a totally different style, and so when they compete internationally against these same opponents, they just can’t hack it. Their perception of football and tactics is just so skewed that they can’t cope when a team is outplaying them. So they choke in knockout games.
Posted from
United States -
* Not that Gerrard and Lampard aren’t good midfielders, but they don’t possess the creative as the three listed. Even Deco has got more creativity than those two combined.
Posted from
United States -
It is a very ridiculous statement. Especially when it’s so subjective and based on zero fact.
Your quote: ‘Malouda’s point was that his teammates play more with their hearts (and not as much with their heads).’
The interviewer: ‘What he means by that, is you find instinct, spontaneity, what you find when you start, and he absolutely loves it. Nothing could be more from Florent’s mind than the idea that football is brainless, and the same goes for many of the misquotes published in the English press today.’
This isn’t about your interpretation, it’s about what he said. Which is “the training is terrifying”. You make a lot of sweeping generalizations. When he was saying training at Chelsea is hard (which others who have left and gone to play other places, including inside the EPL, have said).
Posted from
United States -
So if you’re at least going to make a statement like that, base it on some sort of fact. For your viewing pleasure:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_national_under-21_football_team#UEFA_U-21_Championship_Record
Posted from
United States -
I should point out that I agree, this isn’t the only reason England are having problems. Their FA has issues they need to iron out. But the style of the majority of the Premiership, one of fast pace, tough tackles, and “rigor,” is the same style that has been unsuccessfully implemented with England’s NT. That style won’t change unless England revamp the way they teach their youth to view the game. Like someone needs to tell them it’s okay to pass the ball on the ground.
Posted from
United States -
“you find instinct, spontaneity”
Yeah, that’s pretty much what I said. When you’re playing with instinct, you’re not taking the time to think. Instinct doesn’t mean brainless, but I didn’t say that either.
Also, you’re going by U21 records. Many French players jump directly into the senior teams (just as Nasri, Henry, Trezeguet, Benzema, Abidal, Mexes, Ben Arfa, Sagna, etc). Many played limited or no roles in the U21 squad at all. Zidane barely featured for the U21s and Ribery was unknown outside of France until after the World Cup. Also, you’re not taking into account the multitudes of players formed by France who don’t hold French citizenship. Take Drogba for example - he was formed by French clubs but is representing the Ivory Coast. Jean Makoun represents Cameroon, Kanoute Mali, etc.
France does have a very good youth development program - it’s pretty much universally acknowledged. There’s a reason why other countries utilize French academies like Clairefontaine as a model. I know you want to believe that nothing good comes out of France, but there are some exceptions. As you so like to remind everyone, France is a feeder league. Just imagine the sheer numbers of players having to come through to replace the departed ones, all the while still keeping France as a top 5 league. But as I said, times are changing, and their youth academies of Spain, Germany, and even Italy are catching up to France (which I’m hoping will stop the pillaging since they can just take their own players).
I think you should actually start a post on this on the World Cup blog since this is more in the area of national teams than club football. Readers over there would be more interested.
Posted from
United States -
Wow this is an epic battle. Can you two make this a weekly thing?
By the way, Chris definitely wins this one. I mean for churning out the best youth, that U21 record for France is pathetic.
Posted from
United States -
Lupo, please read my second paragraph on my last post to see why that record is not a good indication of anything. The debate isn’t on what country has the best young U21s but the best youth development, which includes those of other nationalities.
Posted from
United States -
As the flip side to what Maloudda said, when Milan Baros moved from the EPL to France, he described the French game as much slower. I think his exact words in describing the EPL were, “When you touch the ball, they eat your legs.”
I’d find that a bit terrifying myself.
I’m still looking for the original French article. I’m finding paragraphs quoted at Football.fr, but not the original. Did he really use the word “terrifying”? That just doesn’t sound right.
Posted from
United States -
Laurie, Massaer will be scanning copies of his original interview in France football. When I get them, you’ll get them.
It’s true, Baros did say that when he came to France. When John Carew went from France to England, he said that he was relieved that he could foul other players more freely and not worry about picking up cards.
Posted from
United States -
Oh, and btw, Chris, for an Italy fan to take the French to task for diving? Humorous.
Posted from
United States -
“Yeah, that’s pretty much what I said. When you’re playing with instinct, you’re not taking the time to think. Instinct doesn’t mean brainless, but I didn’t say that either.”
This has always been about the difficulty of training. Period.
“it’s pretty much universally acknowledged”
Seriously, your French argument is highly biased and based on word of mouth? From whom? Is this a quantitative argument? Absolutely nothing to back your statement other than being a fan of L1. Plenty of countries produce just as much, if not more talent which is more productive at a higher level than France - production levels which are often cyclical. What are we basing “talent” on? Is it trophies won? Is it money made? Is it the eyes of the Ballon D’Or voters - presented by a French magazine? Or just “you should know” France produced players are better? For which style of play or league? For the long run? Short term? Would you like me to give you a list of African or Asian or South American born players Serie A clubs have produced? Or the Bundesliga, which has produced some damn fine talent from outside of Europe? Hell, I might even make the argument that Real and Barca alone wipe the lot of France off the map - not legitimately, but you get the point. How is this even close to being “universally recognized” or so definitive as to say “no country produces so many talents on a yearly basis like France”? It smells more of an agenda than a substantive, unifying argument, no offense.
Posted from
United States -
Out of curiosity, what European country would you say is so much better at developing talent?
“if not more, talent which is more productive at a higher level than France - productions levels which are often cyclical”
So what is the highest level? The Champions League? Because if that’s the case, after Brazil, France has the most players in the competition - and they all play for top teams. No offense, but if you’re going to accuse me of bias, then maybe you should admit that you yourself have serious issues against France.
Look, we can debate this on and on, but name one Italian, German, or Spanish academy that is more well known outside their country than Clairefontaine? If you took a blind survey on this site and polled people as to which European country has the best youth academies, I bet people will vote France because that is what France is known for - footballing breeding grounds. That’s not bias. That’s opening up any soccer magazine or website and seeing it there. That’s reading interviews by directors from other clubs who travel to France to learn about French youth development. That’s by seeing UEFA repeatedly praise France for formation every other week. Etc.
No one is saying that other countries don’t know how to develop players, and I do think that Spain will surpass France within the next decade, but I’m sorry, besides South America and Netherlands in the mid 90s, on average, at this moment, France’s academies can wipe the rest of Europe’s off the map.
I really have nothing more to add here since all you’ve done is say I’m wrong without saying why. Since we’re just going in circles and hijacking this post, and since neither of us will change our minds and no one else cares, I’m going to say goodnight. I’ll be happy to continue this discussion tomorrow if you have anything to add.
Also, I hope you aren’t taking this debate personally, because this is after all, just a debate. Nothing against you personally.
Posted from
United States -
Totally missed the entire point. There is no best. Any other argument is the ridiculous part - and very presumptive.
Posted from
United States -
Chris, translation aside, I think you missed Malouda’s point.
What he said is valid and accurate.
Posted from
United States -
Chris, putting aside your sexism for a moment, your underlying point seems to be that Malouda thinks training in England is too hard and too difficult. He never says that, however. There’s a big difference between “terrifying, flat out, and brainless” and “waaah, it’s too difficult, I’m a little girl’s blouse.” All he’s saying is that in other countries, training is more tactical, technical, and thoughtful, whereas in England it’s more physical and machine-like. If anything, you might make the case that he’s arguing one is more stupid and the other less stupid… but not that one is more difficult and the other less difficult. Level of toughness and difficulty has nothing to do with it. If you spend any time watching training sessions over there you’d see what he’s talking about and have a hard time disagreeing with his basic point… England club training sessions are similar to the matches, frenetic and physical, whereas training sessions in a lot of other countries are more about stamina, agility, technique, and tactical development. Once you get past the overt sexism of your original post (”girls are bigger wusses than boys” is so Brady Bunch, man… time to grow up), I think you’d find that your interpretation of Malouda’s observation to be plain wrong.
Posted from
United States -
Mourinho’s practices were known for this level of physicality and difficulty. Lampard and others have made that clear.
Lampard says of the twice daily training sessions, “it’s intense and that’s a good thing.” Mourinho details every minute of every session. If something is expected to happen in the 90th minute, it happens then. It is “very football orientated. Everything has a purpose,” says Lampard. “There is always an aim.”
There are plenty more. Sometimes the point is just that, and it doesn’t need a “translation”.
Posted from
United States -
Dictionary time…
Physicality: “Intensely physical orientation; predominance of the physical usually at the expense of the mental, spiritual, or social.”
Difficulty: “Something not easily done, accomplished, comprehended, or solved.”
While your last comment wasn’t a response to my comment, as far as I can tell, it (as well as your earlier comments) implies that these two words are interchangeable. Read Malouda’s comments again, read the definitions again, and read your original post again. He’s saying the English training sessions are more physical (and brainless), yes, but not more difficult. Yet your references to crying babies and wussy girls is implying he can’t take it because it’s difficult. You’re still missing the point.
Posted from
United States -
That was anything but the implication.
Posted from
United States -
Ok, there seems to be serious cross-chatter and emotions seem to be heated.
In the interest of moderation, let’s step this back and let understanding occur. Chris, I think the main point being made is the same as that which you stated earlier against inara which is that there is a fundamental difference between physicality and technique, the physical and the intellectual. And furthermore, it is difficult to discern which is the superior methodology.
Certainly a team needs a measure of both to compete at the highest levels. To make it more personal to you, take AS Roma. They have a physical defense, but what makes them special is that currently they are not jut hoofing the ball to the solitary striker, but putting together very intellectual strings of passes (aka the intellectual side of football).
Malouda seems to be pointing out very clearly that England training is overly physical with not enough intellectual portions. It may be an unfair criticism, certainly as you point out, tactics exist in which people know what they need to do, how, and when, but it is a criticism of that sort, not of the sort that anybody who thinks in a match or wishes to see more thought in matches is somehow weak and unmasculine.
It is also a dangerous thought pattern to get into. Here in America, masculinity posing contests and the idea that thought has little place in “physical” sports leads to problems like the US National Team which has very physical and physically gifted players being made into pathetic fools by more technically gifted sides. It has certainly as Inara tried to point out made England into a weaker national team.
I think that is the point trying to be made and one which you yourself have made at points in the conversation. Sure, a game with all technique and no physical component can be just as bad as all physical and I also agree that Malouda should have put some thought into the not at all hidden physicality of the English game before signing on with Chelsea, but I disagree it is born out of fear or that being intellectually minded is either unmasculine or a negative trait to acquire.
Now about the being a diver on the other hand…Total pathetic wanker.
Posted from
United States
Read the rest of the comments
Comments are closed
Home 
