´óÏó´«Ã½

How to b*t about football without talking b*s (an occasional series)

• Paul Mason
• 31 May 06, 01:17 PM

They say football is a world language, and that it is footy conversations that give men permission to express themselves in emotional language that would otherwise be bottled up inside our stilted selves. But at times like this football also becomes the default topic of conversation in many workplaces and nearly all business meetings. One of Newsnight's producers lamented last night that they would now have to "start talking about why Peter Crouch should not be played in the starting line up" (with a face like Wayne Rooney being asked a question on logical positivism).

So I am starting this occasional series on how to talk with unwarranted confidence about football, while avoiding talking obvious rubbish. What are my qualifications to write this? None! Welcome to the club...

PART I: Why Peter Crouch should not start for England... (or why he should…)

Peter Crouch is tall. Tall players usually get a reputation for scoring with headers, elbowing the opposition or looking fierce by missing two front teeth. Crouch has none of these attributes: he is, as my fanatical Liverpool colleague Peter Marshall insists, best with his feet. But he looks ungainly. Hence his nickname - "the coathanger". And some critics say he is not that good with his feet either.

Of course the number one choice, Wayne Rooney, is injured. To keep the desired formation of 4-4-2, giving England's world class midfield the space to play, Eriksson has to swap Rooney for someone else to partner Michael Owen. Since one of the potential choices is untested 17 year old Theo Walcott, and if Rooney travels to Germany in the team, Crouch is the only way England get to start with 4-4-2.

However the alternative is to play with one striker (Owen) whose fitness is questionable. This formation is sometimes called 4-5-1, and arguably frees up the midfield even more because it allows England to play as Liverpool often play, with one striker up and five in the midfield, but with playmaker Stephen Gerrard in a more attacking role. This is a complex solution because Chelsea also play a version of 4-5-1, and Chelsea players Joe Cole and Frank Lampard are key to the England midfield - However it is a different kind of 4-5-1, with one of the midfield stuck in a holding role in front of the defence (known as 4-1-4-1).

The further complication is that Crouch's size and (theoretical) heading capability make him a potential up-front target man, instead of Owen.

The problem football-savvy people see (that is you, already) is that Eriksson is prone to wishful thinking as far as strikers are concerned: he persevered with Emile Heskey on the grounds that he looked the part of the centre forward, but never delivered. Some fear his choice of Walcott is a bit wishful as well.

So the issue is, if you were manager (and you are, really!) would you try and stick with 4-4-2 and play Owen + Crouch, or try to get 4-5-1 right, with the physically small Owen up front, or gamble all on Owen plus Walcott. Or drop Rooney and call up Jermaine Defoe Right, get the pints in and start talking - after a couple anything you say will make sense.

(And if all these formations are confusing you, spare a thought for the players of the EZLN, an anti-capitalist Mexican guerrilla group. They have agreement in principle for a match with Inter Milan, and should it ever come off have promised to play in that anarchist favourite formation: 1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1.)