Forza Italia

In the aftermath of Italy's exit from Euro 2004, John wonders if demographics might be behind Calcio's problems. It is certainly an interesting and plausible suggestion, the only problem is that it is erroneous.

Remember first of all, to put things in perspective, it was by the slenderest margins that Italy failed to progress. They had the exact same points score as Group winners, Sweden, and missed out because, according to UEFA's arcane qualification method, less goals were scored in their draws with Denmark and Sweden than were scored in the drawn games Sweden and Denmark respectively played. Put in Italy Group B with France and England, it is not unreasonable to guess that they would have progressed at the expense of either of those overrated teams.

Secondly, and more importantly, Italy's problem, unlike that of Germany, is not a dearth of talent. Part of the reason the Azzuri frustrate neutral soccer fans is that they have plenty of talented footballers who rarely exhibit their skills. Italy remains a proud footballing nation and calcio is a big part of its culture. There will always be a pool of talented Italian kids, even if the supposed demographic decline persists. It is worth considering that you don't actually need a large population to have a successful football team: FIFA's top 20 contains Czech Republic, Republic of Ireland, Croatia, Sweden, Denmark and Belgium, none of which is overly populous, ranging between 4 million and 10 million. Italy's population is 58 million.

No, the problem is the extent to which Catenaccio is ingrained in Italian football thinking. Despite the averrals of some players, Catenaccio is not dead. Italians, so elegant in defense, seem profoundly uncomfortable with the cavalier approach from which the Czechs have profited.

Comments

[Conor]

Italy picked the wrong team thats why they lost.

Del Piero and Vieri were rubbish.
Italy has some great young players (Cassano,Perrotta,Andrea Pirlo,Marco Di Vaio)but the coach is afraid of getting rid of the old guard

The top Italian striker in Serie A Parmas Alberto Gilardino wasn't even in the squad!

[John]

I defer to your knowledge of soccer talents. I wasn't really talking simply about Euro2004, but about the decline in Italian soccer, which was the subject of the discussion I cited. Everything I wrote on my blog was based on the assumption that Liam Brady, Johnny Giles and Eamonn Dunphy knew what they were talking about. All three, especially Brady, were of the opinion that there was a shortage of talent in Italy now, when compared with previous generations.

When you look at Italy's population by age and compare it with Denmark's and/or Sweden's you'll see that Italy's fall-off in children is much more severe than it is in those two Scandinavian countries. These two countries are not experiencing a significant change. Therefore, the manner in which their top players were developed in the past should work fairly well now and into the future. I cannot see how the same can be said of Italian soccer.

[Frank McGahon]

Everything I wrote on my blog was based on the assumption that Liam Brady, Johnny Giles and Eamonn Dunphy knew what they were talking about.

Normally I respect what Brady and Gilesy say and I think it's pretty safe to discount Dunphy altogether but in this case they are all way off the mark. As Conor notes above, there is no shortage of talent in Italy. Trappatoni's reluctance to pick some of the younger players probably reflects a catenaccio-like caution, one which he apparently shares with France's Santini - I can't understand why Lizarazu, Wiltord, Desailly, Thuram and Barthez are still regulars.

As for demographics, the number which matters is the overall population. The "fall off" might be greater than the Scandinavian countries but Italy still has roughly twice as many people as all the Scandinavian countries put together. Put simply, the demographic decline won't ever reach a stage where it will bite into the pool of talent.

[John]

I wish I had paid more attention, but I thought Brady said he had been over to Italy recently. I had the impression that what he was saying was not just what he had observed, but also what he had heard while there, but I could be wrong. It may be something he picked up a while ago.

I think you're wrong on the demographic impact, however. There's more to it than total population. Population density matters too. You need a lot of kids in a small area to make a decent game. If a country has 2m kids spread out over a massive area, many of them may not get a real opportunity to play soccer. Other sports that require fewer kids to have a game may gain in popularity. I think that's one reason basketball has thrived in the US recently - you can have a decent school yard game with 4 kids, even two can have a game. That's not really true with many other sports (soccer, baseball, etc.).

But, again, I'm not as sure of myself when it comes to soccer as with baseball. Small families and fewer children have definitely taken a toll on baseball.

[Frank McGahon]

you can have a decent school yard game with 4 kids, even two can have a game. That's not really true with many other sports (soccer, baseball, etc.).

This a common misconception among Americans and I'm surprised to see you repeat it. You do need a equipment for baseball but all you need for football is a ball, ( another player or two might be nice too) but in any country where soccer is popular you will see kids playing football in a back yard, in the street, in the park.

The reason the demographic decline won't matter is because the numbers are so vastly different. 58 million is still lots of people, (especially compared to Ireland's 4m) and calcio is still a huge cultural phenomenon. If a different sport took over among kids there might be a problem for soccer but this is independent of demographic decline.

[enda johnson]

frank,
at the risk of being IP banned i'd just like to point out that ireland's population is around 5.5 million. ;-)

[Frank McGahon]

No it's not.

The population of the entire island may be 5.5m but the Republic of Ireland soccer team represents only one of the territories of this island: the one which comprises approximately 4 million

[Brian]

"Part of the reason the Azzuri frustrate neutral soccer fans is that they have plenty of talented footballers who rarely exhibit their skills."

Um, I'm an Italian supporter and they frustrate me even more than a neutral. For the exact reasons you mentioned.

You're right about the Italian mentality. This "sophisticated" mentality would have it that any goal conceded is necessarily the result of poor defense. So you have to focus primarily on defending.

There's only one problem in non knockout games: you need to score goals in order to win. If Vieri or the hugely overrated Del Piero convert one of their many missed chances against Sweden or Denmark, the arcane tiebreaker becomes irrelevant.

They're so disdainful of supposedly smaller opponents, they are frequently made to pay in the end. I'm sorry, but they deserve it!

[Brian]

John makes some interesting points but I know that in America, soccer is by far the most popular sport among kids in the country. In terms of numeric participation. The demographic aspect is interesting. Soccer is hugely popular especially in the suburbs which, though not dense compared to cities (by definition), are numerous and hold a lot of the country's population. Baseball's traditionally most popular in the more sparsely populated Midwest.

[Brian]

"You're right about the Italian mentality. This "sophisticated" mentality would have it that any goal conceded is necessarily the result of poor defense. So you have to focus primarily on defending."

And this is hugely frustrating because the great matches that linger in the public's collective memories aren't the drab (sophisticated) 0-0 or 1-0 games but ones like '70 Brasil-Italy, '82 FRG-France or '86 England-Argentina. 4-1, 3-3, 2-3 respectively.

Italy's typical strategy is to get a goal and defend, defend, defend. It cost them in 2000 against France, in 2002 against SK and this year against Sweden.

[John]

Frank, this is my last throw of the dice on this one because it's true, I don't know enough about soccer. And, yes, I see kids playing with one another outside. But, I live in a neighborhood where there are approximately 13 boys under 14. If there were only 2 or 3 here, how much different would it be? How much soccer would those 2 or 3 get to play? Would they become as good?

I understand your macro points, but you need to look at the micro too. Think of a neighborhood. What effect do fewer children have on the playing of games? What about the standard of the games in the neighborhood?

Fewer kids in a neighborhood does reduce the opportunity to play and the chance to become good.

I know when I go home to where I grew up, I see 6 or 7 kids where there were 15 when I was young. I look at those kids and they're rarely out on the street playing baseball (or football or any sport for that matter). We were ALWAYS there. Sure you can have something of a game with 6 kids, but it's not half as good as with 12. And, you won't improve as much playing with those 6 as you would with the 12.

[Frank McGahon]

If there were only 2 or 3 here, how much different would it be? How much soccer would those 2 or 3 get to play? Would they become as good?

John, you're making a huge assumption that the Italian "demographic decline" will result in this outcome. In fact, I'd wager that Italy will never even reach Irish levels of dispersion. I took a look at Italian demographic projections this morning [in this book] and while the population is expected to decrease by 9% to 52m by 2050, interestingly the percentage of the population living in urban areas is expected to increase from 67% to 76% by 2030. It is probably the case that it is those dispersed rural areas which will be mostly affected by the population decline and not the urban areas.

[John]

Frank, I saw another stat that showed that Italian urbanization was going to increase from 71.6% to 73% by 2025. I don't know.

It seems logical to me that if you have half as many boys aged 0-4 in 2000 than you had in 1950 that you will have far fewer highly talented soccer players in 2025 than were around in 1975.

Those 1950 babies were the ones who came of age during the era that Brady & Giles were talking about. How can the level of Italian soccer talent not be affected by such a change?

The only change that I can think of that would off-set this population trend is that players maintain themselves better and can remain at the top level for longer nowadays. I am dubious, however, that this phenomenon could off-set the drop in numbers available.

[John]

Brian, I could go on all day about the reason for baseball's decline in the urban and suburban areas, but I doubt anyone here cares. However, soccer's growth in the suburbs owes a lot to (a)cost - smaller family sizes meant more organized baseball which eventually led to greater & greater demands to protect kids, which drove the cost of playing baseball out of sight, (b) 1970s political correctness - boys & girls play together & soccer puts less "pressure" on a kid than baseball does with all of its one-on-one situations, & (c) to a lesser extent, divorce - single mothers were intimidated by the men who ran the baseball leagues (I saw this too often when I was a kid).

(a) is particularly important today. When my father played ball, he needed a glove, somewhere to play and one kid to have a bat & ball. When I was growing up, I played around the house and on a team in a league where we had paid umpires, had to wear batting helmets - each team had 4 helmets and full catchers equipment. Nowadays, few kids play at home. And, every kid in the league has to have his own batting helmet! When that's added to the exorbitant league insurance costs, forget about it. There's also too much money being spent on dugouts, lights and rolled infields. Very few children today are playing on all dirt infields that are slightly harder than a parking lot.

[John]

I think I could have summarized that whole previous comment by saying that baseball has been badly affected by excessive molly-coddling.

[Frank McGahon]

It seems logical to me that if you have half as many boys aged 0-4 in 2000 than you had in 1950 that you will have far fewer highly talented soccer players in 2025 than were around in 1975

We're probably going round in circles here but this is a fallacious argument. The only way this would hold is if it were necessary to have a population of at least 58 million to produce a 22 man squad for a quality national team. The success of countries with a fifth of this population refutes that notion. All other things being equal, countries of this size ought to have a surfeit of players. If they currently don't - and it is true for the UK and to a greater extent Germany, that they don't* - you will have more success looking into factors other than blunt demographics.

*Again, Italy's current problems aren't to do with talent, which they still have plenty of. Look at Germany: Ballack is their only world class player. England have the bones of a decent first 11 but no goalkeeper and a big gaping hole on the left.

[John]

The success of countries with a fifth of this population refutes that notion.

Or, the success of the smaller nations proves that the big nations are not as dominant as they once were.

That's the point, isn't it? Italy & Germany were ALWAYS there. Now, they're having trouble with the Czechs & Latvians.

I have a friend from Italy who also once told me that the level of Italian talent in Seria A is not what it was 15 years ago. I have no way of knowing whether this is true or not. He thought the problem was that there were too many foreign players in the Italian League. Maybe? I don't know. But it is odd that of the 4 countries whose players almost all play in their domestic league, only England has made it to the quarter-finals.

[John]

If a country's population doesn't matter, why has Brazil won so many World Cups? Surely it's because the level of competition for places on the Brazilian team is always so high.

Some smaller nations have good runs, but then they go down again. The bigger nations are expected to maintain a high level. Why? Because it's assumed that with those huge talent pools, they will always be able to find 22 top quality players.

[Frank McGahon]

Just look at the numbers, Brazil has a huge population and a major footballing culture. I doubt they would ever have a problem assembling a decent 22 man squad. But while that is necessary, it is not sufficient, if it was, Brazil would be undefeated. You need the right manager, the right team spirit and a bit of luck. But the issue here is not about what are the precise ingredients for success as a football team but whether demographic decline will tend to hurt large countries like Italy.

The thing is, Italy still has a huge critical mass of people so a decline of 10% or so, or a change in the age profile of the population shouldn't affect it. There will always be X number of professional footballers in Italy, increasing the population to Brazilian levels won't necessarily increase this and neither will reducing the population to Spanish or Polish levels. This talent pool ought to be sufficient. Smaller pools are certainly sufficient for other countries. In any case, the starting premise is flawed. Italy have plenty of good players, many more than England who have a larger population and are still in the tournament and a lot more than Germany.

For your argument to hold, similarly declining countries with a much smaller critical mass, like Denmark and Sweden, ought to be really hurting but they're not.

[Brian]

"If a country's population doesn't matter, why has Brazil won so many World Cups?"

The population matters but it's not the only factor. If you look at the top 10 most populous nations in the world, Brazil is the only one with a world class soccer team.

Of the others, only Nigeria, USA and maybe Russia are decent.

[Ciaran]

it is patently absurd to try and make out that consistent success at an international level will be guaranteed or otherwise by a large population.

England, the self-titled 'home' of soccer have had more people playing the game (organised) for years than most nations and have only been in ONE major final in all their time as an international team.

That, alone, should be enough to discount these ill-thought out theories.

At the end of the day (to steal a football cliche!) it comes down to being able to have maybe 30-40 elite football professionals to choose from every three or four years, something all of the above countries will be able to do.

THen it is down to clever and inspiring management, preparation, performing to one's ability and luck.

The last, will of course throw some, but it is clear from the last few major tournaments that it is vital in any success, and discounts a scientific approach to defragmentalising soccer success.

P.S. Frank - The reason Ireland have had such relative successes in the last 20 years is that it has obviously had more than 4 million to choose from.

Players from the Six Counties are available for selection (despite your wishes:) ) and the diaspora will continue to account for Irish caps.

Aiden McGeady, the wunderkind from Celtic, is the latest example of this and it will continue to be the case.

it;'s only fair we can use this i think, as we don;t have the post-colonial options England, France, Portugal and others use...

[Frank McGahon]

The reason Ireland have had such relative successes in the last 20 years is that it has obviously had more than 4 million to choose from.

This is the case for every country. Owen Hargreaves, useless and all as he was, wasn't born in the UK. A significant proportion of the French squad was not born in France.

Players from the Six Counties are available for selection (despite your wishes:) )

Au contraire. I'm very happy that we can select players from Northern Ireland. It's just that if we are comparing populations of countries for the purposes of assembling international football teams, the accurate figure for the population allocated to the RoI team is 4 million.

[ciaran]

"It's just that if we are comparing populations of countries for the purposes of assembling international football teams, the accurate figure for the population allocated to the RoI team is 4 million."

em, no it's not! players from the north are as much able to pull on the Green shirt for Brian Kerr's side as you or I, so that is not the case.

Also we will always benfit from the 'diaspora' more than most nations. PArtly because we have such a wide diaspora who still 'think' of themselves as Irish and partly because, not having a top class pro league at home, we need to look there.

Italy don't do this, nor do England. Hargreaves is only there because 'he' wanted to play for England and because he felt Canada would be a bad career option (rightly so)...

but as I speak the FAI are checking out eligible players in the US - something the FA would never do!

[Frank McGahon]

I've always entertained a fantasy that some priapic priests from our fair isle impregnated the odd village or two in Brazil on missionary detail and thus provide us with a new stream of talent!

The point about the RoI is that the 1.5m of NI is nominally allocated to the NI team (remember at least 55% of those wouldn't choose to represent the republic). We don't yet have a unified team for the entire island.

Other countries don't avail of their diaspora because they don't really need to.

[ciarano]

no i dont think thats strictly true. Ireland has a particular resonance with it's diaspora that other nations dont have but we also have a need to use these people more than most, and do not have to worry about 'national pride' as much as say, England.

If they starte trawling the world for players of english expat stock etc there would be uproar - such as we saw when SGE was appointed manager - the 'why do we have to look abroad' pride crusher...

i think england could always do with some more players but if they found them abroad and they were not English born they would have to be pretty special to be accepted - Hargreaves gets away with it cos he anglosphile and dull as dishwater...