I've been meaning to write this blog for a while but things have got in the way...so here are a few in quick succession. First up - England. They are quite the most frustrating national team to follow and the main reason is the outrageous hype that goes with every game and especially every tournament. Hats off for a workmanlike performance against Spain and an excellent result of course...but you know what's going to come now, all that hype again and this is the main crux of my blog.
Let's get some important facts straight: England are not that good. That is the truth and the sooner everyone accepts it the better. Every tournament, everyone pipes up with the usual 'England's squad is as good as any in the tournament'. Well guess what...it isn't! And it hasn't been in a long, long, long time. England's strikeforce in the last world cup was Rooney, Crouch, Defoe and Heskey. Are you seriously telling me that is a list of strikers to strike fear into the football world? Jermaine Defoe is an average premiership striker, not a bad player but by no means an international class forward. When you consider that the strikeforce for England in the mid to late 90's could be any of Shearer, Fowler, Owen, Sheringham or Ferdinand, I hardly think Defoe would have got anywhere near it. And as for Emile Heskey...a sterling workhorse but come on...
And that's just the strikers, I could go on about every other position as well. How about the fact we've only one goalkeeper of any sort of quality? How about the fact that in my life of following football (since 1995) we haven't had a single natural left winger who has convinced long-term?
So that's my first point to illustrate England's lack of quality players. Much of the blame for this is attached to the influx of foreign players to the Premiership and don't get me wrong, that has certainly played its part because an England manager now has so few English players to choose from who actually play regularly for a Premiership club, let alone a top club. But just a minute...do you not think there's a reason that all these clubs wanted foreign players rather than English players? I remember watching England under-18's some years ago play Holland and it was frankly embarrassing. When it comes to technique, English players are light years behind. You see it every time they play the likes of Spain, Holland, Italy, Argentina et al. As good as the result and workrate was against Spain recently, the amount that Spain controlled possession and had England chasing shadows was apparent to all. That's no disgrace against Spain of course, but the same was true when they lost to the mighty...er..Croatia...English players are one-footed for one thing to a staggering degree but they also lack invention and instinctive awareness that only comes from top class coaching. Even England's top players like Gerrard, Rooney and the like have immense physical presence and a maverick quality which is the main driving force behind their impact, far more than actual skill. It's fine when you're playing alongside world class players as they are, but not in a team of much more average players. It pains me to say it but I actually think Ashley Cole is the only English player who could be the best in his position in any team. Sorry to pick examples but I often think some of the attacking midfield players are the best of examples of the limits of English players. Players like Theo Walcott, Stewart Downing and Ashley Young are quick, athletic and produce an occasional good moment but when push comes to shove they just don't have a trick hence why England fail to break down the likes of Algeria. Until grassroots training is sorted out, English players are not going to be good enough, simple as that.
Now this in itself does not have to be as much of a problem as it is - psychology is the key and this is where my main point about media coverage of England comes in. A very good point to make is the best side does not always win a tournament - Aston Villa stunned the football world by winning the European Cup in 1982, my greatest football experience was Liverpool winning the same tournament in 2005 with a far inferior squad to many in the competition and of course Greece won Euro 2004 against all odds. Now maybe that happened because none of them actually thought they would. They approached the tournament with an attitude of one game at a time, let's just do our very best as underdogs and you never know what could happen. England proved against Spain that with superb workrate, a bit of luck and a flash of quality anything is possible. The problem of course is every tournament comes with the 'we're good enough to win it' instead of 'let's do our best'. The players probably believe it and are then stunned when they get torn apart by Germany or fail to break down a team who contained two professional camel herders and a country that doesn't even know the right name for the sport and when they only just beat the smallest nation in a world cup because they have no real creativity.
Of course their morale is also totally deflated by the knowledge that unless they win every game 4-0, there's going to be multiple headlines that say 'you're letting your country down'. Perhaps the most infuriating thing of all is the fixation on one thing that's apparently going to change everything in England's favour. It's always if one player is fit or if the manager picks so-and-so or if he plays the right system. I couldn't believe when in the last tournament everyone thought Gareth Barry coming into the team was going to change everything and be the rock upon which England's triumph would be built...Gareth Barry? I mean he's a good player I suppose, but hardly a player upon whose tournament hopes should be built. Frankly, any team that wins a world cup is probably not dependent on one player to do it. Even Messi couldn't win Argentina the world cup and Brazil won the 1962 world cup without Pele.
Going back to tactics and team selections etc brings me back to another media gift in England - manager bashing. Don't get me wrong, successive England managers have infuriated me with some of their decisions. Eriksson's utter negativity and picking a striker who'd never played a Premiership game, Cappello's decision to abandon his principles for the 2010 world cup and pick an ageing and ineffective squad are just two examples. But does anybody actually think England would have won either of these tournaments regardless? Sven Goran Eriksson and Cappello have two of the most glittering management records in club football history, Bobby Robson transformed Ipswich Town into a domestic and European football success and managed Barcelona successfully and even the much maligned Steve McClaren got Middlesbrough to a European final. These are not bad managers - England just aren't that good and bashing the manager every time they don't win is not going to help.
Do I think Harry Redknapp should be the next England manager? Yes probably. Do I think Phil Jones, Tom Cleverley, Micah Richards, Joe Hart and co represent a potentially half decent spine of a team? Well yes, better than recent years. Do I think Gerrard and Lampard should never be played together ever again and Ferdinand and Terry should probably make way too? Well yes. But crucially, I don't preach that these things are going to turn England into world beaters because they're not. Can they win a tournament? Anything can happen in football so yes, but the media and hence the psychology are going to stop it happening. It's a shame the topic of England's national football team is apparently an excuse to abandon grown up discussion.
No comments:
Post a Comment