Dear All,
Today I'm taking a step away from the literary norm of this blog and will be doing the first of what I hope will be many guest posts.
Last year, my very good friend, Marlon Hope (@hope_insight ), wrote an article about the state of English football. I found it very insightful and whilst I may not have agreed with every word, I thought it was too good not to share with the rest of the world.
So if like me, you love football and have been continually frustrated by England's showings over the years, I'd implore you to have read and let me know your thoughts.
Until next time
David
***
As another major international tournament goes by (Brazil
world cup 2014), and the England national team again disappoints, it is time to
dust down our obligatory root and branch reform clichés. Many call for English
football to adopt a policy mirroring that of the nation that has just lifted
the trophy. And the debate rages on into the summer, broken up only by the
reporting of our elite clubs pursuit of foreign tournament stars - the sexy
exciting mistress, to the dowdy wife that is those England players, and all
those beneath them that weren't even good enough to make the squad - until the
start of the new season.
During my love affair with football, which probably dates
back to that Michael Thomas goal for Arsenal at Anfield that clinched the 88/89
league title, you could take any major national tournament - with the only
exceptions, Italy 90, Euro 96 and France 98 - and the only way you would know
what tournament it was would be by the players’ names being mentioned. The
problems, the performance, the out outcome and the solutions are pretty
transferable.
An interesting, aside is that after each of the three
tournaments where the nation saw a team performance that reflected and
satisfied the public’s perception, we changed the manager? Should that tell us
anything? Considering that objectively, this is a pattern does seem a little
self-destructive?
But any way - I digress - back to the aftermath of our national teams
failures. The general reasons proffered by those in the know - and all
those who consume the media - is: English players aren't technically good enough,
players were played out of position, our star players didn't turn up, players
were not fit, fear, the manager can't get players to replicate their club form
and unhappy camp. Oh and don't forget the need for a tournament scapegoat
ranging from the manager, that player the media don’t take to (James
Milner, Owen Hargreaves – Euro 2004), player that made a mistake (David
Beckham, Phil Neville) or the advertisers dream, the guy who missed that
crucial shoot out penalty.
I am sure so far I haven't said anything that is not recognised by anyone who
has an interest in football. I would even hazard a guess that most of the
UK without an interest in football could reel off a fair few of those reasons.
The hysteria gets that big. So, if that is true, and the best brains in the UK
- administrators ex-pro's and journalists - solve the nation's ills in
the down time between England's exit and the start next Premier league season
every 2 years, why does nothing seem to change?
Let me say, I am not football expert. I never played the game at any high
level; I only watch the top tier English competitions, champions league
and international tournaments like many. I do play a mean football manager
but I accept that doesn't qualify me ahead of those whose opinions I have
enjoyed watching, reading and listening to over the years. But, hearing the
same solutions and seeing the same failings played out on continuous loop has
lead me to question both the problem and the answer. If we know the
question and the answer, why does nothing ever change? Are the solutions being
touted the right ones?
This long process of football reforms has been coming for
some time. Could you imagine a Fortune 500 company, consistently achieving the
equivalent results over two or three decades? Would there not be swift decisive
action followed by a strong upturn in performance? Even if the ultimate aim
were not immediately achieved, surely there would be a trend of improvement?
Substitute in the England national team for the FTSE 500
company, and suppose I am suggesting that the two years between a international
tournament, should be sufficient to see a team - with the right strategy and
leadership - play as a cohesive unit, and perform to their potential. Are
the players in the Costa Rica and Algeria sides at this world cup better than
those than all of those in this England 2014 world cup squad? If the answer is
no, my next question is how many English players outside of the squad would get
into Costa Rica’s side? The true answer to how many players are available to
the national manager could lay hear I suspect. It has been said that the
players we took lacked experience, but Wayne Rooney, for instance had his best
tournament for England when he was at his least experienced so how does that
work?
Okay, I have posed loads of questions. Let me imagine someone was mad enough to
entrust me with the power to cure all of English football's ills. What would I
do? Were it up to me, my starting point would be to agree some short medium
term and long term goals. So I am not offering any new or spectacular
revelations at this stage.
Short term objective: get the current national team to
play to their potential.
Perceived barriers:
1.
We don't have enough international quality players
2.
No winter break
3.
Manager lacks tactical ability.
|
Medium term objective: Agree and develop a national
playing style.
Perceived barriers:
1.
Clubs priorities conflict with the FA
2.
Getting managers with aligned philosophy’s management
experience
|
Long term objective: Develop an infrastructure to support
the development of the playing style into grassroots.
Perceived barriers:
1.
Not enough coach (cost prohibitive)
2.
Poor/limited facilities
3.
No joined up strategy
|
I will attempt to cover my short term objectives for you now. The medium and
long term ones may need to be a follow up to this.
Short term objective: get the current national team to play
to their potential.
We don't have enough international quality players: I can
honestly say, as annoyed as I have been by what I see from England, have
disagreed for the longest time with the view England does not produce enough
international quality players to service the national teams ambitions. I can
think back to many a post tournament playground conversation where I would
argue the virtues some player I felt should have been given a chance but either
didn't get any minutes or wasn't even in the squad. Think of some of the
players that didn't get to tournaments where the England team didn't perform.
Andy Cole, Stan Collymore, Matt Le Tissier, Scott Parker, Steve Bruce. Are
none of these players international class. Scott Parker like Gareth Barry
established themselves right at the end of their prime, but for years were cast
into that clutch of players that were not good enough for international
football. It is easy to forget that Barry was Aston Villa’s captain marvel for
years, with a not too unhealthy goal return, long before it was decided we was
actually an England holding midfielder when he got his move to City. How many
untested players are there that could have had an impact on the team - playing
in their correct position - had they had the opportunity. Wayne Routledge has
lead a journeyman career but get him to Swansea, with a manager with limited
alternatives and a bit of imagination and he becomes an effective and
established Premier League player for the first time at the age of 29. What
might his career have looked like with a supportive manager and more game time
earlier in his career? And why could he not have been an option for England
this summer?
These players aren't the only ones. I am no expert, but if
Ricky Lambert can go from League 2 to international and Adam Lallana, can go
from League 1 and not good enough to be in Stuart Pearce's U21 team, to a £25
million international then there must be more examples out there. Could not
Ashley Williams, the English born, Welsh Captain have added to England’s defensive
options this summer had he held out any hope of a big club spotting his talent
when he was at Stockport County. Or that his national team was not a closed
shop cartel, one accessible to those with a significant media profiles.
The inverse is also true as shown this summer by Ashley
Cole's exclusion form the squad. Here is the best left back we have ever
produced. Still super fit, and after not playing for a lifetime walks back into
the Chelsea team to play in a couple of their biggest games of the season. Not
only does he play, he looks like he’s never been away. But, as his media
profile has dipped due to being out of his club side, he is overlooked and
gracefully retires. Never mind, who needs him, we have loads of players
available to the national team don’t we? He is such a poor player now anyway;
he could only get signed by the runners up in the Italian league anyway.
#washedup?
My opinion, which I will admit is entirely unsubstantiated,
is that players are progressed based on celebrity rather than attributes. If
what I believe is true, how does that impact on our ability to assessment the
ability and potential impact of a player. This is nothing new. Moneyball,
approached this same scenario using statistical data, enabling a team to
identify cheaper targets that offer you similar benefit to their more
established counterparts. Where applied successfully, a players value will then
rise as they begin to deliver according to the raised expectations.
I believe to have a style or play a system, you need to have
players with the attributes to deliver according to the system. If your style
is to send a long high ball up to the lone centre forward, and play for the flick on,
your centre forward should not be Wayne Rooney, even if he is considered the
forward with the most ability. I believe the best player available with the
requisite attributes, should trump the star man when it comes to team
selection. If there isn't a player with those skills in a top team, you go to
the best one available if that job role is pivotal to your playing style. Play
that out to the extreme that could mean picking a player that is a
reserve, a youth team player, or a player from a lower league. The player
might lack something the more established player has, but it is what they bring
and how they enable your system to work - utilising those attributes - that I
believe should be prioritised. I believe moving to a place we're a players
worth, is assessed in terms of the required attributes to perform a role would
make player selection more objective. Isn't that how recruitment is conducted
in every other walk of life?
I think this approach would take the pressure off good players when they are left
out of the team. If the big player doesn't start a game the media pressure is
enormous. It has to have an impact on a manager’s ability to make the best
decisions for the team if they are concerned about criticism of them, and more
importantly, the destructive effect of negative speculation about a star player
being dropped, on the player and the squad.
At the business end of this World Cup Per Mertesacker was
withdrawn from the team with Germany opting for Hummels and Boetang. Germany
plays a high line which requires defenders to be quick and mobile – neither trait
I’m sure even Mertesacker would attribute himself with. The attributes required
when the quality of the opponents improved dictated the new partnership would
be better able to meet the demands of playing that system. No brainer. No
public outcry, just pure logic. Defending high balls around your 18 yard box
Per would be you man again.
So to recap, picking players according to attributes one part of my
argument that says England have more players that could be considered by the
national team than they utilise. Part two of this argument speaks to the
limited playing time at club level experienced by potential England hopefuls.
The biggest barriers to more English players playing regular club football - in
my opinion - is the number of players clubs are able to own. Jack Rodwell,
Wayne Bridge, Shaun Wright-Phillips are high profile casualties, but how many
emerging talents miss out on meaningful competitive football from their teens’
to their mid 20’s. How does this impact the national team’s fortunes? How does
a player spur themselves on and compete at the highest level with the margins
involved in high class competition, when their career has only ever consisted
of training? Faced with that prospect of an indefinite spell without the hope
of first team football, should a player still be expected to maintain their
motivation to excel?
This is already an established train of thought, and there have been recent
calls for England to adopt the now famous 10 year German model championed by
Jurgen Klinsmann to solve the problem. I think I agree with Gary Neville
when he said that could not work in our football culture, and with his
assessment that wand waving was not an option to deliver success. The Greg Dyke
commission has also looked into this, although the suggestions around
competitive B teams seems highly elaborate, and I wonder whether its
implementation is even feasible, and if it is, how the disruption might
undermine our unique league football structure?
Saying it out loud, my approach feels over simplistic. But whilst I can
think of one or two major objections I think it would be simple and swift to
implement. Under my proposals, Clubs could register a maximum number of
players, with replacements coming from youth team squads, much like now. The major change would be that clubs would be
only able to loan out a named 5 players (on one occasion only) per year,
irrespective of the length of the loan.
The reasoning behind this suggestion is twofold.
1.
By making it less attractive for clubs to hold huge stocks
of player (they have to pay wages and can’t earn loan fees) it would encourage
clubs to trim their squads and invest more heavily in those they choose to
retain.
2.
If huge numbers of players that are nowhere near their
clubs first team are released, it would flood the market with players, driving
down demand and the comparative cost of English players. Reducing the cost of
English players should make them more attractive to clubs reducing the need to
seek low cost alternatives in foreign markets. Not only could that see the
number of English players playing first team football in our national leagues,
but it might make English players more attractive to foreign clubs, creating a
stronger export market. The impact of this could mean more English players
playing competitive first team football, with greater potential for a richer
football education as they become more affordable to foreign clubs.
My unqualified view about a proposed winter break is quite
simply that I think it is a red herring. Players playing in this league that
represent other nations seem to be able to perform just fine when they go to
tournaments. In fact a lack of winter break didn't stop three Arsenal players
coming home with shiny world cup medal winners medals this summer. A period of rest is likely to be beneficial, I
have no doubt. It makes perfect sense, but I can’t believe England would have
gotten out of there group stage had we had one. I think the significant
problems are in other areas so it would be like sitting down to a cup of tea,
and having a glazed cherry but not bothering with the cake - a bit pointless.
The manager of the national team is hugely important for me and on this point I
have very little to add. I suppose, were I to write checklist for someone
recruiting an England manager it would probably read:
1.
Can demonstrate their ability to set up teams that
plays in a way that is consistent with philosophy of the national team – tricky
bit is you have to already have one.
2.
If nationality is an issue be clear and say, English,
British or any Nationality.
3.
Do not appoint someone and expect them to deliver
football that is different to way they have previously achieved success.
4.
Pick the coach whose attributes best fit your criteria
whether they are a youth coach, lower league coach or a recently retired player
– Pep Guardiola, Brendan Rogers and Jurgen Klinsmann all show that a lack of
direct experience is not always necessary to have vision, demonstrate good
leadership and achieve success.
5.
Appoint on rolling contracts with notice periods. Seems
to work in other walks of life.
Summary
Short term plan for getting England on track for the
Euro’s in 2016
1.
Impose a 5 loan out rule to dissuade clubs from
stockpiling players
2.
Judge players by their attributes and not celebrity
when pick an England squad matching them to job roles needed within the team
structure
3.
Have a clear playing style and philosophy for the
national team
4.
Can your manager demonstrate a their ability to deliver
according to that philosophy
5.
Winter break debate, a red herring
|
I hope you've found this interesting.
Marlon Hope
Please contact me on twitter if you'd like to continue the debate @hope_insight
