English game is paralysed by a fear of the unknown

From The Times

November 23, 2007

The faults that lie deep within the nation's football will not be cured simply by handing Steve McClaren his P45

Martin Samuel, Chief Football Correspondent

Brian Barwick yesterday began his search for a manager with the X factor, but it is the fear factor that must be eradicated if English football is to be a force in world football again. Fear of failure, fear of ideas, fear of the new, fear of stepping beyond our comfort zone.

Most of all, there is the undermining belief that for all our bravado and bold pronouncements — Peter Crouch actually spoke of winning the tournament two days before the qualification game with Croatia — we are not good enough. We fear that, man for man, our technique will let us down against the first good team we play. Croatia did not win because of pride or passion, the famous red herrings of English football. They won because those two elements remain our greatest strength and faced with a team who have them, too — and plenty do in these days of new republics — it comes down to who is better at football; and the good continental team will triumph.

“Wake up,” Slaven Bilic, the Croatia head coach, said, and he was right. His team were better than ours at Wembley, as they were in Zagreb. Indeed, Croatia have proved the toughest group opposition in England’s history, unique in winning the home and away ties. So we lost to an able passing team again, except this time the reckoning arrived one stage earlier than usual. Sven-Göran Eriksson did not have opponents of Croatia’s class in any of his qualifying campaigns — even the first one — so sailed through and had to wait for a date with Brazil, France or Portugal for the frailty of English football to be exposed.

Steve McClaren met his Waterloo earlier and, yes, at times he compounded English weaknesses with some of his own — not introducing Owen Hargreaves immediately with the score at 2-2 on Wednesday was his final, gigantic error — but the faults will not be eradicated by the swift issue yesterday morning of his P45. There is a crisis of confidence within our game that begins in youth football with panicked yelps to lump the ball out of trouble rather than play it away and continues all the way up the ladder until it manifests itself in a national side who, if they concede one goal, immediately compound their problem by letting in a second.

This has happened too often for it to be coincidence. Against Croatia at Wembley, one became two within six minutes, in Moscow against Russia it took four minutes, in the friendly with Germany in August 14 minutes, in Zagreb eight minutes. For all his apparent aura of calm, Eriksson fared little better. France scored twice in two minutes in 2004 and Brazil twice in five minutes in 2002.

The fear factor makes England horribly vulnerable and it is as if the team visibly shrink when a goal goes in. There was not one point during the match on Wednesday at which England were in control of the situation and throughout they bore the look of incompetent plate-spinners, dashing from one wobbling catastrophe to the next. Already qualified, Croatia could afford to relax, but even so they have cut an assured path through this campaign, losing one game in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, when the half-time news that qualification was guaranteed probably led to a softening of attitude.

To Bilic, our endless debates over systems and tactics appear strange, but that is because he originates from a culture in which the concept of reworking the blueprint to suit the demands of the moment is not considered radical. McClaren wanted to broaden English horizons, but each time was met by a wall of resistance from those who do not see 41 years of failure as any agent for change and players used to operating in an intellectual safety zone.

McClaren was mocked when he said that his answer to a run of five games without a win was to “keep going, keep going, keep doing the same things”, but he is a product of English football, too. If his successor talks of getting back to what English players do best — high tempo, hustle and bustle, up and at ’em, big man up front — we will not have learnt from this humiliation. The rest of the world has seen English high tempo for more than four decades. Seen it, dealt with it, stuffed it. Next.

The best managers are problem-solvers, but McClaren was overwhelmed by his injury list and the reduced number of English footballers in the Barclays Premier League meant that the cupboard was often bare.

It used to be that an England selector had a first XI and a pretty decent squad of reserves who could step up if required. Below that there would be another squad of young players and solid club men who, while not capable of sustained international class, were able to provide service in an emergency. England used to pick a pre-tournament squad of 40 without too many raised eyebrows and when Don Revie took over as manager in 1974, he called a meeting of every English player in or around his squad and more than 70 received invites.

These days, an England manager has a first choice, one reserve of variable consistency (think of the performance of Wayne Bridge, understudy to Ashley Cole, on Wednesday) and, beyond that, nothing.

At right back, for instance, below 19-year-old Micah Richards and the injury-stricken Gary Neville, is Phil Neville, a central midfield player, or Wes Brown, who, at 28, is still unsure of his best position and has never commanded a regular place at Manchester United. Below Cole and Bridge at left back is Nicky Shorey, a good club man for Reading but no more. The understudy for Michael Owen is a Tottenham Hotspur reserve; the replacement for Wayne Rooney is fourth choice at Liverpool.

The build-up to this game brought talk of quotas for foreign players, but how is that the answer? A league stuffed with second-rate Englishmen by bureaucratic decree will not benefit the national team. The rot sets in — as Sir Trevor Brooking, the FA’s director of football development, has identified, without doing a whole lot about it — in youth football, which is increasingly ruled by fear, too.

It does not figure that a country with a population of 60 million should produce fewer gifted footballers than Croatia, with a population of 4.5 million. The characteristics of the human body are the same, so the system must be failing. Arsène Wenger, who develops more young world-class players — note no mention of nationality — than any manager in England, relies upon a squad that is almost exclusively foreign-born. His one English player of sufficient standard, Theo Walcott, was bought and even his first-team appearances for Arsenal remain limited. Sir Alex Ferguson has had greater success with British talent but talks a better game than statistics support. The creative core of his team has not been native and home-grown since the good old days, when David Beckham, Paul Scholes, Nicky Butt and Ryan Giggs were part of his first-choice midfield. Rooney was bought, at vast expense, and the future stars of Manchester United are as likely to come from Lisbon as Lancashire.

Throughout English club football, managers are turning their backs on the products of an environment of fear, of hurried clearances on bog-standard, outsized pitches, of the panicky power game that is English youth football.

Walk around park pitches this weekend and you will see microcosms of the match with Croatia: the terror of failure, the inability to keep the ball and stay calm, the howling from without that freezes the blood and saps all creativity. Most of all, you may see a coach who mistakenly imagines that, like McClaren, he is in the results business and sacrifices learning on the altar of his ego.

Barwick, the FA chief executive, spoke of a root-and-branch examination of what went wrong with this campaign, but what does that mean? The heart of the matter is that the rest of Europe, even some countries that we patronisingly refer to as minnows, produce technical footballers in greater numbers and that is a problem not going to be solved by an incoming manager whose first priority is to qualify for the 2010 World Cup with a nation on his back, biting its nails to the quick.

Brooking talks up his skills programme, but there is little point in teaching a ten-year-old the Cruyff turn if he is expected to put it into practice on a full-sized pitch with his coach screaming at him to clear his lines. The whole process requires reform, not one executive aspect of it.

It is almost as if English footballers are out of practice in thinking about the game. Gareth Barry was required to anchor England’s midfield against Croatia, yet the statistics show that his touches of the ball were generally in more advanced positions than Frank Lampard and Steven Gerrard, thus negating the plan to have them breaking forward to latch on to Peter Crouch’s knock-downs. Other countries, the Netherlands in particular, give the sport an intellectual centre. Yet in both games, Croatia’s midfield looked brighter than ours. Better educated. Better prepared. They knew what they wanted to achieve and had paid attention in class.

Whoever follows McClaren will need to be a strong personality. Some of the malaise within the English game, specifically at grass roots, is not his to change, so all that can be done is to work on removing the fear from the elite players. It requires a psychologist — José Mourinho or Martin O’Neill, thinking men who may approach the problem from a fresh angle, single-minded and unafraid.

McClaren was a hard worker, a decent chap, who came up short. There is no shame in finishing second to Croatia, but Russia are an ordinary team and he could not place England above them, either. In adversity, he soon became overwhelmed by circumstances, by fear and by a mission that has grown exponentially with this campaign. For it now takes in not just the adequacy of 11 men, but the soul, the psyche and the competitive culture of an entire football nation.

The contenders

1) José Mourinho

Pros Charismatic, bold, successful. Women want him and men want to be him; all in all, the polar opposite of Steve McClaren. Would be welcomed by media and public alike given his reputation as a winner. Is available and his family likes London. Cons Has said he wants a job at a top European club. Might get bored as England do not have a competitive fixture for another nine months. FA would not relish his incendiary style – and he would be expensive. Odds 4-1

2) Alan Shearer

Pros Long and successful career at international and Premier League level should win dressing-room respect. Reputation as a straight-talker and passion for England runs deep. Jürgen Klinsmann and Marco van Basten have proved that a lack of managerial experience is no barrier to success. Cons It would still be a risky move for the FA to appoint someone who has never managed at club level and is still gaining coaching qualifications. Odds 14-1

3) Fabio Capello

Pros Curtailed the excesses of the galácticos at Real Madrid and brought the club the title last season. Adaptable coach with a global reputation whose sides are regimented but attractive. Said yesterday that he would like the job. Also successful with AC Milan, AS Roma and Juventus. Cons Does not speak good English and has not worked in English football. Aged 61, which could count against him if the FA is looking for someone youthful. Odds 6-1

4) Jürgen Klinsmann

Pros Energetic and confident leadership could rejuvenate a side shorn of self-belief. Won admirers by taking a mediocre Germany side to the World Cup semi-finals last year with a fluent, attacking style. Cons Appears reluctant to move from California, where he lives and has business interests. Reportedly interested in managing Australia because he could do the job part-time. England supporters who blanched at a Swede taking charge would not warm to the idea of a German manager. Odds 25-1 The contenders

5) Rafael BenÍtez

Pros Understood to be unsettled at Liverpool and open to idea of managing England if he leaves Anfield. Knows how to win big competitions. A tactical expert with excellent knowledge of European football. Cons Unimpressive Barclays Premier League form a blot on his copybook. Reputation for defensive, low-scoring football is hardly what England are looking for. Are England ready for Rafa’s rotations? Given his lack of club action, BenÍtez’s appointment may persuade Peter Crouch to retire. Odds 40-1

6) Martin O’Neill

Pros Inspirational, well-liked and clearly in the FA’s thoughts last year. Has bought and encouraged young English talent such as Gabriel Agbonlahor and Ashley Young while revitalising a moribund Aston Villa. Cons Is thought to feel reluctant to leave Villa, where he has not worked long and not won anything. If he was not right in the FA’s eyes last year, what has changed? Is he a master tactician or nothing more than a one-dimensional Mr Motivator? Odds 4-1

7) Luiz Felipe Scolari

Pros “Big Phil” has a big reputation and it is justified: led Brazil to the World Cup and Portugal to the final of Euro 2004 and the semi-finals of last year’s World Cup. Appeared to be the FA’s first choice last year. Is expected to leave Portugal after Euro 2008. Cons Was intimidated by media scrutiny when he was shortlisted. With Portugal newly qualified for Euro 2008 and their team filled with young talent, would not leave if the FA wanted him installed before the tournament. Odds 12-1

8) Stuart Pearce

Pros England Under21 have been virtually unbeatable under him. In early days of his Manchester City reign was talked about as a future England manager. Would provide continuity, given his role in FA set-up. Intense will to win. Could act as a caretaker if FA chooses to wait until after Euro 2008 before making a decision. Cons City stagnated with alarming speed and he is still learning the managerial ropes. Lacks experience and needs to prove himself with a top club. Odds 20-1 Words by Tom Dart, odds by Coral