Michael Owen: Good, but never great

Michael Owen, perhaps one of England’s greatest ever strikers announced his retirement this week. The Stoke City striker decided that at the age of 33, it was time for him to ‘hang up his boots’ at the end of this season. Owen, whose record will show 40 goals in 89 caps, as well as numerous titles including an FA Cup, two league cup trophies, a Premier League winner’s medal, a UEFA Cup winner’s medal as well as winning the 2001 Ballon D’Or; the last Englishman to do so.

Yet, whilst the trophy cabinet and his goals count may lie favourably, it is unlikely and perhaps unfairly to some, that history will suggest Owen was a great.

As a precocious teenager at Liverpool, he made his name with his stunning speed and his ability to simply pull away from the side of the last defender. Liverpool, a club that has welcomed and glorified many fine strikers including Ian St John, John Aldridge, Ian Rush and Robbie Fowler, saw Owen as another player of that same quality. His record of 158 goals in 297 appearances demonstrated his ruthlessness and the terror that opposition teams felt when dealing with the young Englishman.

For his country, Owen will be remembered for many moments, his goal in the 2002 quarter-final against Brazil, his hat-trick against Germany in Munich and of course; his wonderful goal against Argentina in 1998 that announced his arrival to a global audience.

Dancing past Argentinians in the 1998 World Cup in St Etienne.

Owen had everything, yet he just never lived up to what we believed he would end up being.

It is true that injury curtailed what once destroyed Premiership and international defences. Owen’s speed was debilitated by serious hamstring injuries, so much so that Owen once said on record that he effectively played with two in his right leg. Later on in his career, he snapped his cruciate ligament during the 2006 World Cup, as well as persistent ankle injuries in the latter stages.

To some extent Owen never recovered, his goal scoring record was still relatively strong, but the player that he evolved into simply never adapted to the changing game.

Pure and simple, Owen’s talent as a youngster was running onto through balls and being able to ease past defenders. His ability to finish in front of goal, never declined; alas his ability to get to that stage was a vestige of the past. It was injuries that forced Owen to adapt his game and the stockier player was not in the bracket of player that won the European footballer of the year award at the beginning of the millennium.

Owen, who had made his living from scoring in a certain way, and had Liverpool built around him to provide those goals, never had the tactical capacity to develop into something that would allow him to flourish. When Rafa Benitez joined Liverpool and asked him to make runs across the defenders, which Owen wasn’t capable of doing, a move to Madrid for Benitez allowed Liverpool to play a different way and freed up Steven Gerrard.

Owen scored goals at his time in Madrid and subsequently Newcastle. Yet, at United and currently, Stoke, goals have not been as forthcoming due to both opportunities and unfortunately injuries. However; even so, when one compares the strikers in the Premier League at the time then it shows how much his worth had diminished. The likes of Drogba, Rooney and Berbatov, though never had the finishing ability of Owen, were simply in a different technical and tactical league to Owen. When Rooney cruelly broke his metatarsal against Portugal in the quarter finals of Euro 2004, it was Frank Lampard and Steven Gerrard that England relied on, not Michael Owen.

As I conclude, it feels almost harsh to suggest that Owen was not the player his goal record proves. He scored goals and his was greatly admired, but never loved. Yes, he was clinical, but perhaps too corporate. He did not mean as much as Robbie Fowler to the Kop and left St James’ Park maligned. Manchester United fans will remember his injury time winner against City, but beyond that, no more.

The headlines this weekend suggest that Owen has not ruled out going into management or coaching. Whilst it would be irrational to turn down someone with his experience and leadership qualities, I find it difficult to believe that Owen’s tactical ability could prove successful at the highest level.

It is difficult because I feel that injury unfairly dealt Owen an ability to move on his career; however he was unable to adapt unlike a Giggs, a Ferdinand or even a Dwight Yorke. He was more than a precocious youngster and made many England fans happy as he sped away from Robert Ayala or put the ball past Oliver Kahn with ease, he unfortunately flourished for not long enough. Owen could’ve gone down as a great, but sadly he will never will do. 

Bankers' bonuses: Bad policy

Defend a banker anyone? Shall we forget the misdemeanours of the past few years and let them get on with it as they did previously? Was mis-selling, rate-fixing and wholesale impunity just a minor aberration?

Perhaps I am being flippant, but really is it time to move on with how we treat our financial services sector?

There is anger and deserved contempt for the profession, and to some extent, deservedly so. The actions of several banks, both retail and investment, brought the global economy to its knees in 2008. Many of the banks were over-leveraged with billions of pounds worth of sub-prime and toxic assets on their balance sheets. At the same time, whilst a huge bubble was growing in the US housing market, bright minds were being recruited by the world’s biggest financial institutions and being remunerated with six-figure salaries and generous bonuses. Yet, this was not a revolution in creating wealth. It was entirely artificial and five years later, we the aftermath is still affecting the economy.

Small and medium sized enterprises are suffocating from a lack of credit within the system. Banks are being asked to meet lending targets, yet at the same time having to slim-line their balance sheet and maintain a higher capital ratio too. In 2008, banks weren’t able to function as banks because they lacked liquidity, now they are unable to lend because they need to hold on to their money.

This is where the problem lies; mainly in culture and language. Banks are perceived to conduits of free-market capitalism, unregulated machines that stuff money into the pockets of the rich. This is a ridiculous argument, yet it is frequently echoed by lazy politicians and journalists. The financial services industry contributes more than ten percent of the UK’s national GDP and employs well over a million people. Even after the crash.

Whilst regulation may be required, it is important to stress that more regulation is not the answer, simply good regulation.

EU regulation is an attack on the UK

The EU’s decision to introduce a Financial Transaction Tax as well as a cap on bankers’ bonuses is exactly not that: it is bad regulation. Whilst the City of London, the UK’s financial heart, has remained staunchly pro-EU, it has remained silent over these proposals. Make no mistake, when these were put forward, EU politicians were simply testing the water to see how keen people were for such measures, more will follow. This is simply an attack on Britain’s financial heart and the fact that the UK was the only country to oppose the measure for capping bonuses demonstrate that we are simply on our own.

It is also another example of the undemocratic nature of the EU. 26 nations, unelected by the British people, are forcing regulations on us that we simply did not vote for. This is before we question whether it will work or not. A similar financial tax introduced in Sweden in the 1980s simply forced all Swedish bond traders to move to London overnight. Who is not to say that the same will happen again this time? People argue that people would be unwilling to move away from London and the huge markets it serves, but why would an industry want to remain somewhere when the regulation is simply punishing and burdensome?

Bankers’ bonuses will drive up salaries, which are far more difficult to claw back than bonuses. In the event of another crisis, it will simply entail banks firing more people than addressing remuneration. In effect, they will be more unstable. Let’s not forget that banks are simply too clever, if there is a way of getting around it, they will do. People always tend to forget that these costs ultimately will be passed on to consumers i.e. you and I.

This is simply a bad policy.

What is most important that a British politician recognises this. For too long there has been no political capital in defending bankers. If this does become UK law, then MPs should realise that this is bad politics and not only will it cost growth, but cost jobs too. If a referendum does eventually happen, then people may realise that unnecessary rules and regulations from Europe are having a detrimental effect on the UK economy. The only way to avoid it, may be leaving.