England expects?

The politics of following the English national team appears to get stranger and stranger as each tournament approaches. Not since 1966 has England managed to win a major international trophy and despite coming close on one or two occasions, most notably in 1990 and 1996, the dream of winning anything seems rather remote.

Yet, the English, who invented the game and this being rather noteworthy, appear to have a morbid fascination in seeing their football collapse and capitulate. For every tournament they enter, the whole country expects them to go and win it; this is despite the severe technical deficiencies and sheer exhaustion of playing a Premier League season. It is not just the fans who crank up the pressure; the media plays its role. For example, before most knock out games, be certain to see a headline play reference to Lord Admiral Nelson’s famous adage that ‘England expects everyman to do his duty’. In fact, ITV’s recent build up has parodied England going into the tournament on the back of their twelfth straight World Cup victory.

The 'heroes' of 1966.

It is worth reminding that the so-called ‘Golden Generation’ that infamously went onto win nothing, was actually a name given to the team by none other than the Football Association. Talk about hyperbole.

For many years England did expect, purely because they did invent the game and that was that. England famously did not enter into early World Cup tournaments because they believed that they were not properly devised nor was the FA willing to acknowledge them.

Even the mentality was wrong, British players were often renowned for the idea that running with your head down can get you out of trouble. The so-called ‘kick and rush’ football may have worked in the British leagues and in the early half of the 20^th century, but footballing tactics had moved on. England did not. One Dutch commentator said that his country admired the way the English played but they thought it was completely suicidal.

And here we are today. Less than two weeks before Euro 2012 kicks off in Poland and Ukraine and everyone is trying to down play it all. The preparation was not good. The departure of Italian Fabio Capello was not an ideal scenario. Despite Capello’s unpopularity with the press and a number of players, he was a winner and he knew what he wanted. The FA’s bizarre attempt to find an interim manager and hire him less than a month before the tournament speaks volume of the organisation.

I do not expect England to win, nor do I expect most people. Yet, I don’t understand this idea of trying to subvert any optimism. We don’t need to label ourselves as dark horses or chance outsiders. Why would you enter a tournament without thinking you were going to win it? You don’t go to a strip club to enjoy the furnishings.

Tournament success is about preparation and a spot of luck, for too long the conversation was ‘we invented the game so we’ll win it’ and later it became ‘we’ve got the best league in the world so we’ll win it’. Two remarkable truisms that have no real logic. 

If England ever do win a tournament it will require hard work and good players, but it will mainly require ideas and knowledge. The FA’s previous solutions of throwing money at the problem will add nothing further disappointment. Let’s hope, but not get ahead of ourselves.

Capello: England's most successful manager

Yesterday's departure of the England manager Fabio Capello was greeted with both shock and hope in the football world. The Italian resigned from his position after he disagreed with the Football Association’s decision to strip England captain John Terry of the armband.

Terry, who was stripped of the armband previously, is alleged to have made racist comments towards the QPR defender Anton Ferdinand. The events have led to a court case that will be heard after this summer’s European Championships. The FA felt that an internal inquiry could affect civic justice and therefore decided to act to remove the captaincy so it did not become an issue during the tournament. However, Capello made his anger known on Italian TV believed that sporting justice should be served. The clash between the FA and Capello has now seen the Italian go just six months before the England team head to Poland and Ukraine.

On the same day, Tottenham Hotspurs manager Harry Redknapp was cleared of all charges relating to a tax evasion charge. Currently as the most successful English manager, fans, players and ex-professionals are all now calling for Harry to take charge. But will it really mean anything?

Harry Redknapp is an excellent football manager and has a proven record in the English Premier League. Most recently, he led Tottenham to the quarter finals of the Champions League and won the FA Cup with Portsmouth in 2008. Yet, the mysticism of him being English does not conceal the truth.

Capello, with a win percentage of 67 per cent is England’s most successful manager. Even the World Cup winner Alf Ramsey only managed 60 per cent. Capello took over a team that had failed to qualify for the 2008 European Championships and managed to re-establish them as one of Europe’s best. In the qualifications for the 2010 World Cup in South Africa, England only lost once to Ukraine, in a game when qualification was already confirmed (plus England’s goalkeeper was sent off). More surprisingly, under Capello England have scored more goals, winning the average game by 1.5 goals.

His record in South Africa was not ideal and as many believe it is where he should have been judged. England was knocked out in the second round after losing comprehensively to Germany 4-1 in Bloemfontein. Capello admitted there were faults in the set up, yet people forget England regularly disappoint in summer tournaments. Not only did he have to contend with injuries to defenders Rio Ferdinand, Ledley King and a half fit Wayne Rooney. But like all other England managers, he took a burnt out squad, tired from a Premier League campaign. Capello became a national scapegoat.

Yet Capello is a winner. As both a player and manager he has had success wherever he has gone. Results was his only interest. He was paid £6 million a year to win trophies, he wasn't paid to help create a new generation of coaches or change English football's set up. When he failed on the pitch, it created a perception that he wasn't interested. The FA, with a new chairman and known to change managers frequently, believed the project must end. Who knows what they believe.

Whoever takes over the England job will go into the tournament feeling confident. Yet, whoever it is: Redknapp, Pearce, Neville; expect to see the same result both on and off the pitch. 

You take the high road! - Scottish independence

Wales will be making final preparations for their Rugby World Cup semi-final tomorrow against France in New Zealand. Yet, as the only home nation remaining in the competition, many countries, including England, will be lending their support towards the French and beyond that New Zealand, to win the tournament outright. Sporting rivalries transcend traditional barriers and we are used to reading about hostilities descending across households when city rivals compete against each other in the local derby; but much of the national sporting rivalries have been antagonised from political factions and recently, the greater debate for Scottish independence and an English Parliament. Sport aside, would this really be a desirable outcome and would it really change the way the Union is governed?

For the past 10 years, a lone voice has become louder and louder in his desire to see a Scotland, independent of Westminster and England, his name is Alex Salmond. Salmond began his career as an economist at the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) before joining the ranks of the Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP) to where he has become the most prominent actor. Salmond, who spent time as a SNP MP at Westminster before standing to become the First Minister at the Scottish Parliament in Holyrood, is best known for his quick and cerebral wit and expanding waistline. This aside, Salmond has continuously argued for greater determination for Scotland and one that can look after its own financial and strategic affairs.

Why would Scotland or Wales want to leave the Union? What has distinctly changed? In all fairness, calls for Welsh independence have been much quieter and the devolution acts at the turn of the last century were important in identifying the Welsh language and culture. Whereas in Scotland the calls have steadily grown, 50 years ago less than one per cent of the population voted for the SNP, yet now in 2011 we have a SNP majority in the Scottish Parliament. Why after over 300 years since the Act of Union in 1707 does Scotland see itself as more separate? For 300 years, Britain and the notion of ‘Britishness’ was distinct through Empire and the wars in which the Army and Royal Navy, drawn from all areas of the British Isles (including Ireland), fought. The wars in the Americas are notorious for the role of the Welsh Fusiliers and the Battle of Waterloo was lead by the cavalrymen of the Royal Scots Greys. It was also said that all across the Empire that for every Englishman there were ten Scotsman – building the railways or manning the garrisons in every isolated outpost. Yet, despite the link of the army and the Royal Family, links between ordinary families have declined with the dissipation of British industry. No longer, do Glasgow shipbuilders have the same links to the ports of Liverpool or Hull, nor the identity of Scottish miners with the collieries in Nottinghamshire or South Wales. Industrial decay has beset a British decline.

To the English, they have been irked by the so-called ‘West Lothian Question’ that has allowed Scottish MPs to vote on English matters, yet Westminster MPs could not hold sway over affairs north of the border. Party politically it is changing as well, the dominance of the SNP has saw the decline of traditional Labour safe seats and recently the Scottish Conservatives put forward an idea to move the party away from the its southern cousin. The English see the Scottish or ‘Jocks’ as lazy and subsidised by the revenues of the City of London. In fact, Aberdeen is the UK’s second richest city and Scotland’s budget deficit, if you include North Sea oil revenues, is well within the 3% limit of the European Union’s regulations, meaning it can compete without the handouts from England. Much of the scorn exists through the perceived inequalities that English taxpayers must pay for prescriptions, tuition fees and elderly care, something the Welsh and Scottish Governments provide free.

Alex Salmond has a vision of Scotland becoming a prosperous state, a mixture between Norway and Switzerland, an economy based on financial services and energy wealth. Scotland, as Europe’s windiest country, hopes to use the power of wind energy to become carbon neutral by 2020 and no longer rely on carbon fuel. However, the ‘arc of prosperity’ of countries like Iceland and Ireland that Salmond saw Scotland amongst, were engulfed in their own financial crises. Scotland’s two financial leviathans, the Bank of Scotland and RBS being saved by the UK Government and massively recapitalised by taxpayers’ money. Prominent Scots in England like the former Chancellor Alastair Darling said that an independent Scotland would have collapsed something Salmond remained muted about.

A Scotland with greater financial powers, control of its own waters (fisheries and oil) is the ideal that Salmond puts forward. Yet, the indecision within the Eurozone highlights the vulnerability of Scotland’s vision within the EU. After decolonisation we saw scores of new countries come into existence under the premise that life under your own flag is much better, yet despite globalisation, life for smaller countries relies on heavily on remittances from Diaspora and factors outside of their borders. The dream that Scotland will become a country similar to Scandinavian nations also seems uncertain, who is not to say that if Scotland obtains independence then the Shetland and Orkney Islands won’t follow the same path, taking the hydrocarbon revenues away with them.

The relationship that will continue to evolve for Scotland will probably be a semi-independent or ‘devolution max’, whatever you want to call it. One that retains the Royal Family, the currency, diplomatic corps and armed forces (minus Trident). Until then the English will continue to talk about Irn-Bru and deep-fried Mars Bars and the Scots will continue to back the opposition every time the England take to the sporting field.

Michael Owen: a bit better than Robbie Fowler.

There are several stories that seem to emerge from the back pages of British newspapers when recurring events occur; and ultimately they never happen. One is that Arsenal should sack Arsene Wenger when the club go through a dip in form (as is happening currently), and when Michael Owen scores a goal or two, he should be in Sir Alex Ferguson’s starting XI at Manchester United or certainly on England manager Fabio Capello’s radar. There is no doubt that Michael Owen was a talented player and can still perform a role within the Premiership, but is the talk pure hyperbole and the career of Michael Owen now part of football history?

When Owen joined Manchester United in the Summer of 2009, many writers believed that with the exits of Cristiano Ronaldo and Carlos Tevez the arrival of a player with Owen’s goal scoring record and experience could be a shrewd signing by Sir Alex, the main question was how many games he would play and whether he would remain fit. Owen’s father was a professional footballer and had a successful career at Everton and Chester City in the 1960s and 1970s. His son, Michael, came through the ranks at Liverpool and made his name by scoring on his league debut in May 1997 against Wimbledon. Owen had also played at different age groups for England, despite many people claiming he was Welsh. When Owen graduated into the Premiership, he was one of many top class England strikers, who all had proven at club and internationally that they could score goals. The likes of Les Ferdinand, Ian Wright, Alan Shearer all had made a big impact. Owen was soon to join this band of talented goal scorers, included in Glen Hoddle’s World Cup squad for the 1998 competition in France, Owen made an impression scoring firstly against Romania and then a wonder goal against Argentina in the second round. Here was an English striker that terrified foreign opponents: his explosive pace, sharp shooter finishing and intelligence off the ball were all destined to make Owen a great for both Liverpool and England.

In his early years with Liverpool, he was part of a side that collected six pieces of silverware and not forgetting in 2001, he was named the European footballer of the year, the first Englishman to win the prize since Kevin Keegan in 1979. No England fan will forget his hat trick in the 5-1 mauling of Germany, in Munich in September 2001. Yet, when we fast-forward a decade, with spells at Real Madrid, Newcastle and now Man Utd, Owen’s name is normally precluded to the substitutes’ bench or the stands. Why has his personal career been in slow decline since that night then years ago?

Injuries took their toll on Michael’s body and have ultimately had a lasting effect. Groin and hamstring tears, plus knee ligament damage changed the player renowned for his pace, to a rigid front man. Undoubtedly, the timings of his injuries were unfortunate but there is no reason why he couldn’t adapt or change his style of play. Alan Shearer, the great England centre forward of the 90s, thought his career was ending after endless problems with his knees. Bobby Robson, then Newcastle manager, told Shearer that he needed to change the way he played. He needed to use his strength and intelligence to run off defenders and if necessary come shorter to receive the ball (something unusual for a traditional English centre forward), Shearer went on to become the Premiership’s all time leading goal scorer and most pundits even forget about this transformation. It was the same for Teddy Sheringham, a player who is most famous for ‘playing with his back to goal’ signed for Manchester United when he was 30 and continued playing in the English Championship into his forties. Sheringham was known for his intelligence but even when his legs started to go, he was able to dictate play and helped West Ham reach the Premiership in 2005.

Owen said in an interview after his knee injury with Newcastle, suffered when playing for England in the World Cup in 2006, that he put on a stone in muscle to protect himself from recurring muscle injuries. No longer was Owen the nippy sprinter that we remembered of old. He was much broader and stronger, a striker who took the ball to feet rather than chasing through passes. Owen still managed to score goals, but not as prolifically as before, and not as effortlessly as we remembered. It was a similar tale for his former Liverpool teammate Robbie Fowler. A striker with a brilliant ability to score goals for fun (he still holds the Premiership record for the quickest hat trick) yet his fortunes were not helped by continuous injuries in his middle years. Fowler, like Owen, still scored goals but they weren’t as dynamic or thrusting as before.

Both players grew up and came through a system where English football was still flawed by its inability to adapt. Foreign players were increasingly drawn to the English game by the money and the excitement, but the tactics or the technical skills hadn’t fully trickled down. Owen and Fowler were fabulous finishers, both benefitted from the experience gained playing in European competitions and in an England shirt, but they didn’t have anything else beyond that. When you watch the best players today, they are quick, strong, intelligent and technically brilliant. Owen is a product of the twentieth century coaching, unlike Wayne Rooney or Sergio Aguero. This is reflecting in the teams he has started against, mainly in the Carling Cup, not against top class opponents.

What is interesting when listening to recent interviews with the players is that they are still hungry to score goals, but you feel there is a great deal realism and acceptance that they both reached the peaks of their careers at an early age, hastened through injury. Both have made their fortunes in property and Owen is known for his love of horseracing. (Tabloid writers joked that Sir Alex only signed him for betting tips) Neither player has anything further to prove. Owen will continue to play for United for the rest of the season and will certainly score goals in the games he plays. The only reason why Capello would pick him is for a player who scores goals in the final ten minutes of matches, some may be deemed this a luxury. Hall of Fame is certain, but breaking further records? Unlikely.

England's Cricketing Industrial Revolution

It appears that English cricket has not even reached its zenith. After years of being shackled by our own colonial ancestors we have liberated ourselves from historical dogmas, in what can only be called a thrashing. Perhaps the most famous series of them all, Bodyline, was not remembered for England’s resounding 3-1 series victory, but for the perceived ‘ungentlemanly’ behaviour of the English fast-bowlers. The 2010 series will be remembered for the simple reason that England were a fantastic all round cricket team, but are there any particular reasons why and if anything could be learnt?

Let us not forget this series win was not purely founded on one win in Australia. It is the culmination of reform from the top down of English cricket over the past ten years, in a period that was not easy. The series defeat to New Zealand in 1999 was the summer when the whole system imploded as England officially became the world’s worst Test side. Through the 1990s, England were a decent team, they had good players e.g. Stewart, Thorpe, Gough and certainly, but as a force in test and one day internationals they were moving nowhere. The initiation of central-contracts was part of the first steps to re-professionalise cricket and change the relationship between the county and national system. The contracts were given to the country’s best players, whilst future talent joined the England Academy in winter camps. It made the players full-time England internationals rather than county players that represent England.

The results spoke for themselves with away wins in West Indies, Pakistan and South Africa, culminating in the 2005 Ashes victory. Much of England’s success came through the television contracts with Sky Television. The most recent deal in 2008 saw Sky pay £300 million for a four-year contract, with full coverage of England plus the domestic season too. The other success is the adoption of foreign coaches and importantly their ideas. The appointment of the head coaches Duncan Fletcher and then Andy Flower, both Zimbabweans, have improved the management and training practises.

In some ways this mini-cricketing revolution could be compared to the Industrial Revolution throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth century. The money from Sky is a sore point for traditionalists because matches can only be watched through a monthly subscription, but this money has allowed England to progress. It pays for the coaches, the contracts and the money hitting grassroots cricket. In the industrial revolution it was the money of entrepreneurs that built the canals and the factories, not the government of the day. Watching a programme on Sky the other day called ‘How England won the Ashes’ showed how the money has helped design bowling technologies that reproduce the deliveries of potential opponents. It reminded me of the investment in the British Army during this period that helped produce new weapons like shrapnel shells. There is no irony that in an environment where there is entrepreneurialism it produces more ideas and subsequently inventions, think of America in the twentieth century.

Historically, it is argued that the Britain began to decline in the late nineteenth century. As rivals began to catch up e.g. Germany and America, they were educating their youngsters in science, engineering and maths, whilst Britain failed to adapt its education policy to the likes of its rivals. Many of these countries adopted policies of economic protectionism. Britain and its Empire boosting other growing world economies, whilst they prevented overseas investment. The English cricket team have learnt from this lesson to become the World's best Test team. However, they must continue to revolutionise their methods and ensure to employ the best coaches and innovate their training, like the British cycling team. They must understand the consequences of history and build on this success.

Greedy footballers: Wayne Rooney

One thing about being a football fan is the question of why do we put ourselves through it all? The pain and heartbreak of defeat, the uncertainty and speculation over the club and squad; it all puts it into perspective. Why don’t people choose hobbies that provide the relief and excitement without lamentation and soreness. The obvious answer that all football fans can give is besides the nadirs of following a club, nothing can replicate the euphoria of a victory or glory; it is the same as religious evangelism and creates a passion that is intangible to analyse.

Sport at an anthropological level is full of heroes and villains. The soap opera and pantomime stories that follow the professional game highlight the cult and age we live in. It is unfortunate that the denigration and naivety to idolise players has distorted their real characters and personalities. Sportsmen and women are rarely the amateur peoples’ champion that we all love; they are driven, single-minded athletes. They lead a live that is furious and demanding, yet they lead it for glory and to etch their name into history. To describe a sportsman or woman as selfish is not to defame their moral character but their persistence to perform and win. The professionalisation of sport created an industry that pushes athletes to new levels and creates spectacles we can only admire. It also creates a vanity and a spectrum for fame and wealth. Nobody should deny them the opportunity to earn, nor penalise their success; it just happens that most of the time it is not just their own lives’ they are changing.

The saga that has become Wayne Rooney’s future enhances the selfishness of the modern day player. The pronouncements from the Rooney camp are unequivocal in his desire to leave, but do not detract from the ambiguity of previous comments. Rooney left his first love, Everton Football Club, to join Alex Ferguson and Manchester United at the age of 18, so we should not be surprised. ‘The boy’ is ambitious and has already won a great deal for the club, but his ‘desire’ is being used to masquerade his greed. Rooney does not see himself as a Bryan Robson, playing at a club for a decade among inferior players, he feels he deserves he should be at the top club being paid top brass. His overtures to an extent have some truth and the Glazer tenure has made United’s future less secure financially and competitively, yet his arguments are as thin as his loyalty. Rooney is a financial mercenary like John Terry or Joleon Lescott, and the kissing of the club badge is about affectionate as treading in shit.

Superstars perform on the pitch and off the pitch to their club’s commercial arm, to an extent it can be deemed an insult to the intelligence of fans but shows their naivety to believe in this facade. Rooney probably has respect for his club's supporters but we have seen his spite when representing England. If and when he moves, fans will be bitterly disappointed but they will soon appoint a new poster boy. Rooney certainly did enough, particularly last season, to show how good a footballer he is but it goes to show it inevitably doesn’t matter what shirt you’re wearing, as long you’re being handsomely rewarded for it.

Mikel Arteta - no senor.

England has historically been a melting pot for immigrants from around the world and many have contributed positively to the way we live and across all the counties. Indian doctors and African nurses in the NHS, Polish plumbers and Australian bar workers. Often the avenue that has brought cultures together has been through sport and it is obvious to see through diaspora of colours and names in the English national team. It is a tribute to their hard work and love for their new nation.

I remember listening to the English Cricket team reaching an all-time nadir, losing a home test-series against New Zealand in 1999. The answer seemed controversial at the time but the decision was to bring in a foreign coach, Duncan Fletcher from Zimbabwe. Results and consistency finally brought home the pinnacle of test glory, an Ashes victory after an eternity of defeats against the Aussies. England have built on these imports, another Zimbabwean, Andy Flower is the latest head coach along with some naturalised South Africans players and some Australian and Pakistani coaches. This is becoming standard form across the cricketing world, even the world HQ is now based in Dubai. Look at the likes of Rugby League, Super League is dotted with Australian coaches and in Athletics Team GB is headed up by a Dutchman. English sport is truly globalised.

The story that deflected a lot of attention was the potential recruitment of Mikel Arteta to the English football team, perhaps a step too far? Arteta, a Spaniard, who has played football in Britain for seven years has recently attained British citizenship and has yet to gain a cap in the Spanish national team. I personally agreed with the recruitment of a foreign coach and think the national side has improved from the coaching methods and knowledge from these foreigners. Is this potential call-up a reflection of Britain as a society or a desperate call after a miserable summer? He wouldn’t be the first player to change nationalities in footballing terms, think Deco, Podolski, Eduardo. Also the fact we have had two foreign coaches appears to make the so-called sacrosanct Three Lions appear futile. I like Arteta and I think he would be a good player but I just don’t think it is right for the England team. The other sports I named earlier are embedded with the moral codes of Empire, the subsequent legacy and competition of these games seems natural as they are only played by a small group of countries, technical coaches are therefore a sparse commodity. But then, you could argue that football is the ultimate global game, where globalisation has changed how we watch and play the sport, is this not the next obvious step? By all means yes, but it seems ignore all the inherent problems within our game at the highest and the lowest level, Arteta would be a short term solution for a long term problem. It wouldn’t surprise me if something like this happened in the future but now is not the time to be doing it.

The FA: Coaches in the Crosshairs.

The soap opera within Soho Square continued this week with an hour long episode.  All eyes were on England and Fabio Capello, as they made their first appearance at Wembley since the disastrous World Cup campaign in South Africa. The game was not something to watch again and probably the result ( England 2-1 Hungary) represented a fair outcome, though it could have been different. The questions and headlines the next day were certainly not about the debutants and the questionable goal scored by Hungary, but what have we learnt since the World Cup and whether there is an answer to improve.

Many of England’s failed stars received a raucous of boos at the end of the game, Capello also confirmed that David Beckham will no longer be a part of competitive fixtures. It is probably the right decision that Beckham should not play, perhaps he shouldn’t have received any further caps after the 2006 World Cup, but the fact is that Capello completely misjudged the intense admiration for Beckham by England fans. Capello also seems uncertain on whether it is time to end the careers of other players who are now in their thirties. Experience counts for something, but it has never translated to success.

The game became a public relations exercise to reassure fans that the World Cup is now in the past and England can build for the next tournament with some new talented. Kieran Gibbs, Adam Johnson and Jack Wilshere possess the ability to become regulars in the future, but even Capello and his eventual successor are limited by what they can do in the future. It has been highlighted since the misery in Africa the abundance of youth coaches on the continent and the perpetual technical deficiencies at the lowest level of English football. England has 3000 coaches with an UEFA pro A licence, compared to the 30000 in Italy and 35000 in Germany. The difference between the two teams was highlighted in Bloemfontein.

Football's global popularity has made the talent pool so large that it has become impossible to shrink it and create talent academies similar to cycling and swimming. Despite the international talent dominating the Premier League, English players are still technically falling short against their continental rivals. Yet, the world loves the hard-tackling and fast-paced Premier League. English players have benefited by playing in the Champions League, but there are still far too few of them making an impact in Europe and for England.

Maybe David Beckham's biggest legacy could be his academies. At least he is doing something, I’m not quite sure what the FA are.

The Politics of Independence.

Today is July 4th - American Independence Day. I have been to many of these celebrations over the years and enjoy the camaraderie and the meaning of the event. The ultimate hangover from being the colonial master is that ultimately you don't get the bank holidays that accomodate these celebrations. We don't celebrate St George's Day because it could be inferred as racist or triumphalist. Yet, if these people got off their high-horses, we could get a few bank holidays out of it. India have 27, we deserve a few more!

Goodbye to England; welcome to change?

No surprise then? We expected to lose at some point, possibly in penalties, there was some injustice though. If we ignore the absurdity of Frank Lampard’s “none goal” and the shabby performance by the Uruguayan officials then what can England fans say about the game, the tournament, the style of football as a whole?


Those who know English fans and even the stupid ones, will know that there is an obsession and a myopia that England deserve to win the World Cup or the European Championships every two years. Looking back over the past decade it has been completely inconsistent: Keegan in Euro 2000 was appalling, World Cup 2002 was a strange tournament in general and perhaps England did better than people expected, Euro 2004 will be remembered for the remarkable performances of Greece; but many will wonder what would have happened if Rooney hadn’t limped off in the quarter-finals, WC 2006 was dreadful and saw Sven’s men lose to Portugal on penalties again, a no show at the last Euros and then fast forward to South Africa.

An extremely confident qualifying performance against some fairly mediocre teams, but remember this was an England who had missed out on the previous tournament. Lampard and Gerrard clicked, Rooney was the leading scorer in the qualifiers and we played a form of football that destroyed an extremely competent Croatia team. What went wrong then?

I think it is extremely unfair to blame Mr Capello, though some of his decision making was questionable, going into the tournament he was hit by some immediate blows: no Beckham, no Rio and what looks like now a half-fit Barry and half-fit Rooney. Questions of burn-out? I would beg to differ, look at Tevez, Mascherano, Kuyt, de Jong, they didn't appear to be tired. This almost seems to rule out that the Premiership is too quick as well. Most of England’s players are competing against the world’s best every week in the Champions League, so these players and styles are hardly alien to them. What I think does matter is that many of the teams know what to expect of England and can therefore shackle their style and target individuals. Think Ozil against Terry, Klose was happy to run at Upson. I don’t think you can criticise the team for trying but they seemed clueless and lacking intelligence. They didn’t know what move to make, this shouldn’t necessarily fall on the manager, though the personnel he was bringing on didn’t help. Where was Carrick, J. Cole, I even think despite Capello’s frustration, Walcott threat of pace disorientates other teams. England just didn’t know what to do next. Tactically naive some would say.

Defensive football isn’t new and ‘parking the bus’ isn’t either but straight lined football and limited movement does not help you find the gaps. We can be frustrated by Lampard’s none goal and wonder what could have happened; but we could have also wondered if England’s players had done what their foreign colleagues do for them in the Champions League every week.

England - Dare I add more.

Certainly, it was one of the worst games of football I ever seen and by any means extremely disappointing from a team that seemed to canter through the qualifications.

If we neglect the tactical deficiencies and the anonymous Wayne Rooney, ( I shall leave those to the back pages of the newspapers). I would love to know what the players were thinking and really whether a coup is feasible in such a context, particularly the England camp?

If you think back to history, the teams most notorious for fighting were the Dutch (a cliché in itself). Cameroon also have a recent history of bickering when they heard that they weren't being paid by their own FA.

I think it is fair to say that we can we contrast the England's situation to that of the French. It appears that the French are looking to recreate the storming of the Bastille all over again and the press, fans and players all seem delighted by the departure of Raymond Domenech (as they should).

England on the other hand, it is different. There has always been an opinion that 'we are better than everyone' and 'if we all run around quickly and work hard then we shall win.' (something iterated by Frank Lampard today) It is certainly something you would have never seen under Sir Bobby. Sven was far too polite and diplomatic, Steve McClaren was in awe of his stars. Has English football's transition and adoption of a continental style football changed the mindset? Are players now more assertive and reluctant to leave everything to the Gaffer? John Terry certainly has form in the Chelsea dressing room and against Fabio in a previous encounter. The one thing that makes me think certainly otherwise is the excuses from previous squads: under Eriksson it was to lax and now Capello is too firm? Surely, this generation of footballers need not worry about the trivialities of how their manager is emotionally. One thing is more true from past campaigns, players use the media as intensely to purport the individual team and player's message.

Don't expect this story to fizzle out yet. Fabio certainly won't flop like Big Phil did.