STEVE GIBSON made a string of good points and had the odd well directed pop at Boro's most recent detractors when he was interviewed about Steve McClaren on BBC Radio Five Live. The low profile King of Teesside gave a sterling defence of his former boss and insisted McClaren needed not only time but also the political support of the big clubs if he was to fulfill his brief and make England successful.
In doing so he touched on the unspoken truth that leaves every new England boss on a hiding to nothing and which the myopic foaming mouthed press and ever demanding and often deluded crowd fail to grasp: that in terms of trophies won, cup final appearances and the ability to consistently trouble top class opposition England are poor. "There are many [reasons] why the English football team isn't working," he said. "It hasn't worked successfully since 1966."
It is hard to put up any form of defence against that without manipulating history and retreating into spin. When was the last time England played well? Argentina in Japan? Germany in the 5-1 win? Against Holland in 1996? It should be easy to remember because it happens so rarely.
In the seventies Scotland qualified for more World Cups than England. In the eighties the one dimensional graft was exposed as inadequate and after a brief flash of potential in 1990 the team probably hit rock bottom with the Turnip and the failure to qualify for the US World Cup in 1994. "Can we not knock it?" That anguished touchline request has only partly been answered. English football does still knock it. There may be a few more passes along the back four first but eventually, faced with a well organised defence the ball is played long and high. How else can you explain the presence of Peter Crouch?
Money brought an influx of foreign talent into the Premiership - on and off the pitch - and the 100mph route one all out attacking excitement image of the English game has made it the biggest selling global satellite product but the when tested against rival brands that take a more subtle, technical and skill-based approach has often been found wanting.
Kevin Keegan once described the difference as "they are playing slow, slow, quick quick slow whereas we are playing quick, quick, very quick, quick." But speed and power introduces mistakes and concedes possession and when you give the ball away to good sides it can be very difficult to get it back. Which is when, from an English crowd addicted to the adrenaline rush of going over the top, frustration creeps in and the booing starts. Boro were ruthlessly exposed by Sevilla (and by Villareal before that). That's England that is.
English club sides had considerable success in the seventies and eighties when pace and power were king but - without taking anything away from Liverpool or Forest in their pomp - when the rules outlawed scything down skillful opposition and when the cream of the continent developed a physical athleticism that advantage was lost. They have developed the power but the English have not developed the skill.
That has been largely imported. It is not so long ago that anyone who tried a step-over or shimmy instead of going route one was accused of witchcraft. Now those tricks are ten-a-penny and the practioners are just sneered at and denounced as Fancy Dans, which I suppose counts as progress. In return very few English players are bought by big clubs abroad because aside from pace which doesn't travel well they have little to offer. Beckham and er.....
Steve Gibson points the finger at the big clubs and their failure to develop indinginous talent and preference for buying in the most promising young Swiss, Spaniards or French. "What chances are English footballers getting at major clubs? Steve can only work with the tools he's given. The Liverpools and the Arsenals - what are they contributing at national level?" said Gibson, who at least can put the familiar complaint from a position of strength after his considerable investment in a far sighted youth policy has produced local lads in the first team.
But it goes deeper than that. Kids in England play 11-a-side football on big pitches from a very early age, a set-up that demands stamina to cover the ground and strength to simply kick the ball any significant distance. That is coupled with a very competitive environment with well organised leagues. The two factors produce a situation where the teams who win games are the ones with the biggest, fastest and strongest kids and who sweep all before them before the mid-teen years when the other have a growth spurt and eliminate their advantage. Meanwhile many skilful but slight kids are overlooked because they can't compete.
That is where the change must begin if England are to seriously address the skills deficit, and to be fair the FA are addressing it with smaller sided games that give players more touches and which emphasise close control and short passing. But it will take time to filter into the game's psyche and there is a strong possibility that the clubs - and the fans - will not have the patience or even the desire to foster such a trend. Maybe we just like our football direct and high-tempo.
- Post to:
del.icio.us
Digg
Newsvine
Nowpublic
Reddit
« Previous | Home | Next »