The boos of the Wembley crowd last night and the negative response from the media this morning served once again to force us to ask the question, ‘what is the point of friendly internationals?’ What objectives are we trying to achieve? After all, were England knocked out of a major competition? Did we lose further ground in our quest for Euro 2008 qualification? Of course not.
In an ideal world the objectives of a friendly international should encompass team-building and tactical awareness and options to ensure easy qualification to major tournaments, as well as successful performances in those tournaments. In an ideal world, the manager would be free to pick whoever he wants in whatever tactical formation he chooses from all available resources – genuine injuries notwithstanding. In an ideal world, the genuine supporters of that team and attendant media would have a positive attitude in which mistakes, both from players and in tactics, are tolerated, accepted and learned from.
However we do not live in that ideal world. We live in a world where the overriding objective of England friendlies is to procure as many customers to pay back the FA’s huge loans on Wembley Stadium. As part of the marketing effort, this necessitates the build up of anticipation and pressure among supporters and media. It also helps if the opposition is rated highly. Note, that the original Wembley opening opposition, Hungary, was picked for nostalgic reasons and then quietly dropped in favour of Brazil. Mistakes are pounced on by a voracious media where individual journalists look to score points in raising their personal media profiles. The same people who called for an Englishman, Steve McClaren, are the same people calling for his head 12 months on. In addition, we have an FA that has wrestled with the issue of foreign v English management for several years now, with no real conviction in their conclusions. Look no further than the farce in the search for Sven’s replacement, where his successor was seen as at least second best, and definitely second choice, but picked ultimately because he was English. This, even before we have solved the issues of players being available for clubs one day and not being available a few days later – and presumably being available once again the following weekend for their club. Or, indeed, having to pick a player because of his travel arrangements without reference to what is best for the team.
In summary, we have many forces pulling us in different directions, detracting us from what we are trying to achieve at international level. Are we surprised, therefore, that the results are disappointing?
Where could we go from here?
First and foremost, an enormous shift in attitudes and perception needs to be made by players, administrators, supporters and media alike. Most people will see this as unrealistic under present circumstances. However things could be done to improve these circumstances:
1) The FA and all clubs need to sit down and begin a dialogue to address the issues that affect them both e.g. match scheduling at European and World level, including addressing the issue of being sympathetic and fair in dealing with clubs who provide the most players to international duty. Rafa Benitez’s complaints this week echo those of Jose Mourhino last season and the usual supects in previous seasons. It seems ludicrous that African players are lost for up to two months every two years in the middle of the European season. And get rid of pointless mini-tournaments which are played in gap years when players need to be resting.
2) The FA needs to establish an all embracing plan from grass roots level for the intelligent development of talent. Are we surprised that the FA’s national academy “failed”, when seemingly every first world football nation has had spectacular successes? If unearthing a talent such as Michael Owen can be deemed to be a failure, then what was the FA trying to achieve in the first place? If the last fifteen years of the premiership are a trend for the future, there will be little or no English premiership resources available for an England manager.
3) A proper process and procedure needs to be in place for compensating clubs properly especially in the case of long term injuries. Yes, we know that little Senegal has a fraction of the financial muscle of an England, but these should be addressed by cash rich UEFA or FIFA. Pity the unfortunate club who loses their star striker, keeper etc in the first qualifying match in September. There can be no replacements for that loss until the following January.
4) Pick the right man (or woman!) for the job. Irrespective of Nationality. The last England manager who gave no quarter to both the FA and the media, Sir Alf Ramsay, won us the World Cup. Need we say more?
5) Develop a culture that allows for creative and tactical options to be explored without recriminations from media and employers.
We suspect that the final point will indeed be the hardest to achieve.
Reclaim the Game. A Week’s Events.
Good luck to David Beckham in his quest to play a part in LA Galaxy v Chivas this evening following the England friendly. Let’s just hope the old body stands up to the jet lag. But it asks a serious question as to Steve McClaren’s objectives in playing someone because they have flown 6,000 miles to be there in the twighlight of their career rather than giving players in need of matches a chance to get some hours on the field.
Heinze. Is he mad? Does he know that the friendly rivalry between Manchester Utd and Liverpool of the 50s and 60s has given way to the no go zone of the 90s and 00s.? As things stand now he could have expected as popular a welcome in Merseyside as the fondness of his farewell from Manchester. Can anyone out there enlighten us as to exactly why he was so keen to cross the great divide, especially given that Real Madrid were waiting in the wings? We can’t figure it out.
Martin Jol, our hero of last week, deserves more honesty than he is getting from his directors. First the Spurs’ board denied any contact. Then they admitted contact but denied offering Ramos a job. Then they implied they’d rejected him. While Ramos claimed he WAS offered a job but turned it down out of commitment to Sevilla. Which does beg the question why was he talking to them in the first place. Another example of how, in the modern football business, PR people, agents and lawyers seem to be running the show. Sounds like you’re better off out of it Martin!
All sensitivity aside, why is Liverpool so determined to earn the title ‘grief-stricken city of the world’. News emerges that Liverpool FC are considering keeping 96 seats permanently empty as a mark of respect to the Hilsborough victims. Perhaps a further 38 seats as a mark of respect to victims of Heysel might seem just as appropriate. Or maybe its better to stop the grieving process full stop and move on for everyone’s sake including Liverpool’s reputation.
Alan Hansen’s lip sores on Match of the Day last night and Saturday. Any explanation or ideas welcome.
No comments:
Post a Comment