England Expects, Again
With Rooney unlikely to make the World Cup, no Plan B, and a second-choice coach taking over after Germany, Oliver Pickup predicts gloomy times ahead for England
When Sven-Goran Eriksson was appointed in November 2000 the FA announced that he was not coming to win the 2002 World Cup – he was coming to win the 2006 World Cup. ‘We have some magnificent youngsters coming through,’ an FA spokesman had said. ‘It will be Mr. Eriksson’s role to guide them to what will hopefully be a magnificent achievement.’ At a press conference in May Eriksson dared to suggest, ‘England will win the World Cup’, despite the fitness doubts surrounding his pivotal player, Wayne Rooney.
Approximately 100,000 England fans will travel to Germany this June to see if Eriksson’s prediction rings true, this despite only 5,000 tickets being allocated for the group matches. The fact that the English contingent will be by far the largest travelling party is testament to the belief of a football obsessed nation, stirred by the media hype, and perpetuated through endless advertisements and other World Cup gimmicks. Sadly the price of success now clouds the true spirit of the beautiful game, especially in the domestic league, where player and manager loyalties can be bought by the highest bidder. However the World Cup offers a refreshing change to the escalating salaries of domestic football, and allows players and fans alike to work towards a common goal.
The last England manager to predict such lofty ambitions was a certain Sir Alf Ramsey before the well-celebrated 1966 heroics. Football, and what it stands for, has drastically changed since that solitary World Cup victory 40 years ago. The popularity of the sport has grown exponentially, and with the aid of television, big media contracts, and the commercial possibilities, the tournament in Germany will be a far cry from England 1966. Back then, football was of modest importance, and did not command the celebrity treatment that it does today. By contrast, in May the FA revealed that the average Premiership footballer earns £676,000 per annum – a rise of 65 per cent in the last six years.
In 1966 players were housed in basic billets (Teeside airport for the North Koreans), and forced to use spartan training facilities. A generally relaxed atmosphere prevailed as players were allowed to mingle with the public. Photographs showing Bobby Charlton, Bobby Moore and Martin Peters out walking in a public park, the morning before their quarter-final against Argentina, highlight how the role of the football star has changed.
Many believe that the current crop of English players is the best since 1966, and after moderate success at the last two major tournaments – quarter-finalists both in South Korea / Japan 2002 and in Portugal at the European Championships 2004 – there is a feeling that this team is in its prime. Only one problem. The main focus and thrust of the team – since he became the youngest player to represent England (17 years 111 days) in February 2003 – has been Wayne Rooney. When he fractured a metatarsal at the end of April, and with Eriksson not having tested Plan B scenarios, the bombast and hope of England winning the World Cup deflated like a £1 plastic beach football. Even Steven Gerrard, who missed out on the 2002 World Cup through injury, suggested Rooney’s absence would make it almost impossible for England to win in Germany. ‘It would be a disaster for England if we had to go to the World Cup without him.’
The Rooney Factor – what the media say
Oliver Holt, the Daily Mirror’s chief sports writer, considers Rooney, even at 20-years-young, is already a national treasure. ‘(He) possesses the special talent that can change a game with a feint, or destroy an opponent with a piece of skill no other player could produce.’ Indeed, England possess plenty of top quality players – Gerrard, Lampard, Terry, Beckham and Owen – but, as Holt concedes, ‘All of them would admit that Rooney has the kind of unpredictable, unteachable genius that raises him even above the elite. He is our Cruyff, our Pele, our Maradona.’
Paul Wilson of the Observer points out that, as Euro 2004 demonstrated - when Greece won without any house-hold names – tournaments tend to be won by teams rather than individuals. ‘England are not a one-man team, but it is true to say in the past two years they have become over-reliant on Rooney for inspiration.’
Nick Callow, also of The Observer, agrees to a point, but understands that if England are to reach the latter stages in Germany, they will need a player who can produce that something extra special that can unlock a defence, or score a timely goal. ‘When it comes to the big games he will be badly missed.’
Gavin Hamilton, editor of World Soccer, also recognises Rooney’s importance to the England cause. For fans and team-mates alike, his presence on the pitch adds that extra belief. ‘The rise and rise of Rooney has done so much to boost the perception that England can overcome the disappointment of recent years and progress beyond the quarter-finals of a major tournament.’ So, without him, what are Eriksson’s options? Is Eriksson over-reliant on Rooney?
Sven’s World Cup squad
As Sunday Telegraph journalist Patrick Barclay points out, all may not be lost. When Everton lost Rooney to Manchester United, they did not collapse when many predicted they would. They showed a team spirit and battling mentality which thrust them even further up the table than when they had the wunderkind in their fold. True, but England are fighting bigger battles, and it again comes down to having a player with that extra finesse, that mercurial touch, which will tip the balance in England’s favour in tight matches.
Eriksson’s World Cup squad threw up a few uncharacteristic surprises. The uncapped winger Aaron Lennon, 19, in flying form for Tottenham Hotspur at the end of the season, could ripen into a pacy alternative to David Beckham, who, at 31 looks to be playing his last World Cup.
The inclusion of 17-year-old Theo Walcott - who, having been signed by Arsenal in January, has yet to feature for his club - is galling for overlooked strikers like Jermain Defoe (although he has been bench-warming mostly for Tottenham Hotspur this term) and Darren Bent who netted 18 goals for Charlton. Although Eriksson admitted that his decision to include the youngster was a last-minute one – ‘I only decided finally this morning,’ he told reporters at the squad announcement - the feeling is that in Theo Walcott England possess a secret weapon.
Much like Michael Owen’s burst onto the international scene at France 1998 as an 18 year old, when, driving forward from his own half, his pace breezed him through Argentina’s startled defence for that memorable goal, Eriksson will hope Walcott has the fearlessness of youth, and enough technical ability to cope at the highest level. It had been an 18-year-old Rooney at Euro 2004 who – despite his youth – proved to be England’s inspiration and savour. That was, until he injured his (surprise, surprise) metatarsal against Portugal. Darius Vassell came on as Rooney’s replacement, but he and his team looked clueless of how to score, and crumbled. The over-reliance upon Rooney was one of Eriksson’s key criticisms in the Euro 2004 media post-mortem. However the signs are that he has not heeded the warnings, as shown when, upon witnessing Rooney’s latest injury, the normally reserved Eriksson resorted to expletives. Foiled again. Back to the drawing board. Having named his England World Cup squad, Eriksson stated, ‘For me it’s a good squad, an interesting squad. There are some new players, some young players and it is an attacking squad with a lot of pace which is necessary in a World Cup.’
Attacking? He has named only four forwards – Rooney, Owen, Crouch and Walcott – two of whom will not be fully-fit, Crouch who is far from prolific, and Walcott who has yet to make a Premiership appearance, let alone win an international cap. On paper, England do not have a reliable source of goals (apart from Owen, but he needs decent service, and match sharpness).
And so, with Rooney likely to be unavailable for selection, and Michael Owen – himself recovering from a metatarsal injury – short of match fitness, Peter Crouch, the 6ft 7in beanpole forward who has been used by Eriksson in the last 20 minutes of games, will probably be promoted to the starting XI. That is, if Eriksson remains wedded to his 4-4-2 formation – and there is every possibility that he will. Crouch’s lanky frame and presence have bamboozled tired opposition defences in the last quarter of a game, yet were he to play from the start his effectiveness would be questionable.
Alternatively, as Observer journalist Simon Garfield suggests, he could use Joe Cole as a split striker just behind Owen and promote Stewart Downing on the left wing. But is this not a case of fitting players into a system, rather than the other way around? ‘If England are going to have to look to goals from midfield, there is a case to be made for adopting a system designed to get players such as Lampard and Gerrard further forward,’ Garfield continues. ‘The best way to do this would be to bring in a holding midfielder – Tottenham Hotspur’s Michael Carrick (again, largely untested) suggests himself – and that in turn suggests a move to a Chelsea-style 4-3-3.’ Lampard and Beckham could play either side of Cariick with Cole and Gerrard further forward. However, because a) David Beckham would not be involved enough for his doting coach, and b) because of Eriksson’s loyalty to the 4-4-2 system, the likelihood is that Crouch (or perhaps Walcott when Crouch has misfired) will simply replace Rooney.
England have other worries. Injuries and fatigue are threatening to derail their campaign completely. Aside from Rooney and Owen, Sol Campbell and Ashley Cole have only recently returned for Arsenal after lengthy lay-offs. There is also concern that Steven Gerrard will have played in excess of 60 matches in a season that began on July 13 with Liverpool’s Champions League qualifying campaign. Kevin McCarra, chief sportswriter for the Guardian, remembers how Eriksson made some unwise selections before the last World Cup. ‘Four years ago Eriksson diminished England by taking unfit players, such as Kieron Dyer and David Beckham.’
Indeed, many football writers consider Eriksson’s decision making process in important games to be found wanting. At the crucial moment during quarter-finals against Brazil and Portugal in his two tournaments in charge, Eriksson’s tactical decisions failed to change the game and England crashed out.
Simon Garfield agrees. ‘Against Brazil in World Cup 2002 Eriksson seemed to have little idea of how to motivate his players or switch tactics in the second half. There have been similar calamities in subsequent years: the 11 substitutions made in a defeat against Australia, the defensive attitude that lost England the quarter-final against Portugal, the embarrassing defeats last year by Denmark and Northern Ireland, the latter now officially ranked two places below Rwanda.’
Things don’t look good if England have to rely on Eriksson’s predictable, uninspiring tactics. However, now without Rooney, Nick Callow considers, ‘If Eriksson can inspire them, and make them believe they can win, they can beat anyone.’ It is a big ‘if’ though, especially for such a reserved and pragmatic man such as Eriksson. Even though the FA appointed him as the man who would win England the 2006 World Cup, it seems their decision was not fully thought through. For the £5 million per annum that Eriksson is reputed to be earning (making him the most well-paid coach on the planet), his performances as England manager have been sub-standard. For that amount of money one would expect the very best in the job. Eriksson certainly isn’t the best in the business, and his successor Steve McClaren appears even more inadequate.
The FA’s two left feet
The inevitable hysteria over Rooney’s injury – just as with Beckham’s similar metatarsal worry in 2002 – has deflected some of the attention away from the trenchant criticism received by the Football Association over its bungled attempts to find Eriksson’s successor. The irony of the FA attempt to hire Luiz Felipe Scolari – whose teams (with Brazil in 2002, then Portugal in 2004) have knocked England out of the last two major tournaments – has not been lost on critics who have questioned Eriksson’s performance in crucial tournament situations.
With the nation obsessed with football, the next manager had to be comfortable with the media glare. Arsenal’s French manager Arsene Wenger had been approached months ago, but he made it quite clear that he didn’t want the job because of the intrusion. Similarly Dutchman Guus Hiddink and then Scolari could not be tempted by the vast amount of money offered, simply because they did not want the media camping on their front lawn, or every word they uttered to be scrutinised. But top managers are like that. They like to do things their own way.
Yet in England, we like to know everything about our celebrity manager. Eriksson’s tenure in England has consistently provided the perfect mix of sex, football, hypocrisy, secrecy and confessional. When he was editor of the Daily Mail, Piers Morgan considered why Sky News interrupted its parliamentary coverage with the breaking news that Eriksson had been dumped by a lover. ‘Because nothing is more important to most people in this country than England winning the World Cup,’ Morgan wrote.
After being spurned by Scolari the FA offered assistant coach and Middlesbrough manager Steve McClaren the position, which he will take after Germany. The fact that McClaren was appointed Eriksson’s assistant in 2000 so that he could be groomed as the next coach, yet not considered as the first choice this time round, indicates the limited faith the FA have in their man. Patrick Barclay found FA chief Brian Barwick’s protestations that McClaren was his and indeed the FA’s first choice all along, ‘An appropriately laughable end to the affair.’
If the FA had wanted McClaren as their first choice then they would have announced it months ago. He was there in the assistant’s role, and it would have been a seamless transition. The players seem to like McClaren, although they are likely to support any manager who will pick them, and by all accounts he is a decent coach (at Derby under Jim Smith and under Sir Alex Ferguson at Manchester United). However, it was telling that his former Middlesbrough captain Gareth Southgate came out and said that McClaren would not be suitable for the England job.
For an England manager to get the most out of his squad, he needs to understand how to deal with big egos, and how to coach top talents. Alan Hanson of the BBC agrees. ‘What England want in an ideal world is a manager that has been competing in the Champions League, who has been winning the Premiership.’ Steve McClaren, therefore, is far from the ideal man.
A Sorry Conclusion
We have McClaren’s era to look forward to with trepidation, and in the meantime there is the matter of the World Cup. Sven-Goran Eriksson was appointed six years ago to win England the 2006 World Cup by the FA, and he has said that he will, with Rooney or not. With such fantastic players at his disposal he should be able to do well. But to go on and win requires careful tactical planning and adjustment before every game. If these tactics aren’t right – as shown so many times during Eriksson’s tenure when his tactical acumen has been woeful – then England will again fall.
So much has been invested, so much promised, yet when it comes to the crunch Eriksson’s tactics look unlikely to bring the World Cup back to England. Henry Winter of the Daily Telegraph suggests that we should pinch our nose and back the team, and not use Rooney’s absence as an excuse. ‘If Steven Gerrard and Michael Owen have good World Cups, people will forget the FA blundering. The press though are so bored with Eriksson that even if he wins the World Cup, the players will garner all the plaudits, not him.’ Maybe so, but if England don’t win, the finger of blame should be pointed at the FA and at Eriksson for encouraging such a cocksure attitude, and employing such rigid 4-4-2 tactics. If England don’t win, the expectation of the nation will be dashed. And then we have McClaren’s reign to contend with. The FA circus swings on – let’s just hope there are more lions than clowns.
With Rooney unlikely to make the World Cup, no Plan B, and a second-choice coach taking over after Germany, Oliver Pickup predicts gloomy times ahead for England
When Sven-Goran Eriksson was appointed in November 2000 the FA announced that he was not coming to win the 2002 World Cup – he was coming to win the 2006 World Cup. ‘We have some magnificent youngsters coming through,’ an FA spokesman had said. ‘It will be Mr. Eriksson’s role to guide them to what will hopefully be a magnificent achievement.’ At a press conference in May Eriksson dared to suggest, ‘England will win the World Cup’, despite the fitness doubts surrounding his pivotal player, Wayne Rooney.
Approximately 100,000 England fans will travel to Germany this June to see if Eriksson’s prediction rings true, this despite only 5,000 tickets being allocated for the group matches. The fact that the English contingent will be by far the largest travelling party is testament to the belief of a football obsessed nation, stirred by the media hype, and perpetuated through endless advertisements and other World Cup gimmicks. Sadly the price of success now clouds the true spirit of the beautiful game, especially in the domestic league, where player and manager loyalties can be bought by the highest bidder. However the World Cup offers a refreshing change to the escalating salaries of domestic football, and allows players and fans alike to work towards a common goal.
The last England manager to predict such lofty ambitions was a certain Sir Alf Ramsey before the well-celebrated 1966 heroics. Football, and what it stands for, has drastically changed since that solitary World Cup victory 40 years ago. The popularity of the sport has grown exponentially, and with the aid of television, big media contracts, and the commercial possibilities, the tournament in Germany will be a far cry from England 1966. Back then, football was of modest importance, and did not command the celebrity treatment that it does today. By contrast, in May the FA revealed that the average Premiership footballer earns £676,000 per annum – a rise of 65 per cent in the last six years.
In 1966 players were housed in basic billets (Teeside airport for the North Koreans), and forced to use spartan training facilities. A generally relaxed atmosphere prevailed as players were allowed to mingle with the public. Photographs showing Bobby Charlton, Bobby Moore and Martin Peters out walking in a public park, the morning before their quarter-final against Argentina, highlight how the role of the football star has changed.
Many believe that the current crop of English players is the best since 1966, and after moderate success at the last two major tournaments – quarter-finalists both in South Korea / Japan 2002 and in Portugal at the European Championships 2004 – there is a feeling that this team is in its prime. Only one problem. The main focus and thrust of the team – since he became the youngest player to represent England (17 years 111 days) in February 2003 – has been Wayne Rooney. When he fractured a metatarsal at the end of April, and with Eriksson not having tested Plan B scenarios, the bombast and hope of England winning the World Cup deflated like a £1 plastic beach football. Even Steven Gerrard, who missed out on the 2002 World Cup through injury, suggested Rooney’s absence would make it almost impossible for England to win in Germany. ‘It would be a disaster for England if we had to go to the World Cup without him.’
The Rooney Factor – what the media sayOliver Holt, the Daily Mirror’s chief sports writer, considers Rooney, even at 20-years-young, is already a national treasure. ‘(He) possesses the special talent that can change a game with a feint, or destroy an opponent with a piece of skill no other player could produce.’ Indeed, England possess plenty of top quality players – Gerrard, Lampard, Terry, Beckham and Owen – but, as Holt concedes, ‘All of them would admit that Rooney has the kind of unpredictable, unteachable genius that raises him even above the elite. He is our Cruyff, our Pele, our Maradona.’
Paul Wilson of the Observer points out that, as Euro 2004 demonstrated - when Greece won without any house-hold names – tournaments tend to be won by teams rather than individuals. ‘England are not a one-man team, but it is true to say in the past two years they have become over-reliant on Rooney for inspiration.’
Nick Callow, also of The Observer, agrees to a point, but understands that if England are to reach the latter stages in Germany, they will need a player who can produce that something extra special that can unlock a defence, or score a timely goal. ‘When it comes to the big games he will be badly missed.’
Gavin Hamilton, editor of World Soccer, also recognises Rooney’s importance to the England cause. For fans and team-mates alike, his presence on the pitch adds that extra belief. ‘The rise and rise of Rooney has done so much to boost the perception that England can overcome the disappointment of recent years and progress beyond the quarter-finals of a major tournament.’ So, without him, what are Eriksson’s options? Is Eriksson over-reliant on Rooney?
Sven’s World Cup squad
As Sunday Telegraph journalist Patrick Barclay points out, all may not be lost. When Everton lost Rooney to Manchester United, they did not collapse when many predicted they would. They showed a team spirit and battling mentality which thrust them even further up the table than when they had the wunderkind in their fold. True, but England are fighting bigger battles, and it again comes down to having a player with that extra finesse, that mercurial touch, which will tip the balance in England’s favour in tight matches.
Eriksson’s World Cup squad threw up a few uncharacteristic surprises. The uncapped winger Aaron Lennon, 19, in flying form for Tottenham Hotspur at the end of the season, could ripen into a pacy alternative to David Beckham, who, at 31 looks to be playing his last World Cup.
The inclusion of 17-year-old Theo Walcott - who, having been signed by Arsenal in January, has yet to feature for his club - is galling for overlooked strikers like Jermain Defoe (although he has been bench-warming mostly for Tottenham Hotspur this term) and Darren Bent who netted 18 goals for Charlton. Although Eriksson admitted that his decision to include the youngster was a last-minute one – ‘I only decided finally this morning,’ he told reporters at the squad announcement - the feeling is that in Theo Walcott England possess a secret weapon.
Much like Michael Owen’s burst onto the international scene at France 1998 as an 18 year old, when, driving forward from his own half, his pace breezed him through Argentina’s startled defence for that memorable goal, Eriksson will hope Walcott has the fearlessness of youth, and enough technical ability to cope at the highest level. It had been an 18-year-old Rooney at Euro 2004 who – despite his youth – proved to be England’s inspiration and savour. That was, until he injured his (surprise, surprise) metatarsal against Portugal. Darius Vassell came on as Rooney’s replacement, but he and his team looked clueless of how to score, and crumbled. The over-reliance upon Rooney was one of Eriksson’s key criticisms in the Euro 2004 media post-mortem. However the signs are that he has not heeded the warnings, as shown when, upon witnessing Rooney’s latest injury, the normally reserved Eriksson resorted to expletives. Foiled again. Back to the drawing board. Having named his England World Cup squad, Eriksson stated, ‘For me it’s a good squad, an interesting squad. There are some new players, some young players and it is an attacking squad with a lot of pace which is necessary in a World Cup.’
Attacking? He has named only four forwards – Rooney, Owen, Crouch and Walcott – two of whom will not be fully-fit, Crouch who is far from prolific, and Walcott who has yet to make a Premiership appearance, let alone win an international cap. On paper, England do not have a reliable source of goals (apart from Owen, but he needs decent service, and match sharpness).
And so, with Rooney likely to be unavailable for selection, and Michael Owen – himself recovering from a metatarsal injury – short of match fitness, Peter Crouch, the 6ft 7in beanpole forward who has been used by Eriksson in the last 20 minutes of games, will probably be promoted to the starting XI. That is, if Eriksson remains wedded to his 4-4-2 formation – and there is every possibility that he will. Crouch’s lanky frame and presence have bamboozled tired opposition defences in the last quarter of a game, yet were he to play from the start his effectiveness would be questionable.
Alternatively, as Observer journalist Simon Garfield suggests, he could use Joe Cole as a split striker just behind Owen and promote Stewart Downing on the left wing. But is this not a case of fitting players into a system, rather than the other way around? ‘If England are going to have to look to goals from midfield, there is a case to be made for adopting a system designed to get players such as Lampard and Gerrard further forward,’ Garfield continues. ‘The best way to do this would be to bring in a holding midfielder – Tottenham Hotspur’s Michael Carrick (again, largely untested) suggests himself – and that in turn suggests a move to a Chelsea-style 4-3-3.’ Lampard and Beckham could play either side of Cariick with Cole and Gerrard further forward. However, because a) David Beckham would not be involved enough for his doting coach, and b) because of Eriksson’s loyalty to the 4-4-2 system, the likelihood is that Crouch (or perhaps Walcott when Crouch has misfired) will simply replace Rooney.
England have other worries. Injuries and fatigue are threatening to derail their campaign completely. Aside from Rooney and Owen, Sol Campbell and Ashley Cole have only recently returned for Arsenal after lengthy lay-offs. There is also concern that Steven Gerrard will have played in excess of 60 matches in a season that began on July 13 with Liverpool’s Champions League qualifying campaign. Kevin McCarra, chief sportswriter for the Guardian, remembers how Eriksson made some unwise selections before the last World Cup. ‘Four years ago Eriksson diminished England by taking unfit players, such as Kieron Dyer and David Beckham.’
Indeed, many football writers consider Eriksson’s decision making process in important games to be found wanting. At the crucial moment during quarter-finals against Brazil and Portugal in his two tournaments in charge, Eriksson’s tactical decisions failed to change the game and England crashed out.
Simon Garfield agrees. ‘Against Brazil in World Cup 2002 Eriksson seemed to have little idea of how to motivate his players or switch tactics in the second half. There have been similar calamities in subsequent years: the 11 substitutions made in a defeat against Australia, the defensive attitude that lost England the quarter-final against Portugal, the embarrassing defeats last year by Denmark and Northern Ireland, the latter now officially ranked two places below Rwanda.’
Things don’t look good if England have to rely on Eriksson’s predictable, uninspiring tactics. However, now without Rooney, Nick Callow considers, ‘If Eriksson can inspire them, and make them believe they can win, they can beat anyone.’ It is a big ‘if’ though, especially for such a reserved and pragmatic man such as Eriksson. Even though the FA appointed him as the man who would win England the 2006 World Cup, it seems their decision was not fully thought through. For the £5 million per annum that Eriksson is reputed to be earning (making him the most well-paid coach on the planet), his performances as England manager have been sub-standard. For that amount of money one would expect the very best in the job. Eriksson certainly isn’t the best in the business, and his successor Steve McClaren appears even more inadequate.
The FA’s two left feet
The inevitable hysteria over Rooney’s injury – just as with Beckham’s similar metatarsal worry in 2002 – has deflected some of the attention away from the trenchant criticism received by the Football Association over its bungled attempts to find Eriksson’s successor. The irony of the FA attempt to hire Luiz Felipe Scolari – whose teams (with Brazil in 2002, then Portugal in 2004) have knocked England out of the last two major tournaments – has not been lost on critics who have questioned Eriksson’s performance in crucial tournament situations.
With the nation obsessed with football, the next manager had to be comfortable with the media glare. Arsenal’s French manager Arsene Wenger had been approached months ago, but he made it quite clear that he didn’t want the job because of the intrusion. Similarly Dutchman Guus Hiddink and then Scolari could not be tempted by the vast amount of money offered, simply because they did not want the media camping on their front lawn, or every word they uttered to be scrutinised. But top managers are like that. They like to do things their own way.
Yet in England, we like to know everything about our celebrity manager. Eriksson’s tenure in England has consistently provided the perfect mix of sex, football, hypocrisy, secrecy and confessional. When he was editor of the Daily Mail, Piers Morgan considered why Sky News interrupted its parliamentary coverage with the breaking news that Eriksson had been dumped by a lover. ‘Because nothing is more important to most people in this country than England winning the World Cup,’ Morgan wrote.
After being spurned by Scolari the FA offered assistant coach and Middlesbrough manager Steve McClaren the position, which he will take after Germany. The fact that McClaren was appointed Eriksson’s assistant in 2000 so that he could be groomed as the next coach, yet not considered as the first choice this time round, indicates the limited faith the FA have in their man. Patrick Barclay found FA chief Brian Barwick’s protestations that McClaren was his and indeed the FA’s first choice all along, ‘An appropriately laughable end to the affair.’
If the FA had wanted McClaren as their first choice then they would have announced it months ago. He was there in the assistant’s role, and it would have been a seamless transition. The players seem to like McClaren, although they are likely to support any manager who will pick them, and by all accounts he is a decent coach (at Derby under Jim Smith and under Sir Alex Ferguson at Manchester United). However, it was telling that his former Middlesbrough captain Gareth Southgate came out and said that McClaren would not be suitable for the England job.
For an England manager to get the most out of his squad, he needs to understand how to deal with big egos, and how to coach top talents. Alan Hanson of the BBC agrees. ‘What England want in an ideal world is a manager that has been competing in the Champions League, who has been winning the Premiership.’ Steve McClaren, therefore, is far from the ideal man.
A Sorry Conclusion
We have McClaren’s era to look forward to with trepidation, and in the meantime there is the matter of the World Cup. Sven-Goran Eriksson was appointed six years ago to win England the 2006 World Cup by the FA, and he has said that he will, with Rooney or not. With such fantastic players at his disposal he should be able to do well. But to go on and win requires careful tactical planning and adjustment before every game. If these tactics aren’t right – as shown so many times during Eriksson’s tenure when his tactical acumen has been woeful – then England will again fall.
So much has been invested, so much promised, yet when it comes to the crunch Eriksson’s tactics look unlikely to bring the World Cup back to England. Henry Winter of the Daily Telegraph suggests that we should pinch our nose and back the team, and not use Rooney’s absence as an excuse. ‘If Steven Gerrard and Michael Owen have good World Cups, people will forget the FA blundering. The press though are so bored with Eriksson that even if he wins the World Cup, the players will garner all the plaudits, not him.’ Maybe so, but if England don’t win, the finger of blame should be pointed at the FA and at Eriksson for encouraging such a cocksure attitude, and employing such rigid 4-4-2 tactics. If England don’t win, the expectation of the nation will be dashed. And then we have McClaren’s reign to contend with. The FA circus swings on – let’s just hope there are more lions than clowns.
Labels: England, Football World Cup, Sven-Goran Eriksson, Wayne Rooney
