Showing posts with label Harry Redknapp. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Harry Redknapp. Show all posts

Roy Hodgson. The right man for the wrong job.

After much deliberation and media frenzy, the position of England national team manager, the “biggest” job in world football, has been handed to…Roy Hodgson. Underwhelmed?!






Since the day Capello left the job there has been an obsession in the media about who should replace Fabio. The overwhelming favourite in those days following was Harry Redknapp. It seemed like the coronation was ready; fans, players and the media appeared to be backing him for the job without any hint of considering other candidates and his current employers feelings of the situation. He clearly felt that the job was his, it was just a matter of time.

In the ongoing weeks and now months since Capello left the issue of the national job has been constantly in the media; with Alan Pardew impressing at Newcastle there was talk that perhaps he could be the man to lead his country. Amazing really when 18 months ago he was a sacked League 1 manager and when appointed manager of the Toon, was roundly greeted by jeers. How time can change one’s fortunes and so too how ridding your side of English players and replacing them with better foreigners can work a treat for your standing as the potential England manager. How funny football is.

Recently there has been talk of Pep Guardiola, seemingly only lying about his need of a rest if you believe the media who believe he wants to leave Barca to lead a country he has had no ties with except for a remark about wanting to coach in England in the future.  Of course he has found the job in Barcelona stressful, the constant media attention and pressures took their toll. Well, if he thought that was tough, what with the best team in the world, while being successful, then the England job, with all the unrealistic expectation, continual failings and a sinister media who await failure, then anyone with a history of stress should not consider the role due to health factors.

So who else has been touted, well of course anyone with a successful resume fits the bill; Jose, Scolari, Wenger. Top names in management who the media believe will bring success to this great nation. A media who portrays the fact that the reason we don’t win anything is because of the manager. They thought Sven was the one, yet didn’t think he gesticulated enough, he just wasn’t motivating the players to get further than quarter finals. And then there was Capello, a glittering history of domestic and European success, if there was a man to make England a winning side then he was it. It was worth the £6 million a year wasn't it if he could succeed. What the team needed was this man, this leader of men, to take England back to the top. But wait, he couldn’t talk to the players, he couldn’t speak English. Blast England’s luck that this Italian had all this knowledge; all these tactics to win trophies, yet it was hidden inside of him because he couldn’t communicate, that was the problem.

It's the players, stupid. 


The truth is, like you didn’t know, is that it is not the manager that matters, this side have been blessed with great managers, however the problem has been that these great managers have not been blessed with great players. 

If we believe the media then our players are the best in the world, capable of beating anyone. However, we struggled to beat Slovenia and could only draw with a very impressive, compared to England, Algeria. A thrashing by Germany awoke many to the problems plaguing this countries issues in international football. For once real questions were being asked of this “golden generation” of which none have played in at most a semi-final for England. The issue goes much deeper than that squad though, it goes to the quality of youth development in England compared to other countries.

The problem we have had when bringing in Sven’s and Fabio’s is that they have a remit, win something! Of course this is every national team managers target, yet each target is relative to each country. For some it may be qualification, others lifting the trophy. And so a team’s final position is relative to their expectations which is then deemed successful or not. The problem with England is that where expectations should be to qualify and reach the quarter finals, the media hype up this average bunch as potential winners. No wonder every England manager is deemed a failure. The expectations are simply unrealistic. 


And now the really worry is that England have declined when others have improved. The difference in quality between the top sides in the world and England who lie 7th in the world rankings is vast and it will be very difficult to catch up. Can England compete with Spain, Germany or Holland, no. Like Chelsea against Barcelona last week, it may be that against these sides, the only way to be successful is to defend and close down spaces. If you try to play open against these sides, they will destroy you, as Germany showed in the World Cup. In a one off game like against Spain, perhaps you could knick a win if you play the way they did. In my opinion at that level, you play to win and use the best tactic that will enable success. If it means doing it “ugly” then so be it. Winning should take precedence over all else.

In my opinion the focus is not the senior side. The players there are what they are, some excellent talent mixed with average talent. Ageing players who need replacing with young unproven talent. United have players like Jones, Smalling, Cleverley and Welbeck who could develop into good players, yet need the experience. Others like Walker, Sturridge, Wilshere and Chamberlain all show potential too. These players need experience to develop and become better; they need to play more Champions League and International football to achieve that. Yet, are there enough players coming through? When you look at teams like Bilbao in Spain or Dortmund in Germany, these are sides developing home grown talent capable of reaching European finals and winning leagues. Where are our sides achieving this, with home grown talent too?


So how can we improve our national side? For me, the key is youth development. This is where the foundations are set, where players are developed. England’s problem is that we have sought to develop top down far too often. The money goes from the top and trickles down, leaving barely anything to really improve standards of grassroots coaching. This is the first step to developing players suited for the modern game. Right now the pool of talent is too small because too many players are being ruined, and I really mean that, by uneducated coaches who have no idea what they are doing, both technically and importantly socially to the players they work with. Between the ages of 7-11 a young player needs to build a solid foundation, this is not happening well enough. 

The new academy plans for next season, the Elite PlayerPerformance Plan (EPPP) seeks to improve the quality of coaching in academies, with better facilities for players to develop in. While I see potential downfalls to this model, I do see what they are trying to achieve. Yet a major problem for me in all this is that if talent id is not done well enough, if the scouting of players is based on a player’s physicality over anything else including intelligence and technical ability, then how can academies look to develop potential world class players. There is still too much credence given to size and power in scouting, assets which give a player advantages over their peers in the short term because they are bigger than their peers. If scouting continues to stay this way then many players, those with genuine talent yet who develop later due to birth date or late puberty, those could have been special, are left behind due to a short term, subjective view on achievement and success. You only have to look at Germany, Spain and Argentina to see how great small players can be. Why are we not learning from the best?

Why does the England manager matter?


What does this have to do with the England managers job I am sure you ask. Everything. Trevor Brooking is a very influential man at the FA and reports appear to be that he chose Hodgson for the job over Redknapp. He did this solely because of the importance he sees in the England manager in the development of the grassroots game. 


There were many issues regarding Capello in terms of his reluctance to lay down the foundations for the future of English players and development,  and this caused many at the FA to believe that Capello was not the man they wanted or needed. For them, the next man had to be a part of their development plan.

This is why Hodgson has got the job, he ticks what the FA want in their manager. They wanted an English man, which I for one believed we should have. The national team of England should not have to go abroad to bring in a manager worthy of representing them. The issue of why there aren’t enoughEnglish coaches in football management is as important an issue as to why there are so few world class English players. Could it be that we are now at stage where these issues are genuinely considered. I believe so, in my opinion ten years too late compared to what Germany have done and twenty years too late compared to Spain.

The unfortunate truth is that a philosophy of how to playwas put down in the 80’s, however it’s flaws have been evident in the English game since then. Direct football required direct players, meaning those small, technical players were deemed surplus to requirements. It is all a shame really, as the modern game shows how those “little” players are quite invaluable and that by not producing enough technical, creative players, England has lagged behind many countries and not just the big ones.

So the FA wanted a man in place who would be their man, who would speak their voice and who would usher in a new period for English football. They wanted a man who would use their new National Football Centre to educate coaches and players of and for the future. They believed that Roy Hodgson as England manager would be their answer. Unfortunately, they were wrong.


Too much pressure restricts influence 

You see, the problem with the England manager’s role is that it is very much a poison chalice, in which the occupant of the role becomes scrutinised and ultimately vilified for his performance. History has been kind to men like Robson, Venables and Hoddle, yet their time as manager was slaughtered by the press and the fans. If the intention is to develop the future generation, then the manager of England is not the man for that job. 


Roy Hodgson has too many problems already before he has even been given the job. Most notably the press and their man Harry Redknapp. Because Redknapp was the media’s choice, and apparently some of the players too, then whoever was going to get it that wasn’t Redknapp was simply going to be slaughtered. I feel sorry for what lies ahead for Hodgson, I really do. The onslaught from the media on everything he does will be savage and menacing, his fashion, his speech, his tactics and his mannerisms will be questioned and mocked. For however long he stays in the job he will constantly be compared to Redknapp. The media will not stop till they get him out, they really are a brutal bunch.


The FA have brought this on themselves; has Hodgson got any chance of winning anything with England, probably  not. Does Redknapp. No. So why didn’t the FA just give Redknapp the job? It would have been the best solution to this mess. Why? Because by giving the media what they want, meant they could not argue. They would have struggled to criticise England and the manager because this was their choice. If he wins something,  then  they are vindicated. If he loses, then would they be forgiving or humble to admit it was a mistake? By giving him the job the FA would be seen favourably, the media would be happy and if it failed then the FA could say, we gave you what you wanted and it didn't work. By giving Hodgson the job it makes a martyr out of Redknapp and allows the media to ask what if. I am disappointed because I wanted Redknapp in the job in order for him to fail. What it would allow the FA to concentrate on also was matters more important.

Most important role - The Technical Director


The job of England manager should not be about the development of the national game, it shouldn't. It should be to manage the senior side while having a good relationship with the U21’s. The role which is the most important for the future of England, one which would lay the foundations for England to be competing in the coming decades, is the role of Technical Director. It is this position which Hodgson should be given the job, as it is this position which will matter more to the development of England.

Many names have been touted for this role, one being Gareth Southgate. I have no issues with his performance as a player, he was an excellent defender. Yet when I consider him to be the man to take this country forward, to lay the foundations, coach future coaches to develop world class players, then I feel a little worried. Where is his experience, how knowledgeable is he? 

Hodgson has a wealth of experience in different countries, with club sides and national sides. He speaks more than seven languages I believe, which is quite astounding and has a management career spanning 36 years.  The amount of knowledge and experience he has accumulated will be wasted on a group of over indulgent players who lack the intelligence to be successful.


The beauty of this role is that there is no media pressure, no constant attention and no judgements made on performances and results with the senior side. While Harry is managing the senior lot and more than probably failing, Hodgson could actually be working on the important issues needed to improve the standard of the national game without the glare or attention that the national manager brings.


I cannot fault Hodgson for his desire to manage his national side, yet would want to him question his reasons why. If he genuinely cared about the future of the national game, then he should refuse the manager’s job and take the role of Technical Director, thus taking the most important position for the future of England.

I fear that by him taking the manager’s position he will be taking a poison chalice in which those who have come before him now have a reputation based on failure, spending their time in the comfort of the media, instead of being a part of the development of the future of their country. 


Feedback always appreciated. Find me on Twitter @The_W_Address 
or at Football Speak.com

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS
0Comments

England’s new generation. Why Stuart Pearce is the man to take the country forward.



Be excited but don’t expect England to win anything for a few years



When Stuart Pearce had his press conference last week it showed that his has matured as a man and as a manager. He talked sense with poise and conviction and came across as a man who was not fazed by the job he has been given. He spoke of a man who was not just caretaker. 

A man who has not achieved a lot in his managerial career; caretaker at Forest and two years at Man City is not the ideal candidate for the England job. Or is it? A player with 746 games in club football and 78 caps for his country may be the ideal man to take the reins of the national team. His best asset may be not what he has done but what he said. Since 2007 he has being a part of the England set up. Capello brought him in to coach the senior team also and so he has worked with many of these players at all levels in the national side, this could be invaluable.

Of any of the possible successors to Capello the one with the most experience is actually Pearce. Redknapp has shown his quality at Spurs and this blog supported him getting the job when Capello resigned, mainly because of public support. The press seem set on Redknapp getting the job, with a campaign to turn public support away from Pearce. But after a few weeks one has to wonder if he really is the right man to take the country forward, some of his statements regarding Scholes and the older playersindicates a willingness to stick with the same formula that has resulted in no success. And his only experience with the national side is coaching the celebrity England team, not exactly the same.

Pearce believes that "this job, and the profile of this job, is for a very experienced man with a better CV than I have at this moment in time.” Yet what is required of the new manager? Are we good enough to win anything right now? We brought in Capello and Ericcson because we had a side who we believed were capable of winning tournaments. We were wrong. What is also essential is long term planning and development, which every manager in the past 10 years has failed to do. This job requires a man capable of putting his all into the role for years.


 If top quality managers could not create a winning side then perhaps it was the players who were at fault. Perhaps we actually thought too much of them, based on a media which feels the need to hyperbole every English player and proclaims how every tournament is going to be “the one”. The past two tournaments have shown that we are not that good; one we couldn’t qualify for and the other were we humiliated in; by Algeria as much as Germany.

The failings of a country

Different place, same feeling
In the past 25 years we have not been in a final of any major tournament, getting to only two semi finals, in 1990 and 1996. If we believe our superbole about our superiority and greatness  this is not good enough. Yet this is a false hood perpetuated by a media who revel in heightening expectations and take pleasure in seeing those fail. The hopes of a nation always crushed.

What have we looked to do about it? Nothing. We change only the manager and hope that will improve matters. Capello was brought in to revolutionise the whole structure, yet many will tell you that he did very little except for PR events. What the FA wanted was him to lay down a blueprint, he didn’t do anything, instead presiding over the same players which have fallen short before,  even calling up Scholes and Carragher for the World Cup. He showed glimpses this last qualifying campaign of bringing through some new faces but still relied on the older generation when the games mattered. It is these games which players need experience in, not friendlies which lack the requirement of winning.

The sad fact is that our reliance on a generation which has won nothing has resulted in a future which lacks depth and experience.



What needs to be done?

I have addressed the issues that I believe are needed for the future of England. Expert quality coaching isrequired at all levels. The new EPPP has its advantages but also its flaws, more hours is pointless if the coaching is not good enough. The key is that coaching needs to be a profession and a coach needs to be a teacher to young players. If so, then the quality and pool of talent will improve.

When we have more quality players, quite simply they need to play more when they become professional. And so the issue of the Premier League's  6+5 ruling needs to be addressed. Fifa introduced it to promote home grown talent, however the Premier League twisted this ruling and allowed non English players to be classed as home grown. It has had a major impact on the amount of English talent coming through in the game; by not giving them experience in the top level league the players will not be able to adapt and improve, it is simple. Our 6+5 rule allows foreign players to play more than our own English players, this does not happen in Germany; their rulesforce clubs to play German players.

Do we suffer from a sense of short termism? Always, in my opinion. We are an impatient nation who want success and wealth yet are not willing to put in the time to accomplish our goals. We then blame everything but ourselves for our failings. We need to change this mentality and understand that a project takes time and perseverance, it requires patience and most importanty it requires people to believe in it. If we are serious about developing players and improving our national side we need to give this project time.



The England Manager

In regards to the manager’s job of England; I believe we should have an Englishman in charge of our national team, every other major nation does and it makes an embarrassment out of us to believe we need a foreign manager to lead our country.

We clearly have a problem in producing and developing quality coaches in this country, and this is something that needs addressing by the FA. I have spoken before of the lack of English managers in world football, the lack of world class coaches that are produced in this country is reflected in our production of world class players. There are only 4 English managers in the Premier League; two are over 60, Pardew is 50 and the only other has been a manager for 1 game in Terry Connor. What does this say about the standard of coaching and how English managers are viewed in the game?

The role of the manager is more than coaching the national side, he should be the man who brings all levels together, from grassroots to the senior side. He needs to inspire a nation, which I don’t believe Sven or Fabio did. And so I look at the comments made by Pearce and wonder if this man may be the one to lay the foundations for the future of England. In Pearce I see a man passionate about his country and passionate about developing the future of the team. This role requires more than a world class coach; we need a project manager, one who can oversee 10 years of development to give this national side sustainability.

Pearce is a big supporter of the Germany model and how it has helped develop the players in their national side. "What a fantastic model," Pearce said. "They bedded those players in and took them to the World Cup. Now I have to make sure our young players are ready, too, so when it really matters, it doesn't become too much for them." I cannot agree more, they have revolutionised their development structure and have created world class players and world class team. It has come from a combined effort from all to produce something special. 


Are our young players ready?

The point of this article is to explain that England will not win anything in the coming years, and that this is not a bad thing. We need to stop obsessing about winning every tournament, we need to understand our players are not good enough at this time. If we become realistic about the issues needed to address then perhaps we can put in place foundations for the future which give us a better standing for the future. At this time we are in a stage of transition; players need to move on and young players need to be given experience and time to improve.

Experience is the most fundamental aspect of development. By depriving players of valuable time, opposition and circumstance clubs are doing a disservice to them. The 6+5 rule has helped Germany improve their pool of talent without a doubt.

Importance of winning
The Under 21 tournament last summer was a key indicator that we do not value players gaining experience. Pearce was adamant that young players should have gone to the Under 21 Euro’s last summer, yet too many dropped out. This is not conducive to a winning side; players should be playing throughout their age groups to experience tournament play and the feeling of a big games. Spain took World Cup winners Juan Mata and Javi Martinez to the Under 21’s, unlike some English players they did not reject calls from their country, these players did not feel superior to this level and came back victorious, giving Spain more silverware and success.


Experience = improved quality
It shows an arrogance in our nation which is founded on nothing that some players feel above the Under 21’s, that it is viewed as inferior. Players such as Argentina's Lionel Messi and Sergio Aguero and Spain's Cesc Fabregas and Germanys Mesut Ozil all gained their first experience of international tournaments at Under-21 level. Were these experiences key to their rise to their levels of quality? It certainly would have helped.

Experience is the key ingredient


Stuart Pearce’s ideas for England have merit, he should be given the chance to develop them. However we cannot hold out hope that success will come quickly, if at all. We must try something new with a new breed of players. We are lagging behind Germany and Spain in terms of experience and this new generation must be given the next five years to gain this essential experience.

Germany and Spain are the best two teams in Europe and possibly the world right now. So it is interesting to compare the experience that players in their squad who are under 25 have. If we are talking teams capable of being successful for the coming 6 years then players under 25 will be around more likely in that time.

When analysing at the Under 25’s in the German, Spanish and English squads makes for interesting reading.

Germany
Neuer (25),Hummels (12), Badstuber (18), Boateng (19), Khedira (24), Ozil (30), Schurrle (11), Muller (25) ,Kroos (24), Gotze (12)
Total = 200 caps

Spain
Pique (37), Ramos (82), Fabregas (62), Mata  (16), Busquets (37), Pedro (15), Martinez (7), Jordi Alba (2), Thiago (3)
Total = 261 caps

England
Hart (16), Richards (12) , Jones (3) , Smalling (2) , Walcott (21), Adam Johnson (9) , Welbeck (3) , Sturridge (1) , Wilshere( 5) , Rodwell (2) ,Lennon (19), Walker (2), Cleverley (0)
Total = 93 caps

This list is not conclusive and is not an indication of a starting XI, however it is interesting to see the players who you would consider to be part of the national side for the next two tournaments. Is it a worry to you that of our potential young players are far behind the experience of the same players in these other two countries. Experience of tournaments is a major factor in improving players and teams in order to win things.

Not again?
In England we have relied on the same players time and time again. The key players of the past 8 years have been Ashley Cole (93 caps), Terry (72), Ferdinand (81), Lampard (90), Gerrard (89) and  Rooney (73) and possibly Defoe (46) and Crouch( 42). This totals 586 caps; that is a lot of experience. Yet as important as that is, it has won us nothing. Looking at this list perhaps Cole and Rooney are the only two who we can consider for the 2014 World Cup. I say Cole only because talent at the left back position is limited. 

We have used the same players too often and not looked to bleed any new players through, enough for them to get comfortable in their surroudings, as Pearce said  "What we need is to get one or two of these young faces in there and find out whether they can handle it," Pearce said. "It was too much for me when I went to Italia 90. It took me three or four games. I had 20 caps to my name but it still got to me. I have to try to make sure that doesn't happen to the next generation of players."

The future?
And so looking at the new generation it is worrying to see such lack of experience and caps. This is why we cannot expect so much too soon, they must be given time to adapt and improve. People talking of a partnership between Jones and Smalling yet they only have 5 caps together. Danny Welbeck and Daniel Sturridge, have a combined four substitute appearances between them and Fraizer Campbell is uncapped. Add into the mix the potential of Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain and the future may look promising, yet is very unproven.


Champions League, a necessity for the national side?

Creating a winning mentality
Where do players gain big game experience? International football is certainly a place to develop yet in club football the key is the Champions League. There is a distinct lack of Champions League experience in the England squad. It is no surprise that as Barcelona won the 2006 Champions League it gave experience to Xavi, Iniesta, Puyol to understand what a winning side needs to do. At the 2008 Euro’s the world saw what Spain had been creating, it dominated the tournament in terms of class and style and deservedly won the tournament with Xavi being instrumental. Winning breeds winning and as the Barcelona side has looked to dominate European football, the national team has benefited also. In the champions league this year there were 81 Spanish players playing for various teams.

Looking at players playing Champions League football the past 4 years is worrying for the future. There are too many players in and around the England with no or minimal experience in the biggest club tournament in world football, this is where competition is best, where quality is highest and where players are challenged more. Play well here and international football will not be as difficult. If a player can play in the Champions League then he can play international football.

That being said I would be worried to play players with no Champions League experience, call me elitist but this is fundamental to the development of world class players. Players like Sturridge, Wilshere, Lennon, Jones, Smalling, Richards, Milner, Hart, Lescott, Dawson, Gibbs, Glen Johnson, Gary Cahill all have only minimal experience in this competition, however they are in teams which will be playing Champions League. Scott Parker, Jack Rodwell and Leighton Baines all have no experience in this competition. 

I have said already that the team should be built on Hard, Lescott, Carrick and Rooney because they possess experience and qualities required to aid the new generation. I would give the captains role to Rooney and would revolve the team around him. Rooney is a modern Number 10, capable of dropping into midfield, out wide or being a 9 in the box. We have undervalued Rooney in terms of how he is portrayed by the fans and the media, through this we are doing a disservice to him. He is a great player who too often underperforms. We need to support him and give him the responsibility to lead the team and guide this new generation. Like Zidane, I believe he will revel in it and it will make him better.



England project manager – Stuart Pearce

I believe in the success of coaching and of development. I do not believe that money solves everything, especially top down projects. The Premier League needs to do more and it is essential to change the 6+5 rule to enable more English players to gain more experience. We put too much on foreign players and neglect our own players, we release our own players too early, send them out on loan to quickly and prevent their development. Why? Because there are no rules which require clubs to play them. The Germans and Spanish are proud of developing their own and their rules indicate that. Both countries have over 60% of players in their top league who are able to play for their national side, in England it is 38%.

I believe we need to give the job to Pearce. He talks with sense and an understanding that this team requires time. It doesn’t matter if we bring in Jose or Pep, they would not win the next tournament, I guarantee it. Give Pearce licence to develop all the youth sides, allow him to work with Southgate and the FA and Premier League to improve standards of coaching and let us see what we accomplish together, as England.

Without change I cannot see England winning things in the next 20 years. I believe it is essential to give the new generation of players the required caps and experience to develop. They need to be playing Champions League as well international football in order to excel. We need to see the value in playing for all levels of the national side and put more into winning tournaments at 17’s, 19’s and 21’s. If we rely on those players that we have done before then we will not improve, success will  not come and all we do is be in the same place again in 5 years time. This is why Redknapp is not the man to take this country forward. Pearce is right when he says we need to develop our national side like the Germans, and we need him, a man passionate about developing a new generation to be in charge of this English project.



The Whitehouse Address is on Twitter @The_W_Address

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS
0Comments

Paul Scholes back for England? Don’t make me laugh!


When Paul Scholes played in the Champions League final last year both Xavi and Iniesta were desperate for his shirt. For them Paul Scholes was their inspiration, much like they are for many kids around the world today. It shows how highly regarded Scholes has been by fans and players around the world. Is he as highly regarded in own country as his in others? In his absence United struggled and his return to United has resulted in an improvement in results and performances. Yet on the back of a few decent performances there are many in the media pushing for a return to England, what does this say about state of English football when our hopes rest on a player just out of retirement?

No-one can doubt how good Scholes' career has been. He has played over 450 games for the biggest team in England and possibly the world since 1994, in that time scoring 103 goals. He has won every trophy a player can wish to win in club football and has been instrumental in United’s success during his career. Many young players may not realise how good Scholes was a decade and so before. A good comparison today would be Fabregas; a play maker who makes runs into the box and who creates and scores goals regularly. The modern Scholes has been more like Pirlo in the way he plays deep and looks to be a deep lying playmaker with his pin point passing ability. In either position, Scholes has been excellent and his recent performances have shown that even a short retirement has not limited his class.

Of a career showered in trophies in club football, there appears to be a void left in his international career. Should Scholes have played more than 66 games for his country? Of course. Xavi is a good example of a player who shows what could have been had Scholes been used as the focal point of the team.Could Scholes have been an essential part of winning the Euro’s and World Cup for England as Xavi has been for Spain? Why did a player with so much class have to retire so young? His reasons were simple; he was not used effectively, especially under Ericcson.  

There are a lot of if’s in football, yet imagine if the England team had been revolved around Scholes like Spain is with Xavi, would we have been more successful? I think so. We struggle in this country to accommodate quality, trying instead try to fit square pegs in round holes by fitting players to a tactic which offers little room for movement and fluidity. Playing Scholes on the left side of midfield reduced his influence. As with everything hindsight is a great thing, what is important is that lessons must be learnt from Scholes’ England career about how to get the best out of quality players.

For the past few weeks Scholes has returned to a United team who have struggled at times this season; the Champions League campaign was too casual, games in the Premier League have been either average or very poor, even the Arsenal and Chelsea performances at Old Trafford lacked the quality required to be title winners. It is only in the past few weeks that performances have improved and this does appear to coincide with Scholes’ return. The media appears to have started a campaign to get Scholes back into the England team, this is preposterous. Scholes has brought experience to this United side, yet his performances have not been fantastic, he is a continuity player who retains possession and dictates the tempo of play. Yet, the media has decided to hype up Scholes creating a frenzy where people believe he is the answer, the missing link to England being victorious.

There are many reasons why England don’t need Scholes back; most importantly he is a man who is beyond his best and has no room to improve. If people believe that England need Scholes then are not being fair or honest, if anything they are being deceived by the media. There are other players who do deserve to play for England; this season has seen an on-going improvement in a rejuvenated Scott Parker who is now playing for a better side and in arguably the best midfield in the Premier League. His performances have been top class and he has shown that he can make the step up from a relegation team to a title challenge side. His name should be on the England team sheet for the coming years.

And next to him should not be Scholes but another United player, Michael Carrick. Carrick has been much criticised in his time at United, yet he has been a major part in a side which has won 4 domestic titles and has been in 3 Champions League finals, winning one. People questioned how United would replace Keane in midfield, Carrick has been the man to fill the void and led United to being more consistent than in the Keane era. He is a player who doesn’t steal the headlines and this is important, he retains possession, starts attacks and is disciplined, which gives the attacking players more confidence to push forward. With Parker and Carrick in midfield and with players like Wilshere, an improved Gareth Barry, Phil Jones and Jack Rodwell either as back up or potential stars, then there is no need for Scholes, Lampard or Gerrard.

The England team needs a new start, a new midfield to build on and to prevent the reliance on players who have not performed well enough. The team needs experience which Parker and Carrick have, this is essential in order to aid the development of young players coming through. The media and FA needs to look to the future, not just the next tournament. We have a habit of being short termist which becomes a chronic issue to the development of the team as we rely on the same players again and again and fail to use new players who without getting experience end up lacking the experience, it is Catch 22.

The new manager needs to do more than just prepare for the next tournament; they need to put in place the foundations to build not just the current team but the teams for the future. A way of playing, all the way to down to grassroots level needs to be implemented in order to have a philosophy that is constantly evolving from generation to generation. It is worrying therefore that the favourite for the job is Harry Redknapp, I have argued for him to get the role based on the populist outpouring from the fans and players, however his comments regarding Scholes indicate a worrying trend for the “old guard” to be kept in the team. Under Redknapp I can see Terry, Gerrard, Lampard, Scholes and even Beckham being used, this is just not what is required for the team to progress.

The best man for the job may be Stuart Pearce, he has experience with the England set up, he has worked with the youth teams and has an understanding of the need for development. His manner and low profile may stand him in good stead for the future of the team. A team who have planned for the future has been Brasil who have used the past 2 years as a way to develop their young stars for 2014, we have lost another 2 years by using the old guard again. This must be a time to move on from the old boys and make a fresh start. Scholes has been an excellent player, yet his comeback should only be at United.

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS
0Comments

If Redknapp is the best choice, what does this say about the state of English football?






It is amazing that in just 24 hours everyone appears to agree that Capello was a failure and that England is in a better position now than it was before yesterday. Capello has been subjected to criticism by everyone in the game, yet he has an excellent win ration of 67%, but apparently “players didn’t understand him”. He is disliked by a media because he didn't speak to them and is being described as though he was a failure and a bad manager, a bad man, even. The media are a vicious creature, who will build up someone in order to see them fall, and the blood will be spilled over their pages.

Without a manager and a captain is this a team that is ready to tackle the Euro’s? Who is the man to take on this poison chalice?  Harry Redknapp appears to be the unanimous candidate from all areas of the game. Like Putin in Russia it appears that his coronation has been planned for years; that the media has been awaiting this moment by creating the plethora of support for good old ‘Arry since Capello announced he would leave after the Euro’s.
If Redknapp did take over, would it really improve matters, would the team really improve? It will be the same players, the same mentality, the same failure. It may actually worsen; the media’s man at the helm, one who can no wrong, "this England team must be good enough to win now, they have ‘Arry!" However, it is still the same players who still won't be able to retain possession and who may be able to win some games, but when it comes to the crunch, as always, they will fail.

There is a case for Redknapp as England manager. Many don't like him and think he's not good enough, others do. There are other candidates to consider, yet the distinct lack of quality with managers from England is worrying. Alan Pardew has done an okay job with Newcastle, yet has won nothing and has no prior history of success. Roy Hodgson has an excellent resume and an understanding of international football, yet one worries if the same would happen to him as did at Liverpool; that he gets the job against the wishes of supporters and players, who in this case would prefer Redknapp. There is an argument to say that the populist view should not be listened to, think Keegan and what he achieved. However, another side of me believes that if they want him, let them have him. Let’s see how they do without any excuses, "this is what you wanted, go and prove that the manager was the problem all along." I doubt it, but there is no excuse when the populist option fails. Brian Clough will always be the man that should have managed England, yet would he had been a success? Who knows, but without it happening one can always believe.

I do believe that an English manager is required, Wenger, Mourinho, Hiddink, these are top class managers, but the worry should be, where are our top quality coaches? How can England not produce a single top quality manager? Quite simply there is not enough top quality English coaches and managers in the game. In the Premier League there just four English-born managers; Harry Redknapp (64), Roy Hodgson (64), Mick McCarthy (52) and Alan Pardew (49). These are the only English representatives drawing a wage as managers in the Premier League, does this make you feel worried? And abroad, how many coach in the top divisions across Europe? 1. Steve McLaren. How many English managers have won the Premier League, none. Not one has won their own domestic league in 20 years!

We need to address a serious problem. Why are foreign managers better than ours, why are they considered for positions over our own? These are interesting questions, I believe it comes down to opportunities and success. How many managers from Glasgow in the league? 6. Is this because they are better or because Ferguson has been successful, does success influence decisions. Did Villa Boas go to Chelsea because he had similar characteristics to Jose? I think so. I believe that success influences the decisions of managers. And yet this begs the question, why have not enough English managers been given the chance to succeed in England?


So where are the managers? In my opinion there is a big problem in this country of giving ex players managerial positions too early, before they have become an expert as a coach. They are thrown in and have more often shown to fail; think of Adams, Ince, Southgate and Shearer. They took roles before they achieved their qualifications, they were fast tracked because they were excellent players, yet this is not right and these rash decisions led to failure. Other countries laugh at our method of bringing through managers, they believe what you did is a player is not relevant, as Sacchi said “I never realised that to become a jockey you needed to be a horse first.” Mourinho, another without playing at the top level worked under Bobby Robson and Van Haal before he went into management, he learnt his trade, did his apprenticeship before taking over. He was patient and has been rewarded.

We need to realise that playing and coaching are two completely different roles, requiring different mentalities and methods. If the English game wishes more English managers, then they will benefit by giving potentially excellent coaches time to develop and opportunities to learn the trade. if all teams were required to have an English coach as assistant or coach then perhaps we could develop more top quality coaches. By having a mentor to educate, guide and learn from may be the key to producing successful managers. There is a problem and this is one which has been postulated and debated yet not acted on; that we fail at developing world class talent; whether players or managers. We sensationalise, we hyperbole, we heighten expectations and always end disappointed, because our players and coaches are just average, we try to succeed yet have low standards of what is required to succeed.

As for the present England job the case for Redknapp is interesting, momentum gathered by the media appears to have influenced many fans, showing suggestion to be such a failure of men. However along with media the players appear to want him too. As populist as it may be, the England job needs someone who has the immediate respect of the players and can unite and invigorate a group, whatever you say about him, Redknapp has those qualities; extremely popular with current and ex-players. Will this be a triumph for favouritism over meritocracy, only time will tell, but until we improve the standards of coaching and management in this country, Redknapp is probably the best man for the job. 


Follow The Whitehouse Address at @The_W_Address


  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS
0Comments
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...