Euro 2008 Qualifying Russia v England
- Murder in Moscow, Suspects Named
England collapse the same old story
Sean O'Conor
The press have named 46-year-old Steve McClaren from Yorkshire
as the prime suspect in the killing of England’s Euro 2008
hopes, which collapsed on a cold night in Moscow on Wednesday...
So, England beat a sorry retreat from Moscow
following their 2-1 loss to Russia.
Euro 2008 looks out of their reach now and Steve McClaren’s
days at the helm look numbered. Was this a surprise? Yes, given
the three lions’ recent performances, including a commanding
3-0 demolition of the Russians
at Wembley.
So how did this turnaround occur when only days ago, after three
successive home wins, England were set fair for the trip to Austria
and Switzerland?
Because those victories over Israel, Russia and Estonia
papered over the points dropped to Macedonia, Israel and Croatia
in the same qualifying Group
E: England has been struggling since McClaren
took the reins after the 2006 World Cup.
But I don’t blame him, although he probably deserves to
lose his job once the group games conclude, unless Israel take points
off the Russians and England beat Croatia to sneak through at the
last minute.
I for one am jaded at yet another collapse by an England team
who should have done better, far better. We have been here so many
times before and will be here again for the foreseeable future.
It is not about McClaren, it is about the perennial fault lines
running through English football.
A myriad of post mortems accompany every England failing at or
before a major tournament.
Some of the explanations go round in circles e.g. ‘they
lacked passion’, ‘they don’t fight for the shirt’,
‘they don’t believe in themselves enough’ etc.
These are just hot air. The players are not wanting for commitment
and desire to succeed. Footballers are well aware of what success
means and are itching for it all the time.
Others conveniently attribute blame to the available scapegoats
– players, managers or match officials.
The suspects never fail to appear. This time you could take your
pick from Steven Gerrard for missing a sitter, Wayne Rooney for
conceding a penalty, Paul Robinson for palming a shot into an enemy’s
path or the team as a whole for panicking once Russia stole an equalizer
and letting them dominate the game and score a second.
Add to that the incompetent coach McClaren and the dodgy ref Luis
Medina Cantalejo who awarded the spot kick which put Russia on level
terms.
Sounds familiar? Remember Graham Taylor banging on about the referee
failing to send off Ronald Koeman for a professional foul, when
Holland knocked England out of the 1994 World Cup? Yes, we have
been here before all right.
This time we had a novelty candidate for stoning, in the form
of the artificial surface
of the Luzhniki Stadium and the blazered twits who permitted
its usage for such a big match in the first place.
Plus, don’t forget a resurgent Russia were at home in front
of a passionate crowd and were out for revenge after surrendering
at Wembley.
Under Guus Hiddink, the Russians
merited at least a goal after clawing themselves back into the game
following Rooney’s 29th minute opener.
These factors are all suspects for the axing of England’s
Euro hopes in Moscow, so who is the murderer? Answer: All of the
above. Yet the guiltiest party must still be England: The country’s
players, coaches and general soccer culture for failing to produce
a successful national team in 2007 like they have failed in every
year since 1966 are all responsible.
On the night there were tactical failings by McClaren’s
men, who missed the chance to score a second and slit Russia’s
jugular, gave away a goal and then pulled back pessimistically and
defended deep, with inevitable consequences.
If passion is an English football virtue, then this must be blended
with a mental toughness not to concede so much space and possession
as England did in Moscow.
When I spoke to Guus Hiddink prior to the 2006 World Cup, the
Australia coach spoke of his players’ impressive technique
and passion, but also of their pressing need to understand the phases
of a particular game.
England clearly got that one wrong in the Luzhniki, retreating
too far when they needed to battle for the ball and stop Russia
gaining in confidence at crucial turning points over the 90.
Face the facts: We struggle once we get to the quarter-finals
of an international tournament and have only reached three semi-finals
in our history – the 1966 World Cup, 1990 World Cup and 1996
European Championship, and TWO of them we played at home.
Deep down, our technical and tactical shortcomings persist. We
have a tradition of strong goalkeepers, defenders and strikers,
but our midfielders, supposedly the vanguard of our golden generation,
are not as creative as we might like to think and seem to concede
space too readily.
Up front too, Rooney and Michael Owen never look like happy bedfellows
and the list of alternatives is painfully thin if we are looking
for another Sheringham & Shearer or Lineker & Beardsley
to spearhead our attack.
Even our defenders, supposedly our strongpoint, are not world
class, with the possible exception of John Terry.
The fact remains the average Spanish or Italian defender, for
instance, is more technically proficient than ours are and at the
highest level, a deficit of skill in any area will be exposed sooner
or later.
Is the foreign influx in the Premier League to blame? For some
reason, those who deny a connection get extremely irate at the idea.
I suspect they are Arsenal or Chelsea fans who care little for their
national team.
The more foreign players occupy the starting slots, the less young
English players can develop, surely. True, the likes of Dennis Bergkamp,
Eric Cantona and Thierry Henry have improved the overall standard
of play in England, but the gaps in several key positions for England
will appear more frequently the more overseas players dominate the
top clubs’ lineups.
But equally, given it is much easier to recruit English youngsters
from the locality than it is to jet around the world on scouting
missions to persuade talented kids’ families to relocate their
offspring, why are clubs like Arsenal preferring overseas teenagers?
Why did Sven-Goran
Eriksson, well versed in the English talent available after
four years at the helm of our national team, scoop up a host of
foreign players when he took over at Manchester City, notably lamenting
he could not find a home-grown equivalent of Brazilian midfield
wizard Elano?
The talent is not out there is the uncomfortable truth, but how
so in a land of 45 million when the Netherlands has a production
line of talent with one third the population.
There goes an argument, following the ethno-football writings
of David Winner, that every football culture is organic to its homeland,
and that the English style can only change from the up and at ‘em
style with a lot of time and hard work.
England’s traditional footballing virtues had fallen behind
the rest of the world by the time the national team first entered
the World Cup in 1950 and was defeated by Spain and the USA.
Our supposedly august history is clearly not with only one trophy
to crow about, which must imply deep-seated weaknesses in the national
style of football.
But alas, the reactions of another lamentable England collapse
to ‘lesser’ opposition (how many of the Russian team
can you name?) have mostly missed the real target.
Sam Wallace in The Independent came close when he spoke
of “an obvious pattern. It is systematic failure - which cannot
simply be explained away by the caprice of referees, artificial
pitches or injuries,” but did not take his analysis further.
Steve McClaren has received most of the custard pies but he is
not the point. Nor is Gerrard’s miss, the plastic pitch or
the bad penalty decision.
But it is so much easier to pin the blame on the usual sorry parade
of scapegoats, than address the real underlying cause for what is
now 41 years of hurt, and counting.
|