How do you solve a problem like the England National Team?

Around 48 hours ago I was sat in my local pub filled with anticipation. This could be our year, we have the ability to really do something in this tournament, and show our class to the rest of Europe. Today, I sit here sun burnt (cheers Wimbledon), but more importantly bemused and frustrated. England had embarrassed themselves again. England had crashed out of the Euros losing 2-1 to Iceland, in what could arguably be described as the most demoralising defeat in recent Three Lions history.

Iceland celebration as their Euro fairy-tale continues

Unfortunately, as an Englishman this result wasn't completely unexpected, the sense of deja vu loomed large, and the dismal atmosphere of blame and loathing following the traditional fallout of an international tournament had well and truly returned.

Previously, I've eluded to this being the 'golden generation' of English football, and despite the major upset in France I stand by my comment. Without a doubt, on paper the quality of player is there, the likes of Dele Alli, Eric Dier and Marcus Rashford all have great potential and are slowly fulfilling it. The squad is also complimented by experienced veterans such as Wayne Rooney (albeit against most fans' wishes), alongside a consistently free scoring strike force and a relatively strong back line which in itself has attacking qualities too, England looked a force to be reckoned with. However, as it conspired over the past couple of weeks, after witnessing four relatively woeful performances, what has become apparent is that the team lacks the correct mental attitude to become a force on the international scene. It's all well and good battering minnows in qualification, if this isn't reflected in competitive matches it means nothing. Therefore, although the manager alone shouldn't be to blame, I believe that the decision chosen by Roy Hodgson to resign was the correct one, and realistically his only option after such an awful tournament.

Pundits and fans alike can argue until they're blue in the face; 'the players aren't good enough', 'the system is flawed', 'blame the Premier League' - some arguments more valid than others. But as it stands, we are currently without a manager, and this issue needs to solved before a real post-mortem as to what went wrong in France can really take place, and if Greg Dyke's projection of Qatar 2022 victory has any hope.

The question is, who is the right man for this arguably impossible job?

The answer? One who can erase the negative mentalities players have coming into tournaments caused by the culture of fear created by England fans. It's nonsense that if you believe we didn't have the ability to beat Iceland, because clearly we did. After all, we beat the Germans only weeks prior. However, what was clear wass that Hodgson hadn't learnt from and reformed the team based on mistakes made in the past - progress hadn't be made, and the negative mentality of the past prevailed, rather than players pushing on for the required equalising goal.

Whilst the job is a massive coup for any potential manager, recruitment is one hell of a minefield, some shortlisted names (a pretty long list at the moment) such as Harry Redknapp have already ruled themselves out - identifying the job as somewhat untenable. Personally, I believe the manager should be British, have Premier League or international experience and prior understanding of how the FA works (and preferably not be Gary Neville after his self destruct at Valencia).

A man who ticks all those boxes, and is marked up as a strong favourite by bookmakers is Gareth Southgate. Southgate could potentially be seen as the obvious replacement for the England management role. He has experience in the England set-up as both a player (57 caps) and has also been in charge of the next generation of England players at Under 21 level. Southgate has mentored several players and brought out their potential, and are now frequent fixtures in the senior squad - Raheem Sterling and Harry Kane to name a few. He has also guided the Under 21 team to the Toulon tournament crown in 2016, however, a year prior his team flopped at the European championships, finishing bottom of the group - however, what he does advocate is giving youth a chance, a possible opportunity to find fresh, exciting talent.

Gareth Southgate. Bookies favourite. But is he the right man for the job?

As a player he more than anyone will understand the emotional slumber the current cohort of players are in - as he missed the decisive penalty against Germany at Euro '96, and therefore could be a great replacement for Hodgson - a man who could rid England of this losing mentality. On the contrary, despite knowing the England 'formula', from recent events it is clear that this 'formula' is clearly a losing one. These doubts are also reinforced by the fact the last club job that Southgate had was at Middlesbrough - one that led to a relegation and a sacking.

A second suggestion would be Sam Allardyce. Personally, I don't understand why the FA have a fixation with keeping the traditional FA formula alive, because it clearly isn't working. Or for that matter, why foreign coaches such have been a common appointment in past times e.g. Capello and Ericsson (both failed). Sam Allardyce has been in the business for a long time. He is a manager that has a reputation for knowing what he needs to do in order to create a winning team, and has a formula that sees failing teams (England?), punch above their weight, much like at Sunderland this season. His managerial record is also untarnished with no relegations to his name. Although the style of football that he drills into his teams may be portrayed as unfashionable and boring (just ask West Ham fans), it does the job, and he gets results - at the end of the day players want to play for him, and they must have a good mentality to do so. Personally, as an England fan, I would just like a manager who gives the squad a prolonged period of stability, followed by progress and results at major tournaments, and the way in which we play is a secondary thought. However, as a character, I'm not sure how suited he would be in the role - as some of his comments may rub certain people in the FA up the wrong way.

My third and final pick, is up and coming coach Eddie Howe. Yes, he is young. Yes, his Bournemouth team isn't exactly teeming with big international characters. And yes, one solid if unspectacular year in the Premier League doesn't exactly set the world alight. However, the man would bring something different to the England set up, a different footballing system from what we are used to, and one who has an understanding of how to salvage a bad situation into a winning team - guiding Bournemouth on minus point in League 2 to the Premier League, making him a hot prospect in the managerial game.

However, it is unlikely the FA will take a risk and throw the dice. And this could be the root cause of all English footballs' problems. The FA are too fixed in their ways to make a significant change, and I have absolutely no doubt that until a major revamping does occur England will continue to be a failing footballing nation. The talent is there. Rational thinking seems to be elsewhere.


Follow me on Twitter @DLster

B teams: The Death of lower league football?

Back in 2014 Greg Dyke - FA Chairman announced a revolutionary plan to restructure English league football as we know it today. His idea was to introduce B teams to the football league pyramid and add a third division to cater for these new teams in the future - seeing the football league system go from 92 teams to 100, across five divisions. Most rational thinking FA members and clubs responded to it extremely negatively, giving his idea the proverbial two fingers, and Dyke's vision was rightly quashed. However, it seems in recent weeks this idea of B teams playing on same platform as League 1 and 2 teams has resurfaced.
To most league fans with any sort of understanding of the historical standing of the league system they would identify giving B teams the opportunity to compete alongside league sides could completely damage the integrity of the footballing pyramid in the future. However, money talks, and the recent news that the Premier League have paid £1 million for so called B teams to participate in the English League Trophy from next season is disappointing.

Barnsley lift the English League Trophy

On the surface, this news could be celebrated, the system hasn't been compromised, it is merely giving youth players the opportunity to play in a competitive cup competition, with the chance of silverware and a final at Wembley to play for. However, if you venture past the facade, this has the potential to just be the beginning - a Trojan Horse - a way of infiltrating the Football League. A way of identifying how successful a new system with B teams could be. Personally, this just doesn't sit right with me.
Now, the first clear issue with B teams from the Premier League being incorporated into this tournament, the clue being in the name, is that it's the football league trophy, not some sort of poor excuse of a Premier League reserves cup. As a supporter of a football league club, I do understand that the ELT is by far a priority for football league managers, with low prize money, the inconvenience of extra fixtures and sometimes extra travel - it's relative meaninglessness reflected by low attendances and the fielding of weakened sides, with teams only really starting to give any attention to it with the coup of a Wembley final on the horizon. If anything the trivial nature of the ELT will only become even less desirable for league clubs, with the already wavering competitiveness of the competition becoming even less so. On top an already relatively congested fixture list will be lengthened by at least three games, with the cost of holding these games likely to outweigh the benefits to clubs with low budgets. It could be argued that costs will be covered by increased attendances it matches featuring these B teams, with the supposed glamour of playing Premier League names, but in all honesty if Manchester City B team turns up, you'd be very unlikely to be treated to the likes of Aguero and co. Football league fans dream of playing the likes of Premier League goliaths, not their youngsters - as promising as they may be.
Another objection of this plan, as insignificant as it may seem, is the unpredictability of the plans,and the possibility that they could escalate into Dyke's original five tier division system plan. If the proposed plan of five divisions and 100 clubs got the go ahead, although B teams could progress passed division 3, theoretically, this is fair, however, the idea alone challenges the integrity of the league system and without a shadow of a doubt a bottleneck of quality B team sides would occur. This would put the concept of promotion and relegation as we know it in jeopardy. Not only that, it would mean that league positions that could feasibly be filled by non-league teams with great potential on the cusp of the football league, will instead be taken by B teams with no history, no real opportunity for league progression, and is purely just another cog in the machine of the ever expanding corporate empire the Premier League is becoming.
As a football fan, I do understand that the idea of introducing B teams does have its merits as well. It would give upcoming talent a platform to develop their skills up against well drilled, disciplined professionals that are normally playing to a higher standard than that of U21 level players, with the possibility of unearthing the next English superstar.
Although it is clear that B teams can be successful - just look at Spain and Germany for proof of this, with the likes of Puyol, Xavi and Iniesta all thriving at FC Barcelona B, before becoming cult heroes for the senior squad. It is also clear that a strong youth set up translates well into future first team performance both domestically, in Europe and also on international stage. However, this alone doesn't mean that B teams are the answer.

Carles Puyol and Xavi playing for FC Barcelona B in 1998

In order to quell the dangers of the possible death of today's lower league football a restructuring at youth level is required, not at senior level as Greg Dyke very naively believes. In order to harvest talent and keep it in the England, a shake up of both the youth league system, but at the same time also the way loans from Premier League clubs work is necessary. For example, if the youth Premier League was given a face lift, with more consistency in fixtures and played at bigger venues, rather than unkempt training grounds, it would appeal to more players and fans alike, this in turn would give young players the opportunity to get a taste of the professional game. This alone could possibly encourage more young players to stay in England, rather than make a name for themselves elsewhere. Making a conscious effort to overthrow the loan system could also make an impact. Chelsea currently have 8 players under the age of 21 out on loan to teams outside of the UK, with many others recently being recalled from Dutch club Vitesse - an evident feeder club for Chelsea. Now, if the youth system in England was improved, these players (most without a senior Chelsea appearance), would without a doubt have the opportunity to play week in, week out. Instead, many of them are rotting away on loan and have very little chance of breaking into the Chelsea first team - if they were of the required calibre they'd be there already. Playing in England however, would mean they would understand the pace and style of play, be much more closely monitored, and potentially increase the likelihood of breaking into the senior setup.
So overall, B teams are not the answer, although they can be a great platform for new homegrown talent, in the long run they will do more harm than good. Instead investment is required in youth league development.
It needs to be remembered the Premier League isn't the be all and end all in English football.

Teargas and Tears.

The excitement surrounding the European Championships really came to a head last night, with a strange, but nonetheless spectacular opening ceremony followed by a highly competitive clash between hosts France and relatively ranked outsiders Romania. France took the game with a 2-1 victory, with their winner coming through a spectacular Dimitri Payet effort - which was clearly a emotional moment for him.

All eyes now all turn to England, who open their campaign against Russia this evening. With many other nations perceived to be in a transitional period, this could be the year that the 'golden generation' of England players could shine through and bring home the first major international trophy for half a century.

Much like the 1998 World Cup, England begin their quest for silverware in Marseille, and much like the team in 1998 - a team that featured the likes of Beckham, Scholes and Owen, there are high expectations that the team will perform.

This is where you'd expect the similarities to end, but unfortunately it seems that the grizzly scenes of violence and hooliganism that broke out between locals and travelling England fans around the streets of Marseille's Vieux Port have also made an unsavoury return. Back in 1998, the culture the England fans brought to France, such as binge drinking and ear splitting patriotic music didn't go down too well with locals in the area, leading to confrontation - punches thrown and missiles launched, culminating in riot police and tear gas. Fortunately, the troubles were short-lived and the rest of the tournament was conducted in good humour and high spirits, before England crashed out in a penalty shoot-out against Portugal - a game which saw David Beckham infamously see the red mist.

Now, two days into the tournament it is clear that violent clashes between England fans and locals, other fans and police have reignited. Personally, I find it extremely disappointing that what should be excitement has turned to fascist chanting and violence from a small minority of England fans. Now, as a football fan, I understand that supporter identity is important to Brits, whether this be on a domestic or national level - I am all for showing passion and loyalty and getting behind a team be this through chanting, donning the three lions shirt or symbolic banners and flags, however, travelling to France should be all about supporting the team, not what has been reported as unprovoked violence in some cases, and even if provoked we should be the bigger men and not rise to it. The Euros should be about football, not fights.

England fans confront Police and Russian supporters

Today's third wave of trouble has been blamed upon Russian fans who are vastly organised, however, whoever is to blame, it has left the quiet port of Marseille appearing more like a war zone, with litter and missiles strewn across the ground and crushed bottles underfoot. Accompanied by the smell of teargas in the air. More importantly, it has meant that emergency services are having to police the area on a major scale for mindless hooliganism that is completely unnecessary. With France on such high alert for terror following November's horrific bombings, resources are being stretched to the limit to deal with mindless thuggery that could be utilised in areas of high security risk i.e. Stadia and Fan Zones.
Yes, I agree that the excitement around the England team is high, and with starlets such as Dele Alli in the squad, alongside strikers in Harry Kane and Jamie Vardy in great form many fans can see England making great progress despite Roy Hodgson electing include a weathered and somewhat ineffective Wayne Rooney in his squad, but this doesn't permit hooliganism on any level.

High hopes for England's 'golden generation'

If the 1998 World Cup is anything to go by, any tournament that starts with teargas on the streets, will end in tears on the pitch.

England take on Russia tonight, 8pm, ITV.

Follow me on Twitter: @DLster

2016: The Year of the Underdog?

It's April 2015, Nigel Pearson - Leicester City manager has just called a journalist an ostrich and has stormed out of a press conference. The club is on the verge of relegation, and no-one all season has given them any hope of survival. However, with 25 points from the last 10 games Leicester City, against all of the odds remained in the Premier League, the turnaround had begun. 12 months later, that turnaround became quite possibly the biggest fairy tale in footballing history, with 5000-1 shot Leicester City unbelievably becoming Premier League champions through adversity, the team showed fierce unity, experience and solidarity, along with shrewd scouting and masterful managing, becoming only the sixth side in history to manage this feat.

Leicester City lift the Premier League. The greatest Underdog Story in footballing history?

Many believe the events that occurred in the Premier League this season will never be repeated, and quite honestly, I'd probably agree that I'll never see anything like this again in my lifetime. On a domestic level anyway. However, with the European Championships just one day away, I'd like to reflect on Euro 1992 and Euro 2004, where two other Underdog stories were told, possibly trumping that of Leicester City's extraordinary league victory.

Although I was yet to grace the Earth in 1992, it is evident that the 1992 edition of the European Championships in Sweden was a very interesting affair. Unlike today in which 24 nations have the ability to qualify, back in 1992, only eight nations took part in the tournament. Following the completion of qualifying Denmark found themselves finishing in second place, behind Yugoslavia in their group, therefore failing to make it to the edition of the tournament just a stones throw away in Sweden. Danish coach Richard Moler Nielson was on the brink of the sack following the qualification failure, and the squad was in need of transition. However, the outbreak of civil war in Yugoslavia, UEFA made the decision to omit Yugoslavia from the tournament, instead of playing with only three teams in the group, with merely a weeks notice, Denmark were reinstated, and were to participate in the tournament and players were recalled from their holidaying.

Kim Vilfort, a midfielder in the squad at the time, stated that the squad, although ready to pounce on the second bite of the cherry, couldn't fail as there was absolutely no pressure on them. Drawn in a group alongside France and England, as well as Sweden - with home advantage, with very little preparation, the squad were given very little chance of progressing. This prediction was seemingly correct following defeat to Sweden, and a stalemate with lacklustre England. However, due to other results a mediocre and relatively unconvincing Denmark still had the opportunity to progress with a victory against a strong French squad which featured the likes of Cantona and Deschamps. Surprisingly, the resilient Danes upset the odds, defeating France 2-1, setting up a surprise match-up with the Netherlands - defending champions - vastly talented with a formidable strike force. Much like Leicester City, Denmark's chances of victory were seemingly nil. However, again, Denmark rallied, finding themselves 2-1 up against the European heavyweights. The Netherlands did however show their class to equalise, and penalties loomed following a goal-less extra time. It was all down to the throw of a dice, who could keep their nerve? In the Danes case, there were no nerves. Goalkeeper Peter Schmeichel saved Dutch star man van Basten's penalty, and astonishingly, Denmark had won this thriller on penalties. 

Peter Schmeichel makes the only save of the Semi-Final shootout on Denmark's way to European glory

The Germans expecting to face the Netherlands, were greeted by Denmark in the final, and didn't really know how to approach the game, this became evident. With determination and momentum on their side, Denmark had obviously taken inspiration from Hans Christian Andersen, and written their own fairy tale - conquering the Germans 2-0. From not even expecting to participate to outclassing the best in the world, although they didn't have the best players, they had the best team, and quite deservedly lifted the title. A definite shock. However, Greece in 2004 may well top it...

12 years on, I vaguely remember watching Euro 2004, hosted by Portugal, the Greeks were seen as rank outsiders, previously only making one European Finals appearance, winning zero games. Although group winners in qualification, they were unconvincing, scoring only eight goals in eight games, and were a shewing for a swift departure, with hosts Portugal alongside Spain favourites to progress. Although Greece were in transition, rebuilding a new squad from one that was in crisis just years prior, they were classed as no-hopers. They shocked many by passing the group stages, with a victory against Portugal and a draw versus Spain, however, they were scrutinised by many pundits over their unimaginative, ultra-defensive and negative style of play, surely to be undone by an extremely favoured France in the Quarter Finals. France, the defending champions, were comprised of an array of talent - Henry, Zidane, Barthez, the list goes on, far superior to that of Greece, no real household names in that squad I can assure you. To everyone's amazement, Greece dug deep and ground out a 1-0 victory. History repeated itself in the Semi-Final against Czech Republic. Another 1-0 victory. The Greeks had engineered a plan that worked. Quashing attacking pressure with organised defence, before offering knock out blows in the shape of precision set pieces and counter attacks. Portugal awaited them in the final.

Portugal on home soil and a with strong team were heavily fancied, the new kid on the block - one Cristiano Ronaldo (I wonder where he is now?), was expected to deliver, and although Greece had already defeated Portugal in the groups, the mix of youth and experience was trusted to shine through. However, Greece effectively defended with eight players guarding the box, infuriating Portugal. When the opportunity arose in the 57th minute, Greece countered, and with Greece's only shot on target, Angelos Charisteas (oh yes, him) converted. Against all odds, Greece lifted the 2004 edition of the Euros. Playing to their strengths and eliminating any threats opposition posed, they quite possibly pulled off the greatest footballing, or even sporting shock of all time.

Fazed by no-one. Greece celebrate.

Now, the 12 year cycle has come around again. Leicester City have already won the Premier League this year. Will the history book be torn apart again? Can another underdog upset the odds and lift the Euros? Northern Ireland? Albania? Unlikely, but who knows, from what's gone before in history no-one at all can be discounted. Who knows, we could even see Wayne Rooney himself lift European football's most prestigious cup. But then again, maybe not.

One thing is for sure though, expect the unexpected.

Euro 2016 begins with hosts France taking on Romania, 10th June, 8pm.

Follow me on Twitter: @DLster

  

International minnows and their place in the game

The beers are on ice. The wall chart is hung proudly, pen at the ready. The patriotic flags and bunting line the street. The Euros are coming. Optimism fills the air, this could be England's year. In reality we'll crash out in the knock outs again, but hey-ho.
On June 10th the tournament begins, showcasing the 24 best teams Europe has to offer, all in with a shot of lifting the prestigious trophy at the beginning of July. However, spare a thought for those who didn't make the cut; Netherlands - very much fancied in qualification - failed to qualify, less shockingly, the likes of San Marino, Andorra and a relatively new addition to the UEFA family - Gibraltar, failed to make it to France - new campaign, same outcome - thrashing after thrashing, demoralised by the powerhouses of the international scene. Seeing these results year after year makes you wonder, do these nations justify being featured on the international scene?
As a non-league football fan, of course if low and behold the humble Aylesbury FC reached the first round of the FA Cup and took on a Goliath of the football league it would be amazing for the fans and the club, and has the ability for momentum to be created for the rest of the domestic season, and most likely be a relatively competitive game - due to the grandeur of the occasion. However, the novelty has definitely worn off for the minnows of the international game, with pretty much any opposition posing a huge threat to the regularly exposed frailties of said national teams.

Gibraltar celebrate their first competitive goal against Scotland

Historically, the likes of Andorra and San Marino have always been renowned as the 'whipping boys' of groups, with squads made up of semi-professional players with the stereotypical jobs of builder and bin-man often amongst their ranks, yes, of course the players themselves must embrace the opportunities to take on their idols, and have the honour of representing their country, but in most cases the demoralisation of a crushing defeat is inevitable - and the statistics definitely don't lie, with Andorra and San Marino both conceding 36 goals in qualifying respectively, whilst Gibraltar, on their maiden venture in international qualification shipped 56 goals in 10 games (but I suppose what do you expect with a population of 30,000 and very little financial backing or resources). Yes, playing adorning your nations crest upon your chest must be a terrific feeling, but if you're going out expecting to be beaten by 4,5, 6 or more goals, is it really worth it? Yes, it's great for the fans - who doesn't love a goal, but for both the team giving the brutal thrashings and the team on the end of them, are international qualifiers becoming completely pointless with the vastly increasing chasm of quality ever growing? Managers, ex-pros and journalists alike seem to think so.
This issue isn't purely a European one, prior to the 2006 World Cup, Australia (now part of the Asian confederation), competed in the Oceania confederation - with Australia and New Zealand being the only nations offering any real footballing impetus, this was reflected by the infamous scoreline of 31-0, against American Samoa. Following what can only be described as a monumental trouncing, the OFC restructured their qualification system to mean that lesser nations still had the opportunities to compete and qualify for major tournaments, but not left red-faced by the likes of Australia on the majority of match days.
The question is; should this same system be implemented in Europe?
Personally, I don't see why it shouldn't. It has proven to be affective in all other confederations, with all using it bar South America - but with only 10 nations competing, it would be pretty unnecessary to implement it anyway. If a staggered qualification system was to be introduced, smaller nations would potentially become more competitive in the long run, as they have the opportunity to gain confidence, see more investment, and more importantly - win games, unlike in the current system.
Alternatively, the system could be altogether be restructured to omit those nations with the lowest UEFA co-efficients, and instead of the European championship qualifiers nations could participate in a different cup, again allowing the opportunity for competitive matches and a chance of silverware - but a huge reduction in ridiculous score lines.
However, on the other hand, in omitting nations, progress in the international football set up in these nations may not necessarily be made, as although games are likely to become much more competitive, the challenge of an experienced regimented international side against a said minnow, could be much more beneficial in developing a side, than if they were playing teams of their own standing. This is reinforced by the fact that although many critics believe European international football is a dying breed, and small nations are ruining the game, through adversity of small player pools, and lack of physical and financial resources, the underdogs of Europe are actually improving at a much quicker rate than the likes of England. Yes, the minnows aren't winning championships, but they're putting in better performances, and conceding far fewer goals (see graphic below).

Source: The Guardian (2014)

Furthermore, if the structure did change, some of the magical fairytale moments in European football history wouldn't have even existed - take Davide Gualtieri's goal for San Marino against England after 8 seconds as a prime example - still the fastest goal in World Cup qualification history - in any continent.

Davide Gualieri celebrates his goal against England in 1993

Fans and the players alike live for these kind of moments, they only come once in a blue moon. Yes, many will argue there is no place for these nations in football - after all in other sports not all nations get invited. But with time, teams wills improve, and minnows become bigger fish. As a man who loves the sport, I believe everyone has a right to inclusion. So stop critiquing, and just enjoy the goals.

Follow me on Twitter: @DLster