We live, yet we do not learn. In defeat, the same failings return to haunt
English football time and again. Panicking under pressure, limited in
thought and imagination, we are a football nation that has never grown up,
that has not aged a day in more than 40 years. We won a World Cup in 1966
and our evolution ceased that afternoon. Other countries have progressed,
developed, embraced ideas and innovations. England have one foot in the past
and, since Wednesday, another in the grave.
If November is to be Steve McClaren’s last month in charge of England, as
seems likely, his successor must be bolder in sweeping away the intellectual
dead wood, starting with the biggest lie of all. It concerns a set of
figures that are so ingrained on the national psyche that one England
manager even had them as part of his telephone number.
If the new man is to banish the three greatest myths in English football, the
revolution starts here.
Systematic abuse
You want the truth? You can’t handle the truth. England should have played
3-5-2 in Moscow on Wednesday, or at least should have been able to. Any
country worth its salt would have done, the moment Guus Hiddink’s team
became known, because then the match was made for it. If the new head coach
is to take our game forward, England’s players, world-class allegedly,
should next time be able to switch seamlessly to a way of operating that
would counter Hiddink’s tactics. Instead they stuck solidly to the game plan
that Hiddink’s team was designed to outwit and because we are a feeble
football nation intellectually and terrified of change, that played into his
hands.
As the inquest continues much is made in certain quarters of the impact of the
2-0 defeat in Croatia in October, when McClaren played three at the back.
Ignore this. The stance is self-serving and, long term, it will strand
English football in the position it is now: limited players, with limited
imagination, enjoying limited success and the occasional calamity. Small
minds will continue to insist that English players can operate only one way,
4-4-2, because it is cosy and safe and we are comfortable with it, but as it
has won nothing for us in four decades, might it not also be the problem?
The result that killed England’s campaign and left McClaren playing catchup
for a year was the 0-0 draw at home to the Former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia that immediately preceded the game in Zagreb. Had England won that
afternoon, even with defeats by Croatia and Russia, it would require only
another home victory next month to qualify. And the lineup against Macedonia
was 4-4-2, with a big man up front. The way, we are incessantly reminded,
English players prefer. Nothing against it, but it is one way of playing;
not the only way of playing.
Meanwhile, figure this. Hiddink arrives in Russia and in 12 months reinvents
the team so it is equally content with three, four or five at the back,
three, four or five in midfield and two or three up front. Does Russia have
better footballers than England? No. Does Russian football have greater
imagination? Clearly. Going back to basics is not the answer: going back to
basics is what we always do, and it seldom works.
We disregard the fact that England’s two best tournament performances since
1966 – both in terms of the stage of the competition reached and the quality
of the football played – came on the only occasions the man in charge has
moved away from our safe old style of play. Bobby Robson, in 1990, switched
between four and three at the back, and Terry Venables, in 1996, mirrored
the Dutch when it suited him. Even the much maligned Glenn Hoddle accepted a
world existed beyond our own. McClaren was announced as a man with a plan,
but after the battering England received in Zagreb – when in reality a
goalkeeping error, not the formation, cost England the game – he became
resistant to change. His best result, the 3-0 win at home against Russia,
was played using a 4-3-3 system with Shaun Wright-Phillips on the right and
Emile Heskey shuttling to the left. By the time England hit Moscow, however,
it was back to familiar patterns and Hiddink loved it. The Dutch developed
front-loaded systems as a way of countering the traditional shapes of the
English-influenced game and the more attack-oriented Russia became, the more
vulnerable England looked.
The next head coach cannot have just one way to skin a cat. International
coaches have a lot of thinking time and come up with clever things. If all
England have to offer is a blueprint that was patented in black and white,
we are going to be spending a great many summers in front of the television.
The old familiar places
Following directly on from England’s systematic abuse is a fear of the
unknown, even if that foreign land is a patch of turf 20 metres away. This
country does not produce footballers. It produces right backs, central
midfield players, centre halves. It has got to the stage where England’s
players are not just married to one position, they are married to one way of
operating in that position, and to specific teammates around them. Even more
incredibly, we indulge this.
So Steven Gerrard cannot play with Frank Lampard, Michael Owen can be used
only with a servant masquerading as his partner, and heaven forbid that we
should ask a left back to do what he does each week, just a little farther
up the field. For future reference, all English footballers should be made
to study the progress of Arsenal to the Champions League final in 2006;
specifically the performances of Mathieu Flamini.
Away to Real Madrid, against a team that had David Beckham on the right flank
and sometimes Robinho, too, Arsenal were missing Ashley Cole and Gaël
Clichy. Flamini had to play left back. He had a stormer and Arsenal won 1-0.
And after the game, Flamini was asked when he had last played that role.
Never, he said. What about for the youth team or reserves? No, he replied. Not
even at school. And yet he did it. And again in the home match. And over two
legs against Juventus; and then twice more versus Villarreal in the
semi-final. And Arsenal did not concede a goal in any of those games. And
that is because Flamini is a footballer, and footballers have the ability to
adapt to change. Unless one is English, of course, when it is about sticking
to your allotted space, with a game plan tailored to precisely your needs,
for it is unthinkable that you should even peer beyond your comfort zone.
It is a joke that we meekly accept Gerrard and Lampard as incompatible or that
Owen only thrives as a striker with a humble water carrier in support.
Standards of technical attainment are set depressingly low and still in this
campaign the team have failed to meet them. The new head coach must refuse
to accept one-dimensional Englishmen. There is nothing wrong in playing to
strength; unless that strength has become a weakness.
You can’t change a winning team
Oh yes you can. The best managers do it all the time. They never stand still.
And it is not changing, it is improving. Winning does not mean that
everything is right, no more than losing makes everything wrong. Yet on each
occasion when McClaren has won a game or enjoyed a good run, he acted as if
had found the secret of success and clung to it until an awkward truth was
revealed. So Peter Crouch, having scored against Andorra and Macedonia,
retained his place in the team for two matches too many, Macedonia at home
and Croatia away, when England never looked like scoring.
Paul Robinson has been an accident waiting to happen for more than a year now.
A bolder manager would have selected Scott Carson before now. Gerrard became
a fixture in central midfield on the back of a good second half against
Andorra and, after enjoying back-to-back wins at Wembley, McClaren was also
in thrall to the makeshift midfield that featured Wright-Phillips and Gareth
Barry. He paid the price in Moscow because England were overrun and also
missed a sitter. We will never know whether a midfield five to match
Hiddink’s formation would have made the difference, but no prizes for
guessing who José Mourinho would have had in the team. Here’s a clue: boo.
3-5-2 or 3-4-3, if they can't play the formation because they don't play it for their clubs - what the bloody hell are friendlies for?
We had no Terry, Carragher, Woodgate, King, Dawson against Russia - and STILL played four centre backs. How narrow do you want to play? Cole on the left isn't going to stay wide. Wright-Phillips knocking in crosses to the shortest frontline in history?? Playing deep and knocking long balls out from defence to....the shortest frontline in history??
Play three centre halves, say Terry, Ferdinand, Campbell, with A Cole/Bridge as left wing back, M Richards on the right. Hargreaves/Barry/Carrick holding, Gerrard and Lampard more forward (the reason they can't play together in a 4-man midfield is.... am I going forward or are you......ooops too late, chance gone) and pick two from Rooney/Owen/Crouch/Defoe/Heskey.
Easy to make a decision when your job isn't threatened by it. Spineless men thinking about possible payoff not possible success.
Richard Franklin, Bristol, England
That's right maybe you should. What you should also do is continue believing in your "winning" mentality whilst keeping all the rest of Europe entertained.
Sebastian, Milan, Italy
Chris O'Brien, Bristol, says "Dropping David Beckham, one of our few genuinely world class players, was certainly the biggest flaw of this qualifying campaign."
Beckham is a prime example of the problems with English football identified in this article. He is one-dimensional and predictable, and he lacks high-level tactical awareness and technical ability. The fact that he has been England's best player over the last 10 years rather says it all.
Laurence , Bristol,
Chris O'brien is right .Look at SWP.All pace and no end product.Why do you think Mourinho didn't rate him?
And Matt Nicholson,Samuel isn't biased,he just doesn't support your team.Lampard is a good example of an intelligent footballer unlike Gerrard who runs everywhere and leaves holes all over the place for the opposition to exploit.Don't believe me,ask his own manager who took him off against Everton!
Gwhinder, Burgess Hill, West Sussex
Sebastian, Milan, Italy.....you are right, maybe we should resort to cheating and diving like the Italians, they've produced a multitude of cheating football players that gel well into a ref-conning side capable of cheating it's way to any world cup final.....Italian football? YAWN
J Roberts, Manchester, UK
Richard from London: 40 european cup finals in the last 50 years?! What a ridiculous statistic! And who ever said the French were brilliant anyway?
For once, an englishman has the courage to admit what the limits of English football are and all you can say is that you were unlucky on 2 separate occasions.
What a perfect example of the unfounded egotistic mentality that appears to be predominant in your country. This is why you haven't won anything in over 40 years (btw, noone ever mentions the outrageous goal allowed on the final on that day in '66 ): sweet dreams, in your blissful ignorance. There's a reason why there isn't an English manager worthy of mention and why English bred players are in such low demand. Martin's effort in highlighting these reasons is one step in the right direction, but what good are his words if people aren't willing to listen?
Sebastian, Milan, Italy
Sticking the blame for England's paucity at the door of 4-4-2 is to ignore all other arguments. Samuel cites Arsenal's Flamini as an example of a modern player - a fair point perhaps (though some of us gooners would argue that MF just happened to be a better left back than central midfielder!) but if one looks at Arsenal, one should note how rigidly Wenger has stuck to 4-4-2. There have been occasional dalliances with 4-5-1 (the champions league campaign 2 years ago and occasional other big games) but largely Arsenal have stuck with 4-4-2 come hell or high water... Liverpool or Loughborough.
England's problems are many - greater among them than formation are playing square pegs in round holes, having an unreliable 'keeper, pampered egos and a poor manager.
What I object to in articles like this is blatant innacuracies to suit a theory, so let us get 1 thing straight - Heskey wasn't a left winger in a 4-3-3, but a striker in a 4-4-2 vs Russia. Watch the video if you disagree!
Behemoth, Camden,
the worst words in football in england are world class and god are thet over used, hargreaves was the only england player to return from the last world cup who had played up to international standerd and he only got into the team because
some one cried off. but he got his football coaching in germany
what does that tell you. but when it came time for the euro's to start the same failed muppets were picked again and guess what they were still world class
seamus, dublin, ireland
English league clubs have made forty European finals over the last fifty years. It is a better record than any other country despite the fact that Heysel cost them about ten years in all. The 'brilliant' French have only made seven it total.
Hiddink's brilliant tactics relied on Gerrard missing a sitter and a dodgy penalty. I make this Russian side only 50/50 to make the finals. As for Flamini playing at left back, could Owen really play at centre half or Joe Cole at left back?
England did not lose in 1970, 86, 90 or 96 because they were outplayed. It the last three tournament losses that have really stunk. They go one nil up and then defend like a championship side holding a slim lead in a cup game at Old Trafford. The players do not have the guts to win. Fear of losing far outweighs the desire to win.
Btw, what squad of players would cost the most on the transfer market, the German squad who are quite rightly favs to win euro 2008 or the current England squad?
Richard, London, England
Thanks Martin - you didn't mention Frank Lampard once.
David Dobbs, London,
For those who have never read Martin Samuel's work before, here is a brief summary. Pick Frank Lampard, Frank Lampard is great, all who boo the mighty Frank Lampard are jealous etc etc.
Matt Nicolson, London,
Martin...a gutsy article, lets expand it a little....fact , in the last world cup, Australia ( mostly championship level players ) were a better team than Italy and were robbed....watch the game. Why?.tactics and management !
for over 40 years now, I have passionately watched England perform at all levels, occasionally we have put in some briliant performances, a classic for me was the time we beat a good french team 5- 3 in spain....then went on to play a shocking defensive game agains Germany and had to beat Spain to qualify..........we did not and were out........why on gods earth did we not build on the confidence of the France game...? accidental result ?...no , i would sugest we retreated to a defensive stupid game, which we are not good at
England v Brazils ten men.totally predictable..we lost
England v Russia totally predictable .. we lost.
fact, we usually have good defenders, but are not a good team when defending ! we loose the plot! and cannot hold the ball
albert clayton, sydney, australia
Dropping David Beckham, one of our few genuinely world class players, was certainly the biggest flaw of this qualifying campaign. Forget his perceived lack of pace because it is largely irrelevant to his game, he is arguably the best crosser of the ball on the planet (as a certain Ruud Van Nistelrooy would no doubt testify), and one of the best deadball specialists the game has ever seen or is likely to see, despite the fact that goalkeepers have seen countless videos of his sublime set pieces. Why is pace emphasised so much in the English game? If a perfect, pinpoint cross can be delivered into the box without beating the man, why the indignation aimed at the lack of pace of the player? I'd rather see a dangerous, effective cross than 20 stepovers, a blistering run to the byline at the equivalence of 10 seconds in the 100m and no end product.
Chris O'Brien, Bristol,
The underlying truth behind Martin Samuel's article would have been just as applicable at the end of the reigns of both Graham Taylor and Kevin Keegan.
McClaren is a virtual clone of both of the above: an English coach of extremely limited techincal merit and competence who stumbled into the England job on the strength of his nationality rather than his ability to coach the 11 best English players at any given time to win a game.
If the FA are serious about moving forward - Jose, Gus, Phil, Lippi or Juande Ramos would be the obvious choices. Let's just hope the obsession to appoint another Englishman does ruin England's footballing chances for the 2010 World Cup.
Tate, Manchester, England
Last night before the big screen behind the Eiffel Tower, tens of thousands of English rugby fans died a slow, drunken death as France beat England 15 to 6
!! I would have preferred this but South Africa did better!
I think too much beer was drunk after the match in order too forget the defeat or ?
I can understand it, nevertheless all in all a good parcours for the 15 de la rose.
René.
belliot, Montmagny, France
FIFA rules now state that 12 of of 25 man squad will come through the club Academy system by the year 2012. As a result there is a scramble by the top clubs for talent sometimes as young as 5 or 6 years old. The likes of Chelsea, Arsenal, Charlton and Southampton have top class facilities with the latest in technology.
I've watched some FA Youth Cup preliminaries this season , some of the football from so-called amateur clubs has been breathtaking, so I don't believe the talent isn't out there.
We have a management mindset where the 90% of the team automatically picks itself. No fearless disaffected young players, the likes of John Barnes turning a Brazilian defence inside out in the early eighties. He got caught up in the system and never really produced again at that level.
As Sir Alf Ramsey famously said ''I pick the best team, not the best players''. Jack Charlton's Ireland team was a testament to that, a 'B' string squad that gelled and duly delivered.
B O'Leary, London,
Well mcclown was never first choice anyway but...you're right, there's too much emphasis on mastering a particular position or style of play rather than being able to adapt. Some of these problems can be traced back to grass roots level....kids are berated as 'showboaters' for trying to display creativity and the rigidity exists even there...for example, the other day i heard a teenager reminiscing about his footballing life, laughing at the fact that he never designated himself with a position until was ten...at which age he became a central-midfielder...kids should be left to develop their talents and have coaches tell THEM which position they play rather than the other way around
Euan McArthur, ulverston,
Martin Samuel is correct, especially when he says that England doesn't produce footballers. Didn't the Dutch do that once and we called it total football? However I also feel he is wrong when he says that going back to basics seldom works. One of the main reasons we fail against the better teams is because we can't keep the ball. We give it away far too easily and technically more accomplished teams (WHY are they more accomplished?)keep coming back at us and playing in our half, probing away until they find a weakness. Only v Argentina in '02 have we succeeded at that sort of game in recent years. In that respect I'm mystified. In the '90s Venables taught his players to pass to each other. Hoddle continued that. Now Venables is assistant coach but we seem to have forgotten how to pass the ball. Very odd. But to go back to Mr Samuel's point that we don't create footballers, surely it is no accident that the most accomplished team in recent years in Britain has been Wenger's Arsenal.
Martin Pooley, Lignieres Orgeres, France
We don't develop creative flair players and I think it´s because of the way they´ve been brought up. They´ve learned the hard physical game. They play´d alot of square and direct football. They are been criticised when they try to explore and develop their potential. It's the old "we are British and we do things our own way" thing.
Look at Ajax youth training for example EVERY player is teached many positions, for example Wesley Sneijder he can play defensive midfield, both flanks, attacking midfielde and as a striker.
Coaching throughout the English game needs massive changes.
Paul Brookings, London,
This MARTIN SAMUEL article has been long overdue and is RELEVANT even if England had beaten Hiddink's Russia. It is the overall look at how England approach each game that is the crux of English football for over 40 years.
I cannot think of anything else to think except that the English being "English" is too damn "English" to revolutionize their game. I really do feel that someone in the mould of Klinsmann is the only man that may affect a significant change. Not even Mourinho or Hiddink. Why? They are both TOO result-driven. Give Juergen Klinsmann carte blanche IF the FA dare; i.e. if the German maestro wants to.
S K Lin, HongKong,
You make some valid points but fail to identify the reasons for England's failures.
The answer is Youth Development. Not lack of money invested but the model and culture.
"Panicking under pressure, limited in thought and imagination"
"limited players"
We don't develop creative players who can keep possession in tight spaces because at youth level with do endless non-opposed technical drills instead of game-related situations where imagination, composure & technique can be honed.
"not just married to one position, they are married to one way of operating in that position"
Players are selected allotted positions in the 4-4-2 formation when they are very young. There is no opportunity to play in different positions & formations and to see a different picture. Hence technical & tactical abilities are very specific for a certain role.
By changing the manager we think the problem has been solved & move on but this is an illusion as we have not solved the underlying cause
D Reid, West Midlands, UK
There's no end to England's traditionally well known arrogance.
Well, so long, England! Hopefully, the next attempt for you to qualify for Euro 2012 will be more successful. :-)
Long live Scotland!
Long live Ireland!
greetings from Zagreb, Republic of Croatia, (the Central-East European country, for those who're not well informed, by putting it in the same pot with Bulgaria, Romania, even with Armenia, Turkey and so on...).
Proud to be Croat, Zagreb, D.C., Croatia
We had the wrong result against a team acknowledged as capable opposition - it was no disgrace. Hiddink has worked wonders with them - why else would they extend his contract (other than to keep the Barwick's from his door).
Against England at Wembley we were all surprised at how poor Russia were (despite scoring a perfectly good, but disallowed goal). Now I am not the biggest fan of Mac, but why would we dispense with his services now just as we have turned in our best set of results for a while, and just as the team has better shape as (by default) Mac has worked out what we all knew: a Gerrard & Lampard midfield just doesn't work. We should give him 5 friendlies (plenty of opposition will want to play us as prep on their way to the finals - and we will have a point to prove) to see if we really have got a winning team, and let him continue with the progress. If we change manager again who is to say we won't be back where we started when Svennis left.
Mike Hoyle, Newbury, UK
I agree when the article claims that the english football never improved.
The tactical side of the british football is pretty poor. In fact the best teams in the premier league are managed by foreigners.
The football saw the catenaccio, the total football, the total pressing and so on....england never took a note.
Arrogance, ignorance or what else?
Gaetano, Sorrento, Italia
England deserve to go out, its simple. People are moaning (Martin Samuel) that england should automatically go through. well, why? If we can;t beat the checks or the russians then we shouldn't qualify because they are the better teams!
Thomas Addison, Hartlepool, England
1-0 up with 45 minutes to go. An accomplished team of footballers would have passed their opponents to death playing a form of one/ two touch 5-a-side football. They would have put together passing sequences lasting 20 or so passes, they would have kept the ball ,used up time , they after all were playing on a plastic carpet not difficult to keep the ball rolling on. However what did we do ? none of the above, we hoiked the ball forward to try and get Owen and Rooney in over the top, we sent 40 yard diagonal balls to 2 wingers who played so wide that they were easy to mark. We gave away possesion and retreated to our 18 yard line and invited pressure onto us. We asked for it and we got it. As a group of players the only thing that makes our premiership so good is the foriegn contingent, without them we would be back to kick and rush because that's all the standard English player really understands.
Potter, norwich, england
That's right! England was never good at the freaking round ballgame. Even the 1966 win, was no win at all! Check it out! That was a rigged up farse to make sure the brits would not cry. The same bs that ran last year's that was hard a... trying to give the cup to germany.... the wheeling dealing caries on...
lualaba, bedford,
Buddy, why don't you wake up and smell the coffee. How do you figure that England is a world power in football if they cannot qualify over Croatia and Russia? Just face facts and admit that Croatia is a much better opponent. Player for player they have a better team and that's the truth.
As for just providing the already privileged football "powers" of Europe a free pass to the big tournaments you must be kidding yourself. Is it not bad enough that England is collecting FIFA world ranking points on the backs of Croatians, Brazilians, Argentinians and countless others thanks to their contributions to English clubs success in European competitions?
Here's a word of advice....get a life and more importantly stop being a sore LOSER.
Michael Jezerinac, Mississauga, Canada
If you can bear it , watch again the first few seconds of Russia-England from Wednesday and then tell me if McClaren is unlucky or just a twit with an English FA coaching badge.
The referee blew his whistle and Owen and Rooney kicked-off by passing the ball back to Gerrard;
Owen and Rooney immediately sprinted as fast as they could towards the Russian penalty box;
Meanwhile Micah Richards sprinted down the right wing until he was halfway inside the Russian half;
Gerrard hit one of those quintessentially English high, diagonal balls to the head of Micah Richards;
Richards headed the ball towards Owen and Rooney in the hopes of surprising the Russian defence;
The Russian defence easily cleared the headed ball - as all long balls to the England forward men are always easily cleared.
This is not football, it's choreography.
For even thinking of coaching this ludicrous set piece from the kick-off, McClaren should be sacked. Now! Along with the Middlesbrough reject coach Steve Round.
Adam, Pinner, Middx, UK
When Guus Hddink managed Australia, even someone like me could see that he thought in more dimensions than others. I really enjoyed reading the article because it isn't so often there is digging behind the superficialities. I can watch a game on the tv and have little idea what is going on beyond the fact that the ball goes here and there and occasionally ends up in the goal. I have a feeling that match commentary could be much improved.
Geoff, Sydney,
One of the previous posters hit the nail on the head.English football is full of hype,manufactured by the media,who end up believing their own words.When was England any good?What backs up the extraordinary claims made about the EPL being the best in the world?People are brainwashed by these claims,it has almost certainly got little to do with the multitude of managers the country has had over the years.
david sneck, bedford,
Great article. Write it again and again until people start listening and changing things in the English game.
Two points: I think the second part explains the first part. The reason why we can't be flexible in our formations is precisely because our players aren't taught to be flexible with tactics and positions and we can't change things as easily as other teams because our players aren't taught to think for themselves out on the pitch (read Gianluca Vialli's book if you don't believe me). It's not necessarily the manager's fault.
The second point relates to the above: the FA can't have got it consistently wrong for 40 years when appointing a manager. The problem is that the manager is working with inferior players at international level - players who no longer test themselves abroad because of the money here. If there is a problem with the English managers it is that they too are taught and coached in an inferior way. Why are English managers no longer in demand abroad?
Peter Reece, Parbold, Lancs, UK
Isn't it a bit unfair to keep blaming coach after coach? Couldn't it be that English players though revered on Saturday and Sunday afternnoons plying their trade in England, are not really as good as most commentators and sports fans think they are?
Andy Jones, Smiths, Bermuda
I think Sam Allardyce should be the automatic choice to satisfy
the ego of people like Peter from Birmigham who disregarded the ability of other top managers. An English man should be in charge of English Team until people realise that, English managers are permanently incapable of managing the national team. Why put people in charge of national team with no truck record because they are English? and when they fail you start moaning. There is a saying that you always reap what you sow, FA sowed in an English man and those are the rewards of bowing to pressure of appointing him. Let them appoint another one, its the people's choice again, but do not expect any sympathy from independent observers and analysts when he fails.
Charles, LONDON, u.k
England didn't lose on Wednesday simply becuase they played 4-4-2. One of the main reasons they lost was that they missed Owen Hargreaves - a ball winner, someone who breaks up the opposition play and then does the (unpopular thing) of playing the ball simple. We missed him more than any other player. He is almost unique in the English game. Barry has played well for England, but against the better opposition (Russia at home are a totally different to Russia away) he was exposed.
I do believe Engand need to be more flexible in games and how they change the tactics and formations but that's down to the manager. The manager must have prepared properly for any senario (leading, drawing or losing at any point in the game). Someone like Hiddink would have had more idea than McClaren. McClaren didn't change the formation until 10 mins to go!
I think 3-5-2 is a dated formation that relies far too heavily on wing backs, who are, more often than not, out of position. Trying playing it.
Andimc, S Yorks, UK
Great article. Samuel, erudite as ever. Vintage stuff.
I think that the only player who can play anywhere on the park is Rooney. Sure he gave away the penalty that wasn't, but where was Lescott - sucked back into central defence again?
If more players had Rooney's ability and flexibility, the team would be more fluid and interchangeable. Rooney isn't given a "licence to roam", he's just "a footballer" which means he can play football comfortably at his feet anywhere on the pitch.
Rooney is exceptional. But part of that is because those around him aren't.
Hannam, St Albans,
Once again, right on the money Mr Samuel. I couldn't agree more with your brutal assessment of the current plight of English football. To be so inflexible regarding positions and formations is really quite ridiculous. Maybe part of that problem is that so many English footballers are one-footed. This could be as a result of, as you say, being programmed to only being able to play in one position. However, to move onwards and upwards we need someone at the helm who is open-minded and willing to gamble but unfortunately, the FA will never appoint someone with any testicular fortitude in case they do something radical, like using coloured crayons. Goran, from Zagreb, states that England only had one shot in that game. Yes, we were poor, but that was because McLaren decided to correctly change the formation but unfortunately did not place the right personnel in the right positions. Another puppet, a yes man who was never first choice. Is Mike Bassett available?
Dean Clay, North Shields, Tyne and Wear
I couldn't agree more with you, I believe England as a footballing nation have remained predictable and easy to outwit. It seems to me that it begins in the academies and at the league level...one can fairly assume how english clubs are going to line up, week in week out, other than the influx of foreign managers and Allardyce at Bolton the formation is always 4-4-2. I absolutely believe England needs a manager that will stand up to the press & the players & say I don't care what your used to or how much money you earn each week. I'm the new boss & your going to play my way. I suggest Lippi, Mourinho or Capello. Italy always as a bad reputation for defensive football, but it is far from the truth!!! we normally play 4-3-1-2 or 4-2-3-1 or even at the last euro we used 3-4-1-2 ..... we haven't played "catenaccio" since the 1960's... Arrigo Sacchi played with a very high defence and free flowing football...If Lippi takes over for England i think he wins a Euro or a World Cup
Carmelo Gabriele, St.Louis, Missouri, USA
A superb article, totally correct. My frustration grows as we insist on being the dinosaurs of world football. Change is also needed in youth football, starting at Primary school.
Glenn Beckett, Sydney, Australia
I have to totally agree with your points raised, on the technical inadequacies and lack of positional adaptability in English players. These problems have been blatantly obvious for years.
The retention of possession in club football in Europe has also been an issue. (Pre Wenger, Benitez and Mourinho). This can still be seen in the Uefa Cup in recent years involving Everton, Bolton, Blackburn, Newcastle and Spurs, in which so called inferior teams with fewer resources, have shown greater ability in retaining possession and tactical awareness.
Technical inadequacies mean teams struggle to retain possession, which is crucial on relieving pressure on the defence and building "meaningful" attacks. (Hoofing the ball to Crouch not Inc)
Our reliance on 4-4-2 is farcical given that our best left winger is right footed, and that our main strikers are not very good in the air so that negates the need for numerous crosses.
Phil, Newcastle,
Hiddink had been in charge of Australia for a very short time when we had to play off against Uruguay in 2005.
In the return leg in Sydney we started off with 4 at the back and after 20 minutes were able to switch seamlessly to 3 at the back.
It shouldn't be that difficult.
Grizetti, Sydney,
I wholeheartedly agree with everything you've said. You only need to see what Hiddink achieved with Australia and how far backwards Australia have gone since his departure. I don't know what he gives the players because he looks as though he can be tough and ruthless but his teams play with a real freedom and trust in each other to do a job.
John Valiotis, Melbourne, Australia
Martin, you keep refering in quite a few of you articles that England only lost in Croatia because of a goalkeeping error. May I remind you that Croatia had 18 shots compared to England's 1 in that game and could have been out of site by half time if it wasn't for Paul Robinson. Just because Slaven Bilic was nice for the British media in saying that England played well he was totally different in his thinking when speaking to the Croatian press. His exact words were " England were completely outclassed tonight".
Goran, Zagreb, Croatia