There is a rather large problem permeating the Football Association. Ignoring the fact that they have appointed a man who is publicly known to be their second choice as manager, there is a bigger problem that not only faces this generation of English footballers, the self-anointed “golden generation”, but if the problem isn’t addressed, also the next two or three generations to come. The problem is, that for all the F.A.’s demands that England should be the best in the world, there has been very little of anything to suggest that the F.A. has the ambition to match these statements.

Whilst countries such as Holland, Italy, Brazil, Croatia and even Ireland have taken the bold steps of appointing untested ex-players as national team mangers, England still fall foul of the age old conservativeness that has so long affected the picking of the team.

The media will say that the pressure will be too great on someone who is inexperienced, then immediately jack up the pressure on the manager, causing a vicious cycle that is unlikely to be broken unless the F.A. can come to some sort of agreement with the various media outlets regarding the England team. In reality, there is more chance of Jose Mourinho being humble in defeat and gracious in victory than the English media taking it easy on the national team manager.

On paper, what makes Marco Van Basten or Dunga more qualified than, say, Tony Adams or Alan Shearer to manage a national side? Admittedly, there may possibly be a pool of more talented players, but good managers will be able to extract the best from whatever they have available. A player who had stepped over the white line for his country would immediately earn respect from his charges, would understand how managerial decisions can affect team morale, and generally empathise with the rigours of international football. The press would have to understand that an untested manager is likely to make mistakes, although this is unlikely to make them take a step back from their incessant quest to sell papers.

The fear of non-qualification forces the F.A. into increasingly middle of the road decisions that do not move the game forward in any way. A horrific display in a World Cup or European Championships is quickly glossed over by a few easy wins in qualification for the tournament proceeding, whilst figures central to England will continue to eulogise about under-performing players.

After the clumsy approaches to Scolari and Hiddink, and the fiasco surrounding McClaren’s appointment, who is appointed second in command to England’s manager? A bright, young, up and coming manager from the lower leagues, who would gain valuable experience that would stand him in good stead for a Premiership job? Or a recently retired player, still with the passion for the game and keen to learn the managerial trade? No, instead Terry Venables is allowed a way back in to the England set-up. Many people may crow about what Venables did for England, but what exactly was that? He took England to the semi-finals of a competition that we were by far the best team in, didn’t have to qualify for, and played every game at home. People look back on Venables’ reign with Euro ’96-tinted glasses, and forget the “Christmas Tree” experiment and the ugly fallout from his business dealings that also tainted his time at Spurs.

Those who had insight into Eriksson’s reign have commented that whilst Sven picked the XI, it was McClaren who was in charge of things on the training ground. Many people have commented that McClaren will be able to mark out his own style of football with England, but one has to ask, if the tactics and set up in the World Cup were so wrong, why didn’t McClaren speak up? And if he has been living in someone else’s shadow for five years, why the need for an overseer of sorts in Venables? If England fail, Venables will emerge entirely unscathed from his “advisors” role, as surely McClaren picks the team, and if they are successful, how much of this will attributed to Venables’ input?

Far be it from me to be cynical, but I would wager that had Sir Bobby Robson not already been promised to the Republic of Ireland, he would be “advising” Steve McClaren rather than Steve Staunton.
Not content with holding back the national side, the committees and boards at the top of our game also have many crossover members involved with league clubs, which, in turn, is having a negative effect on the English leagues.

The Premiership is always being touted as “the best league in the world” and many players who come to ply their trade in England comment on the speed of the game. However, this is usually the reason given for uninspired managerial appointments; they are unfamiliar with the league, the style of play, etc. Isn’t every manager unfamiliar with the style of play until they try it? Whenever a managerial position becomes available, it is always the same list of names that are linked with the job, and that list isn’t particularly long. Imagine if you will, the best team in the world, who have completely dominated the game for more than a decade, appointing a completely untested player-manager to take over the reins. Liverpool did just that with Kenny Dalglish in the 80’s. In today’s game, Rafael Benitez’s appointment as manager was seen as a gamble. A gamble on a manager who wrested the La Liga title away from Barcelona and Madrid, and won the UEFA cup the season prior?

It is a small wonder that Chris Coleman has lasted as long as he has. Although his appointment was, I suspect, more to do with the fact that no one wanted to work under Al-Fayed, as well as the fact Coleman came cheap, rather than a masterstroke decision. He has, however, kept Fulham in the Premiership, which is surely all that was asked of him. (I often hear Fulham fans claims that they cannot get relegated because they are a Premiership club and as such deserve a place there; sorry, but you were no better than an average third division side ten years ago, it was money that got you there, nothing else. Enough of my League One-mired envy, though.)

The only ambition remaining in club football is that of those in the Coke Party League Championship Division to get into the Premiership. Once they have attained the footballing equivalent of nirvana, the only ambition remaining is to stay there. And in the case of most teams promoted, that means aiming for 4th bottom. There are a few Premiership teams harbouring ambition, but again, most of them are aiming for non-relegation, while a select few reach for the stars and try to sneak in the UEFA Cup back door due to a Champions League qualifier winning one of the two cups.

Many people will trot out the old line about there being too much money in football nowadays, making it harder for the smaller clubs to gain success. Taking a look at the Premiership table as it stands now suggests different. Sam Allardyce’s wheeler-dealing ways at Bolton may or may not be the result of shady dealings, but even the most blinkered of Spurs fans wouldn’t say that Arsene Wenger has been a big spender during his time at Arsenal.
The lack of ambition filters down through not only the clubs, but also to the players as well. Why is it, that despite being touted as the best league in the world, you can count the number of top-class English players plying their trade abroad on one diamond ring laden finger? (As he started his career abroad I don’t include Owen Hargreaves in this).

Is it because the wages in England are disproportionately higher than the rest of Europe? The very fact that playing abroad means you escape the attentions of the taxman must suggest that this is not the case in the majority of English clubs, so there must be another reason.

Perhaps it is easier for a player who is already a star to continue living and playing in England? Those that bemoan the lack of privacy from the media at the very top of the game would suggest that this isn’t the problem.
There is, of course, the age-old problem that Englishmen abroad have had throughout the years, that being the language barrier, but surely, if the next step of your career required learning another language, any ambitious person would take that step. I understand that it can be hard for a family to settle in foreign climes, but does this not happen every day, all over the world? Families are often uprooted due to work commitments, and surely those with such a disposable income as a footballer would make the transition all the easier?

There is, I think, another reason that many English players do not move abroad, and it comes down again to the culture of fear of failure. If a player leaves a club where he has been successful to move abroad, he may struggle in his new environment. If a player is less than successful, his stock here in England will fall, meaning that if and when he returns home, he will have to join a club that is possibly smaller or less successful than the one he was originally playing for, and be marked with the “flop” tag. Michael Owen is a good example of this.

There is another argument put forward that you cannot get into the England team if you play outside the Premiership. In these days of global scouting networks, that argument can be ignored completely. Imagine if you removed all of the foreign players playing in the Premiership from their respective national sides? The only nations that probably would not suffer too badly are Spain and Italy. Spain have just a good a track record as England when it comes to major championships, although a far superior European club record is more to do with Real Madrid, and despite their World Cup triumph, we all know what happened in Italy with Moggi and his cohorts. Although perhaps, if that is what ambition drives people to do, we should be glad of an insipid F.A.