The End of an Era for English Football

We have witnessed England’s Golden Failed Generation

"I've been brought up over the last few years believing this was the golden generation. If this is the golden generation, the sooner we move away from the gold standard the better." 
Lord Mawhinney, Chairman of the Football League, 2007 After England’s failure to reach the 2008 European championships

The summer of 2013 witnesses a significant end to the careers of some legendary players across Europe; Trezeguet, Ballack, Inzaghi and Shevchenko to name a few. And England will be saying farewell to a few of their own who have dominated domestically and nationally for the past 15-20 years. Paul Scholes, David Beckham, Michael Owen and Jamie Carragher are all retiring this summer. And with the imminent careers of others like John Terry, Frank Lampard, Rio Ferdinand, Ashley Cole and Steven Gerrard coming to an end also, it is fair to say that England's "Golden Generation" is coming to an end. 

As these players end their careers will they will look back on their international careers with regret? Yes it has been quite a decade for English football. Not since the late 1970’s and early 1980’s when Liverpool, Nottingham Forest and Aston Villa were lifting the European Cup six years in a row were English clubs been so assertive in European competition. Since 2005 there has been an English side in the Champions League final except for only one year. And those seven finals English sides have lifted the trophy three times. 

The power, strength and intensity of the English was too much for many across Europe. This gave the English media and fans a belief that they were superior to the rest. It led the media to portray English sides as Europe's strongest and continually made out the English league to be the best. Yet While English side were lifting European cups our media was attempting to make this out to be a success for England. The truth is slightly different. Yes, Liverpool, Arsenal, Man United and Chelsea are all English clubs, yet none of them was managed by an English coach this past decade and the teams were made up more of foreign players than English ones. 

The Premier League’s “success” has confused and tricked many into believing that because English teams are performing well in European competition, then this means our national team is great also. Yet since the league’s inception in 1993, the English national team has only gone beyond the quarter-finals of a major tournament once, on home-soil in 1996. Unfortunately England's national team has been shown up for what it truly is.

The Golden Generation

It was the FA who coined the phrase "Golden Generation" around 2000, perhaps as a way to justify their work. Yet as the failings of that generation showed, England had not developed players capable of competing on the top level. The unfortunate truth was that England had a crisis in the development of players capable of playing and succeeding in the modern game. 

After Graham Taylor left in 1994 England had a chance to evolve and modernise their approach. Firstly Venables took England a whisker away from the final in 1996 and after him came Glenn Hoddle. Both coaches were more progressive and modern in their approach to the national team, Hoddle knew first hand what England’s rigidity and failed style of play meant to a player with creativity and skill inherited a team which was full of talented players. 

Both knew the 4-4-2 was a dying formation as he had been a player who had suffered personally from its rigidity and limitations. As Hoddle says “When I played for England it was in a 4-4-2 and I chased the ball quite a lot in the 1980s - that's why I've never really played the formation as a manager at international level.”

Hoddle was the youngest England manager in history and after being aware of the drawbacks of the past decades he sought to change England’s style. “ I was trying to change the English way of playing, after 10 years of personally chasing shadows in midfield, where we were outnumbered, I wanted to play 3-5-2, giving us three in midfield and still two in attack.”

A 3-5-2 formation was revolutionary for English football and perhaps it could have been successful had England not gone down to 10 men against Argentina in the 1998 World Cup. Even with a player less England got to those dreaded penalties once again they lost.

Unfortunately for England Hoddle would damage his reputation with his interview in The Times in the January of 1999, an interview which would make his position as England manager untenable. And in February 1999 he was sacked. For English football it was disappointment because in Hoddle England had shown progression and change to the modern game. An overloaded midfield with players such as Paul Scholes in the team to control and dictate the game had given the team a new dimension to their previous rigid and functional 4-4-2.

All that potential and promise would be ruined in the following years. Kevin Keegan would oversee a horrible European Championship in 2000 after reverting back to a functional 4-4-2. England went back to being overloaded in midfield by sides like Portugal and Romania. Beckham and McManaman, who both had more ability than being just orthodox ‘wingers’ were restricted in their wide roles and Scholes and Ince were overran in midfield. A strikeforce of Shearer and Owen were isolated and England were made once again ‘chase shadows’.

The failed 4-4-2

During the ‘Golden Generation’ there was the constant dilemma for each manager of how to fit players such as Paul Scholes, Joe Cole, David Beckham, Frank Lampard and Steven Gerrard into the team. This problem caused England many problems in terms of balance and effectiveness. This was a time when England were in the midst of producing some very creative midfielders, yet they were denied the chance to express and showcase their talents in the default 4-4-2 formation. Amazingly under Keegan and then Erikssonthere was never a consideration to change the style to accommodate these players more effectively. 

Frankly the 4-4-2 is a system which does not account for changes in the modern game or importantly has not allowed to fit top players into the team. It is therefore no surprise that when England have encountered a good side, they have ultimately lost. 

At that time in the early 2000's the Spanish national team and sides like Valencia under Rafa Benitez were deploying a 4-2-3-1 system. It was proving to be a very successful style of play which allowed greater defensive cover and the ability for sides to play 'between the lines'. It was not dissimilar to the Brazil formation and style which had a back four with two attacking wing backs, supported by a two man central midfield partnership with four attacking players given licence to roam and create. 

Even English football was moving away from the 4-4-2. They had begun to see the problems with the 4-4-2, especially in Europe. Manchester United and their manager Alex Ferguson had learnt that by 2000 the 4-4-2 had become outdated in European competition and that a move to something more akin to a 4-2-3-1 was necessary. The arrival of coaches like Benitez, Ranieri, Wenger and Mourinho meant English sides began to play a more European style of football in a 4-2-3-1 or 4-3-3. 

Thus, England's top sides, none of them managed by an English coach, were playing a style more conducive to the modern game. The irony was that playing for England  became 'foreign' for English players. It is this issue of the formation has been a key factor in why the past decade has seen England fail to compete with the best in world football.

Enter a Swedish pragmatist

From 2002 – 2006 the talent of the team was evident. Yet whenever they faced a team on a similar level; whether Brazil or Portugal, the team's failings were underpinned by their tactical naivety. Yet it was the issue of formation which affected England again. Under Eriksson England consistently went for the basic 4-4-2 which meant that the chosen dynamic central midfield pairing most often of Gerrard and Lampard was continually undermined by a lack of tactical awareness, which in turn often exposed the formidable central defensive partnership. 

During this ‘Golden’ period England possessed a group of players crying out for a 4-2-3-1 system. It would have allowed more freedom, more expression and allowed England to overload the midfield and seek to actually dominate games. Yet this was not the thinking of the English FA. Still, after decades of failure they had chosen a manager in Eriksson who was more ‘English’ than either Venables or Hoddle.

When looking at his development as a coach there is no surprise why the English FA chose him to lead the England national team; Eriksson chose to use the 4-4-2 because he was steeped in the English pragmatism. Whereas many anticipated that Eriksson would bring a European style to the side, in fact they were getting a man whose career had been built on the rigid 4-4-2 learnt from the disciples of Allen Wade!

Under Eriksson England continued to play the 4-4-2. It was not even a 4-4-1-1. The reliance on the 'big man, little striker' combination in Heskey and Owen was particularly embarrassing when the famed number 10 in players like Del Piero, Zidane and Rivaldo who were dominating world football at the turn of the century.

Eriksson’s 4-4-2 was proven a failure time and time again. One can only imagine how a little tactical ingenuity could have made England a better side, allowing England the opportunity to find places for some of their most talented players. Instead it meant players like Scholes would struggle to find a role in the team. 

The crime of the past decade

When Paul Scholes played in the Champions League final in 2011 both Xavi and Iniesta were desperate for his shirt. For them Paul Scholes was their inspiration. The best two midfielders of their generation grew up watching Paul Scholes, they were instructed at La Masia to learn from this English maestro. Yet Scholes would retire from English football in 2004 after just 66 caps. Why did a player like Scholes, with so much class have to retire so young? His reasons were simple; he was not used effectively, especially under Eriksson.  Playing Scholes on the left side of midfield reduced his influence.

One of the greatest midfielders that England has produced, like Hoddle, had been very much undervalued for England, especially under Eriksson. His failure to find a formation which suited his players rather than attempt to fit them into a rigid 4-4-2 alienated players, restricted their role and ultimately cost England success. 

Xavi believes that “In the last 15 to 20 years the best central midfielder that I have seen — the most complete — is Scholes. If he had been Spanish then maybe he would have been valued more." Now Xavi is a great example of a player who shows what could have been had Scholes been used as the focal point of the team. Spain found a system which suited Xavi and Iniesta and which has seen them dominate world football. As with everything hindsight is a great thing, yet England suffered because it could not find a way to get the best out its quality players.

And when people talk of the ‘Golden Generation’ Michael Carrick is never mentioned. It is not surprising considering he has only played 27 caps for England. His debut for England came in 2001 and yet he has never been a fixture in England’s squad for over a decade. But since 2006 he has been playing for one of the world’s best sides winning league titles and Champions Leagues.

When Ferguson tried to modernise his team and style in the early 2000’s he struggled for a few years as he could not find the key player in his midfield to supply balls to the forwards. Juan Veron was bought in yet could not adapt to the English game. Yet in 2006 Ferguson found the missing piece in the development of his new generation. Carrick’s vision, passing and movement became invaluable for the side and his arrival would spark years of success for Manchester United.

Is it not amazing that one of the world's best managers has used Carrick as his main midfielder in what has been one of United's most successful periods, yet he is deemed not good enough for England? 

It is clear that Carrick has been overlooked because he does not suit the English culture; he is not the type of player to which England are used to, like Hoddle he is cultured, balanced and above all disciplined. You don't see Carrick tearing all over the pitch, you don't see him irate at players and officials. He is a true professional and one who must be a great player to have in your side.

If Carrick was Italian, Spanish or German, he would be in their sides; he resembles Pirlo, Alonso and Schweinsteiger, players on who English fans lavish so much praise and long for yet are naive and ignorant to not see that for the past several decades England has possessed these players, yet did not see that the formation and style did not and could not accommodate them.

Imagine what could have been had Carrick being the hub of England's midfield, supplying the attack and staying disciplined in his position, thus providing balance for the whole side.  Imagine if England's midfield had been a 4-2-3-1 with Carrick controlling the game. It is such a shame that ex-managers, fans and the media have been ignorant to a player like Carrick, unaware that he could have offered England a genuine chance of success, because his style suits the continental and international game. 

A failed vision laid down

The "Golden Generation" were let down by English football’s failings built on the philosophy of Charles Hughes. Hughes' philosophy laid down foundations which would be to the detriment of English football. The failure to develop coaches who would teach their players to be comfortable on the ball, to keep possession instead of valuing direct football and physicality has been the English FA’s ‘legacy.

The English style of quick tempo, high pressure football was always counter-productive. And the English national team constant failures in major tournaments has been because of their technical deficiencies to retain possession for any substantial amount of time. Major tournaments which were often staged in hot climates during the summer rendered England’s style futile. It was near impossible to maintain a high tempo. 

A focus too on physicality and hard work over skill and creativity has reduced the quality of English players which has seen an influx in more talented foreign players. English clubs see more talent abroad than at home, a problem which has increased these past decades due to poor planning and ideas of the English FA. 

Players like Scholes and Carrick do not portray the 'English values' of high tempo, direct players. These players however were necessary for international football as the game is more controlled and balanced. Discipline is the key to being successful.

The neglect of players like Carrick and Scholes has meant that players who are more arguably suited to international football have been isolated as the manager cannot 'fit' them into the rigid 4-4-2.  

The end of the golden generation

Each tournament was supposed to be “the one”. The one where it all clicks together and our world class stars perform to the level that they do in the Premier League week in week out. Have we finally learnt our lessons and put the “Golden Generation”  behind us? Have we accepted that we may have made a slight exaggeration about the quality of our players? 

Players like Terry, Ferdinand, Campbell, Ashley Cole, Frank Lampard, Gerrard, Rooney, Owen and Beckham were the stars who would take England to greatness. Yet time and time they have failed on the big stage. 

However to point blame just at this “Golden Generation” would be an indication that English sides before them achieved anything of note. It has been almost 50 years since England lifted the World Cup in 1966 and in that time very little progress has truly being made.

The reasons why England fail are discussed vehemently after each tournament, fingers are pointed and questions are asked. Yet those questions have never truly being answered satisfactorily. The same outcome is happening time and time again. The same questions keep being asked and yet nothing is being done to address the issues. English football has been suffering for decades and time and time again we have been guilty of failing to learn from our mistakes.

The failure to plan for the long term has been England's failing. Each tournament has been built up to be the one where success is destined to come. Yet it has meant that the team has failed to evolve, young players have not been developed sufficiently and while other nations have evolved, England has effectively stood still.

And now have been left with a new generation who lack the necessary qualities and experience needed for top level football. The sad fact is that our reliance on a generation which has won nothing has resulted in a future which lacks depth and experience.

In England we have relied on the same players time and time again. 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 surroundings  Looking at the new generation it is worrying to see such lack of experience and caps. 

A foreign influx

And as the Premier League machine has become richer and bigger so too have clubs become more reliant on foreign players. It has all become about money. The need to further revenues has seen an over reliance on foreign talent to help teams to win trophies and maintain their status in the world’s greatest league. It has led to the dearth of home grown talent. Short term success has reduced the investment and opportunity in youth and home grown talent being developed. 

How long can England can preserve the illusion that it is a major footballing playing country unless its national team starts winning or at least challenging in major competitions? The Premier League has simply increased the gap between England’s national team and the other top nations.

While there are no rules limiting how many foreign players play for a team, clubs will seek to recruit the best talent around. If English players aren’t the best then the questions should be asked as to why. The Premier League has become the world’s richest league at the expense of the development and improvement of the England national team. 

With the immense money in the English game, England’s decade of dominance has being built on the quality of foreign imports over the development of their own talent. This has applied both to players and to managers.  And yet the other issue is that quite simply they need to play more when they become professional. 

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. This 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 logic.

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.Now the "Golden Generation" is coming to an end it is essential to give the new generation of players the required caps and experience to develop. 

Once again England has been caught lagging behind the top nations. While they were investing in the future we were still clinging onto the present. A failure to evolve the national team because of a reliance on a select group of players has resulted in a present which was a failure and a future which looks unsure. 

Bad decisions, archaic formations and philosophies and above all a media who have over-hyped the national team has led to a much failed generation more than a golden one. 

This article has taken extracts from the upcoming book from Matt Whitehouse, editor of The Whitehouse Address on English football's failings. If you would like to know more about the book please contact at thewhitehouseaddress@gmail.com

The Whitehouse Address @The_W_Address