The Way Forward | The Acceptance of Mediocrity

Now the dust has truly settled on England’s World Cup campaign, with the knockout stages over and a two day break (allowing people to return to some sort of normality for a little while), it felt relevant to address the issues of the tournament for England and look ahead at what is required moving forwards. 

Many didn't think England would progress from the group. When the draw was made most felt we wouldn't progress. Yet as the tournament grew closer the optimism grew and the feeling that England's young and energetic side could do something of worth. After two games it was over. It was a grand disappointment, questions needed to be asked and actions taken. And yet...there has been little said or written. It has almost become accepted, that this was not a disappointment but a simple confirmation of our standing in the game today. This should not be the case. We shouldn't accept what we saw. People should be held accountable. 

A wasted opportunity

After the Italy game there was a sense of positivity about the style of the performance, about the exuberance in which England played (albeit mainly in those first 25 minutes). It was confident, aggressive and positive attacking football. Hodgson had seemingly asked his young attacking players to play with confidence and no fear. 

And yet as the game went on the same old issues arose; a lack of defensive intelligence and organisation, rushed passes and crosses, poor decision making. England had looked fresh and brave at the start, yet ended the game looking the same as we have seen before; defeated and severely lacking in ideas. 

Uruguay was worse, although there were some close chances to take the lead England played a naive game. People put it down to ‘small margins’, but the truth was Suarez took his chances, while Rooney didn't. Inches. However the truth was England looked average. Elimination from the group was justified. 

It was the final game where the problems really surfaced, not so much in the game, there were some good moments of play from players like Barkley, Lallana and Wilshere which setup some great chances from the disappointingly profligate Sturridge. Yet it was what Hodgson said post-game which was the most concerning aspect. 

Accepting mediocrity

Hodgson had been a mumbling wreck post-Uruguay, knowing that this would be the worst performance of an England side at a World Cup since the 50’s and aware of the aftermath from the media. He had balanced the Rooney issue, knowing that dropping him would have the media licking their lips. He went with a 'Liverpool approach' knowing that they had become something of a favourite for the media and fans in the season and somehow (sub)consciously favouring the club which he failed so miserably at. Yet he didn't play the Rodgers way, he didn't really play in any way. And that was the problem. 

In what was supposed to be a new era for English football, it looked eerily similar, perhaps even worse. Naïve, inexperienced, tactically poor, disorganised and mentally weak…all these could be thrown at England. And therefore at their coach. But it was what he said Post Costa Rica he said;

“We can take a lot of positives. Apart from first the ten to 12 minutes, we dominated totally. We didn’t take our goal chances – if we did we would have comfortably won. We created the chances and that’s important. I thought we were really unlucky not to win this game. I thought the whole back four was absolutely excellent. We restricted the team to almost no chances. In midfield we dominated and outplayed them.”

Far too often in this tournament Hodgson could be heard to say the words ‘unlucky’ and ‘hope’, words which brought out a mentality of fear and negativity in his approach. It was as though he had little confidence in his players, scared of what defeat would bring, and it reflected in their performances. 

And on top of that there was this worrying affirmation of mediocrity, “we dominated” being his most common used phrase. According to Hodgson England dominated Italy, Uruguay and Costa Rica…incredible! We only managed 1 point! Something tells me that Hodgson’s definition of ‘dominate’ is different to others. 

When you put ‘dominate’ and ‘unlucky’ into the same sentence you make out that you were all over your opponents but just couldn’t score. That wasn’t really the case. England in all three games were poor. For Hodgson to make out that we played well highlights a serious concern with his management of the side. Simply put, his standards are not high enough, his demands on the players are not good enough and he is and has accepted poor standards as ‘good’. 

Acceptance of mediocrity is a serious problem across all levels of the game in England where good or average is commended as being great. “Well done” is too often said for the simplest of tasks. Even given to the player who boots the ball out or who finds a 5 yard pass to his teammates. Evidently it is a cultural thing, an inclusive nature which commends everyone for ‘trying their best’ (just look at what sports day has become!). 

We appear to look dis-favourably on elite performance and achievement, especially in football. This idea of accepting mediocrity at elite level is a reason why our national team has not achieved anything, we don’t realise what it truly takes to be a winner. This is not true of our Olympians or cyclists, or our Rugby side. These are environments of high quality and high standards. 

Simply put success and winning comes down to extreme levels of hard work, dedication and high standards. One only has to look at the values and principles of Alex Ferguson to understand what is needed to succeed in football. Along with Jose Mourinho these men have been consistent winners as coaches and leaders of men; they expect a lot from their players and instil in them a sense of belief and drive which makes them winners. Simply put, they do not accept mediocre standards. 

Unfortunately our England manager accepts mediocrity, as evidenced by his acceptance of a 1 point, bottom of the group finish, calling it a good performance, saying we dominated games. On top of this he looks at his own performance as ‘acceptable’, because surely a noble man would have resigned based on his teams performance, like Prandelli and many others have done. Yet pride takes a back seat when you would be walking away from the second highest wage of the 32 national coaches (no surprise Capello is loathe to resign from his lucrative contract also).

The non-existent project

In the coming weeks we will hear Hodgson talk about developing the ‘project’, he has already spoke about it as a way of justifying and keeping hold of his job. Yet what is this 'project'? Because apparently this is why he can't quit. Incredible. This is his second tournament now, personally I am of the opinion that a national manager should only have two tournaments and then they are replaced, with the hope that there is a continuation of the project/philosophy and not a complete overhaul. Del Bosque has shown the error of continuation. A change helps stimulate, brings a new approach, dimension and voice. 

Yet in terms of this project I don't see it. Since Hodgson’s appointment in 2012 to now I fail to see a coherent project being formulated. In 2012 he arrived late and stuck to his 442 defensive principles and scraped through the group. Was his goal to build a counter-attack type approach a la Germany, build the defensive foundations first? Post tournament you expected to see a something of a continuation of this style, a time to usher in this new era for England, the bleeding of new players and the development of a philosophy which could be prepared for 2014. Yet that didn’t happen. 

England qualified for Brasil however had Hodgson really made strides in terms of a project in those two years? England were appalling these three games and if the FA decide that Hodgson is the man to lead the national side then England will continue to regress.

This blog has been a supporter of Hodgson before, believing him to have the experience required to bring through this new generation of England, however his performance, both in-game and with the media, points to a man who is simply out of his depth. Hodgson is a mid-table Premier League manager, nothing more. In those three games Hodgson was tactically outwitted and still had the audacity or naivity to proclaim that the team were unfortunate not to come out on top. Low standards, low expectations. 

We should have expected it though, he showed his failings at Liverpool, a team who at that time weren’t even a top Champions League side. He couldn’t handle the pressure or demands of that level. Yes he has experience, but his experience is with plucky underdogs whose expectations are to qualify and perform ‘admirably’. 

Although I don’t believe England are the powerhouse of international football they make themselves out to be, I do believe they are better than they have been, and the problem has always been a lack of quality coaching and decision making from the FA. Only two good choices have been made regarding coaches these past 25 years; Bobby Robson and Glenn Hoddle. Both were winners and intelligent. They had standards and high expectations and brought the best out of their players.

If we look at what sides like Costa Rica, Chile, USA and even Greece have achieved we see a pattern between commitment, dedication and cohesion. England should be better than these sides but they didn't showed it. All these sides employed different tactics yet all shared the same commitment to them. A whole team working together. England looked disjointed, they lacked the cohesion a national side needs. 

Their common goal should have been to represent their nation, to take pride in that to go along with a plan and strategy laid down by the coach. Neither appeared to happen. I never really saw a strategy after that first 25 minutes against Italy. The plan was an all out attacking strategy (a decision which ultimately cost England as they didn’t score and ended up exhausting themselves). 

There has been a continued failure of most England managers to be able to implement a system and philosophy which brings the very best out of the players. The question therefore is, is this is an indictment of the FA, on the standard of coaching in England, the tactical intelligence of our coaches, or a failure of the players to perform when it matters? Ultimately the FA are to blame for their safety first approach, for their lack of innovation and progression.

Ultimately we need a better coach of the national side, one with more tactical nous and intelligence. One who understands the modern game and the elite levels of the game. This blog believes that Carlos Queiroz would be an excellent choice. What he achieved with Iran highlights his talent as a coach and motivator, and what he did at Man Utd, making them the best side in the world in 2007-2008 highlights his talent working at the top level. England need this kind of coach to push a young and talented group forwards as well as help the FA in developing a more innovative and progressive Football Association. 

Why not use the experience of people like Queiroz and Rene Meulensteen to help England's present and future. Why not embrace the knowledge of people like Dave Brailsford and Clive Woodward, men who have been at and succeeded at elite levels. It is this kind of innovation and knowledge we should be using to help develop our national game. 

The FA wouldn’t do it though, they will persevere with Hodgson because he is a ‘safe’ choice, yet ‘safe’ is the same as mediocrity. It is the acceptance of average when what you need is a man who will push players further, demand more and guide them to new levels. It is all too comfortable and accepting at the FA at this time. And who would they want to succeed him? Gareth Southgate. Now I'm all for English coaches getting a chance but it should really be a job for a great coach, and unfortunately England doesn't possess one of those at this time (McLaren is the closest we have and he will be forever guilty of taking the job at the wrong time). 

All this talk of new developments at the FA, of a new era for English football, I'm afraid I just don’t see it. What I see is a talented group of young players who need a great coach to help them progress together as a cohesive group. By hiring mid-table calibre, negative and mediocre coaches then that’s what we will get back. Is that good enough for the English game? What this tournament has shown us is that not only are we falling behind the top sides, but that there are many other nations who have caught up and bypassed us. The FA can blame the Premier League all they wish, yet the England national side is their responsibility and this tournament proves (like the FA commission report) that they have failed once again.

The Whitehouse Address @The_W_Address

Care about English football's future? Then you need to read
The Way Forward: Solutions to England's Football Failings

"Whitehouse, while still relatively unknown, has written a masterpiece. Young, forward thinking and passionate about the English game, this is a book you'll be hearing a lot more about over the coming years" 

These Football Times

Get your copy from Bennion Kearny here