This week, one of England's national sports teams were lauded as, if not heroes (you can't be a hero if you're a sportsman right now unless you score a goal against France in Parisand your name is James McFadden), then at least as a moderate success. Another sports team, meanwhile, were a national joke, an embarrassment.
Remember two or three weeks ago, when England's football team had come off their fourth successive 3-0 qualifying win, comfortably beating Russia. And remember that England's rugby team had scraped to an unimpressive win over the USA, then been absolutely humped by the Springboks.
Isn't it amusing how things change?
The immediate lesson to learn is that the British sports media are more volatile than a kilogram of plutonium in the middle of a forest fire. One relatively disappointing performance, and Steve McClaren is on the brink of having his head displayed on the back pages as whatever vegetable The Sun hasn't yet used for a failing England coach.
Is that fair?
The first thing that struck me from watching England lose in Moscow was a comparison with Euro 2004, where England led matches against France and Portugal, but couldn't turn them into wins. Why? Well, when their opponents brought on more attacking players, Sven Goran Eriksson continued to stick with the same tactics and saw his team get pushed back further and further. Oh, and a bit of class from Zidane helped France too, but that's beside the point.
Last Wednesday, Russia made a couple of substitutions early in the second half and went for it. England had coasted through the first half but in the 10 minutes before the equaliser Guus Hiddink's side were already threatening. What did Steve McClaren do? Zilch. So England got forced back further and further, resulting in a situation where Russia had all the momentum and you end up having Rooney tracking back to help and giving away a penalty. Now, rather a lot of good teams, when defending narrow leads, would bring on, say another defender or a defensive midfielder, kill the game, and play on the break.
Why don't England do this? Is there a pride that prevents England playing defensively, the feeling that the press and the country would come down on them like a ton of large brick-like things?
I don't know. But I think that if England had maybe subbed one of Rooney and Owen and brought on a defensive midfielder, or even, heaven forbid, a centre-back, they might have held on for the point that they ultimately needed. It tends to work a lot for the likes of Italy.
All is not lost though. If Russia mess up in Tel Aviv, then England could be off the hook. Once you get to the finals themselves, anything can happen. So who would rule out Steve McClaren still joining the rugby team as figure of honour next Summer?
Nah, he still needs to find a half-decent keeper. Till then, he's screwed.
"...if England had maybe subbed one of Rooney and Owen and brought on a defensive midfielder, or even, heaven forbid, a centre-back, they might have held on for the point that they ultimately needed."
ReplyDeleteHow many centre backs do you want? They started with four! And I don't think they had any on the bench anyway. And Phil Neville was the only defensive midfield option. England's main problem is simple - no depth. Also Hiddink was spot on when he said they're prone to panic.