Throughout this Euro 2012 tournament I have suffered from two opposed forces dragging me apart. My heart and my head could not agree. My heart wanted England to win the tournament. My head believed that it would be a disaster. Last night the Italians, while inflicting misery upon the England team, relieved me from mine.
It was my belief after watching the warm up games against Belgium and Norway that an English victory victory at the Euros would cause long term damage to football development. All of the changes put into place within the last year or so would be for nothing because England had just won. Just won their first major trophy for 46 years (Le Tornoi in 97 was a great win, look at the teams they beat, but alas, not major). Why change? Fortunately the evidence from Kiev showed exactly why change is needed. Had the Italians been beaten those opposed to the changes in format, those who believe that many of the methods suggested in ‘The Future Game’ and on Youth Modules, those who think they know everything and do not need to seek out new ideas, those people would have the fuel to add to their fire and hold back for another 15 years. That argument died in Kiev and what a blessed relief that was.
No one in possession of eyes could have failed to notice how badly the England players passed the ball. How seldom they attacked. How unimaginative they looked. Such a contrast to an Italian side that was supposed to be ‘negative’ and ‘average’. If the Italians are average, where does that leave us? A lack of resp0ect for what other countries achieve and how they achieve it has long haunted the football of these islands. You only need to look at the attitude taken to the early world cups, the refusal to enter the European Champions Cup (Champions League) and the attitudes to coaching for 50+ years. While Europe networked with each other and shared ideas we shut ourselves away (see Inverting The Pyramid). Only in the last 10 to 15 years has that started to change.
I have read various reactions to the Italian defeat. Change is needed. Quite. What sort of change? Good question. Change to what? The moves being made currently by the FA are good ones. Small sided matches for youngsters, a later introduction to 11v11, more coaching contact time for pro-clubs and their academy players. All admirable. Yet, there are not too many specifics. Playing through the thirds is mentioned a lot. But again, what does that mean? Does that mean building up from the back? Does it mean possession in midfield areas? Does it mean passing the ball aimlessly from side to side along the back line for 90 minutes? Undoubtedly it means passing the ball better, but how? This is just one example and I feel quite sorry for the FA. In some ways they could not be utterly specific, not because they do not know what they want, but because of how people react to being told how to do things. When I read the part that tells people to use 4-3-3 I instantly had my hackles raised. This will stifle innovation, I thought. Yet, when the national team plays a flat 4-4-2, has less than 40% of the ball, allows 30+ shots at goal and only has 9, I understand why it is there.
In terms of change, perhaps the one thing that we all agree on is technique. That technically gifted players should be what we aim to produce. Technically proficient players who can pass, have an excellent first touch and are confident dribblers (a trick or two would help). How we get there? The FA are helping, they are laying the groundwork, but they are not the be all and all. Look at what else is out there. I recently attended a Coerver course, their methods were excellent and have proven to work in the past, but that is not the be all and end all either. Nor is that of Barcelona. Or Ajax. Or Bayern Munich. But I bet there will be elements from each that a watching coach would think are fantastic. What is the vision for the future? Being a magpie. Taking bits from here and there. Working it into a whole. This whole depends on what you want out of players. Passers? Dribblers? Decide, because that decision will have a huge effect on them at the age of 5. By 12+ you might be able to get the dribblers to pass, but will the passers be able to dribble? Keep the ball or be creative and unpredictable?
Can you have both? Some might point to Spain, but they are not that unpredictable. They keep the ball better than anyone has before, but we do not witness mazy dribble after mazy dribble. That is not an effective way to keep possession. Perhaps the dribbling days are gone. Pass like the Dutch, defend like the Italians and work like the Germans. That is how to be successful in international football. What about youth football though? Would a team that performed in that manner be a success? Or would a team with three or four players who tried to run with the ball be a success? Are Messi and Ronaldo the best players in the world because they pass, pass, pass? How to work your way through the minefield of contradictions?
The Italian game brought back the feeling I had when I decided to become a football coach. The feeling that something was wrong and that I wanted to make a difference. That I could make a difference. That England dived out of the tournament last night should remind others that help is still wanted and desperately needed.