When Harry Redknapp was finally acquitted of charges of tax evasion, there was never a better moment to repeat the oft asked question of whether he would become the next England manager.
Aside from the obvious point that a conviction would put his availability into doubt, depending on the nature of his sentence, it would be yet another scandal under the FA's belt to appoint a person with a criminal record.
When he was cleared, in virtual unison an entire nation clamoured for his appointment, calling upon him to lead England to glory at the European Championships. Coincidentally, or not, Fabio Capello resigned hours later, creating the possibility of a fairytale scenario for England and the FA.
But for me, something didn't feel right. Now, the obvious answer to that might be that as a Tottenham fan who is not also an England supporter (more about that some other time), I had no vested interest in seeing Redknapp take the England job, and certainly no desire for it. It's old news that he took the Premier League's bottom club in October 2008 and in 18 months turned them into Champions League qualifiers. Two seasons on and they're seeking Champions League football again, with a real chance of bettering their 2010 fourth place finish.
All of which raised the question... Why England, and why now?
In recent history, all I have seen in respect of the English national team is confusion. Confusion about what constitutes success, about what type of characters they need on the pitch, what style of play or tactical approach should be used, and of course the confusion over whether England needs to play its "own game" to be successful or adapt so as to absorb continental, and even global influences.
The success of the Premier League has only served to fuel this confusion. The managers of the 20 top flight clubs are of 10 different nationalities, with the current top 5 being from Italy, Scotland, England, France and Portugal. Sitting top is Mancini's Manchester City, and though City probably have England's next generation in their side in players such as Hart, Lescott and Richards in their side, none of their success would be possible without the multitude of foreign players around them. Neither do City appear to fit the mould of the defensive Italian stereotype, on course to set goalscoring records this season.
Is it any longer possible, therefore, to make distinctions along national lines? By definition, international football does this in terms of player selection, but is it feasible for a country such as England, whose top division is permeated by such a wide variety of foreign playing and managerial talent, with several different tactical styles, to confidently say what "English" football is?
Without a defined objective, is it even possible to select the man to achieve that objective? Of course one might say that the objective is always to win, and that would be fair enough. But such a trite statement offers no assistance in establishing how to go about this. What everyone really wants to know is, for a given set of players, what is the best way to organise them so that winning becomes easier and opponents find it harder to beat them?
Instead of defining this objective, choosing the England manager appears to have turned into a game of cat and mouse.
After the cool, calm and ultimately quirky Hoddle, the fashion was passion, and Keegan was the choice. But he didn't bring instant success, the country cried out for experience.
Eriksson had the experience, but because England didn't win the 2006 World Cup, the country cried out for an Englishman.
McLaren was an Englishman (and still is, even though he speaks it with a terrible Dutch accent) but he was deemed too soft and when the "wally with the brolly" failed to qualify for Euro 2008 the country cried out for a tough guy.
Capello was a tough guy, but when England fell flat on its face in South Africa, the country cried out for an Englishman again...
And so the cycle continues. Manager comes in, supposed new style, team doesn't do as well as expected, suddenly everyone is a footballing genius crying out for a different style and a different manager. No lasting football philosophy, just chopping and changing every time things don't work out.
Now flavour of the month is Redknapp, who supposedly would "put his arm around the players" and turn an average side into European Champions. He's got the passion, so they say, and definitely has the experience. And most importantly of all - he's English. Ticks all the boxes and there's no reason why England wouldn't love to have him.
But what about from Redknapp's perspective?
When asked in the past, "Would you manage England?", the answer was always going to be "yes". No English football manager could, in the face of such a direct question, feasibly say "no". With due respect to the other clubs he'd managed, Bournemouth, West Ham, Southampton and Portsmouth, they weren't going to be pulling up trees in the honours stakes. If the question about managing the national side comes up, one keeps one's options open. It's a big step up and a very attractive proposition.
Managing Spurs, however, is a different cup of tea. Redknapp's Tottenham are without doubt the best of the Premier League era, and one has to go back to 1990 for the last time they finished in the top three. With a little more work and investment the Redknapp project might even see them champions, a feat they have not achieved for over 50 years. For the first time in his managerial career Redknapp has at his disposal a squad to challenge for honours and really make his mark on English football. Already a hero, he could achieve legendary status at White Hart Lane.
Against that, the England job chews up quality managers and spits them out. Respected football names such as Eriksson and Capello subjected to character assassination and sent home with the tag of "not cutting it". That the England players have so regularly underperformed is conveniently overlooked, but ultimately it is the generals that claim credit for victories and who also fall on their swords in defeat. There is no time for a 5 year project, no opportunity to create a philosophy, and no dipping into a transfer market and doing a bit of business off the pitch when your current crop isn't doing the business on it.
Redknapp may well go on to manage England in the future, but for me, his time isn't now. England need to undergo a period of transition and bring through a new generation, and Euro 2012 may just present that opportunity. For once, instead of excessive hype followed by excessive disappointment, I'd like to see the media take a low-key approach and say "We probably won't win this, but we'll should just go out there and play as best we can". Whoever takes charge now, won't significantly improve England's chances, nor will they necessarily damage them. The fans, likewise, must be realistic about their expectations.
Once the foundations are in place, a man like Redknapp could take England to the next level and perhaps even achievable the unthinkable at the next major tournament, or the one after. Right now, however, he's started something special at Spurs and in my view, he'd be foolish to relinquish the sweet taste of domestic glory to take a sip from the poisoned chalice.
-
Follow me on Twitter: @Tanel76
No comments:
Post a Comment