Here?s something I never thought I?d be saying. Neil Warnock has made a good point. He recently announced that he hates watching England, and amongst his talk of the team failing because of there being too many foreign players in the Premiership (something I don?t necessarily agree with) he said:

?I don’t think it’s anything to do with passion - I think it’s ability?.

Thank you, Mr. Warnock. You?ve hit the nail on the head. Forget all the nonsense about the side needing to display passion ? I tell you, that word is being bandied about in so many different contexts it has lost all meaning for me ? England don?t lose because they?re not passionate. England lose because they?re (whisper it) not actually very good.

Of course we never hear that, do we? According to the BBC, Sky, and most of the newspapers, England have a bevy of “world class” players and apparently have some kind of divine right do well because the English gave the world the game. But we need to look at the facts. England have never won the European Championships ? Czechoslovakia did, along with Denmark and Greece, both much less heralded nations than England ? and have won the World Cup once. Uruguay, meanwhile, have won it twice.

It?s fair to say England don?t have a hugely glorious history in international football, yet we constantly hear the players talking about how England ?deserve? to be winning tournaments. Why, exactly? Do Uruguay?s current crop of players bleat on about how they ?deserve? to be challenging for the World Cup? I doubt it.

The problem seems to be that the players believe the hype. Let?s strip that away for the moment, forget all the talk of Lampard being world class, or of Robinson being England?s best keeper since Shilton. Now, think hard. When was the last time England beat ? and outplayed ? a truly good side in a big game? The 5-1 win over Germany? That was the worst German side for some time. The 1-0 win over Argentina at Japan/Korea? It was a win, certainly, but England were hanging on for much of it, I doubt even the most ardent England fan could claim they outplayed the South Americans that day. For me, you have to go back to the heady days of Euro ?96 and England?s stylish demolition of the Netherlands. When was the last time you saw the words “England” and “stylish” when not interspersed with the words “were not”?

And yet, despite a largely inglorious history, many England fans regard Sven Goran Eriksson?s tenure as an unmitigated failure. Under his management, England regularly reached the quarter-finals of tournaments, for which they always qualified easily. Now I?m not Sven?s biggest fan, but England are a quarter-final side. To expect more is a bit greedy, no matter what the media ? and the players ? may tell you. Sven, you suspect, was well aware of the sides limitations, and when you think about it his supposed over-indulgence of Beckham becomes clear: he knew that his captain?s crossing and ability with a dead ball could get his mediocre side out of a hole. And it did, many a time.

As Warnock said, it comes down to ability. Take, for instance, Michael Carrick. He?s a defensive midfielder who cannot tackle, nor is he the type to go box-to-box, scoring the odd goal. His talent? He can pass. That?s it. How many other nations with pretensions to glory hold a player who can pass, and nothing more, in such high regard? The ability to pass is the most basic in football. At a bare minimum, England internationals should be able to pass to a team-mate in the same coloured shirt. If they don?t offer anything else, they shouldn?t be played. But the lethargy of many of England?s top players mean that Carrick is heralded as some kind of English Riquelme. He?s not. He?s an adequate passer of the ball, nothing more. He plays, though, because to watch the likes of Lampard, and latterly Rooney, one would think being able to pass to a player in the same coloured shirt regularly is a very difficult skill indeed.

You see it?s not all McClaren?s fault. He can only work with what he?s got, and what he?s got is not as good as a lot of people would like to believe. I didn?t think McClaren was the right appointment at the time and I still don?t now. England need a manager who can get his players working hard for the team and performing above themselves. Guus Hiddink and Martin O?Neill, to name but two, have forged careers on this, but now both are unavailable. England, for better or worse, are stuck with McClaren for the time being, and one has to wonder whether the Eriksson era will be looked back on with fondness in a few years time.

But that’s not really the point. The point is that McClaren should not be chastised too much for the Croatia defeat. The ridiculous over-reaction to every England result has to end. If they win they?re the best team in the world, if they lose they?re the worst. The truth is they are neither. They are an average team, and this is borne out by their performances. On the pitch hype and reputation count for nothing and the players are being found out. Well organised international defences do not fear Steven Gerrard. They know that Lampard is harmless provided they don?t close him down and let his shots deflect off them. Once they realise that Crouch isn?t dangerous in the air (despite his height) he?s easy enough to deal with.

The players have to stop this nonsense about ?deserving? to win tournaments and prove that they deserve to win by producing on the pitch. The problem with that, of course, is that they won?t. Because Warnock was right, it is about ability. And when you get right down to it, many of the England squad just aren?t good enough. Maybe it?s time the nation realised England haven?t played well for some time and collectively lowered its expectations. Unfortunately for Steve McClaren, I don?t see that happening anytime soon.

This entry was posted on Friday, October 13th, 2006 at 7:18 am and is filed under International Football - England. You can subscribe via RSS 2.0 feed to this post's comments. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.