Cast your minds back to the autumn of 2007 and the immediate aftermath of England’s 3-2 defeat to Croatia at Wembley.
The media were busily conducting their autopsy of English football, calling for an overhaul of coaching methods and proposing a limit on the number of foreign players plying their trade on these shores.
It was argued that the conveyer belt producing young English talent had ground to a halt, and the long wait for a major trophy would continue for many years to come unless something drastic was done to bring young players through our clubs again.
Fast forward nearly two years and the England under-21 team find themselves in the final of the European Championships, having beaten favourites Spain and held co-finalists Germany to a 1-1 draw despite fielding a second string side and having nothing to play for.
By the time you read this, England’s young stars are likely to have either covered themselves in glory or conformed to national stereotype and bowed out as gallant losers. Whatever the result of the final, we should be proud of their achievements and a fair few premier league teams should sit up and take notice.
For the under 21 team have proved that the reaction to England’s defeat to Croatia was knee jerk at best, ridiculous at worst. Although our young players may not be as creative or technically able as some of our southern European counterparts, they do possess equally important attributes and have the ability to play at the highest level.
It’s something that premier league clubs should be aware of. However, the much fabled “top four” are curiously under-represented in England’s squad for the under 21 tournament. Of the squad, only Kieran Gibbs, Theo Walcott, Michael Mancienne and Fraser Campbell play their club football for England’s four major clubs. And of those, only Walcott could really argue that he is a regular.
Liverpool for example, have failed to produce a young English player that has become a regular starter since Steven Gerrard emerged on the scene ten years ago. Their manager Rafa Benitez remarked on the club’s capture of Glen Johnson for £17m that because of the new champions league rules, he had to buy English and that to buy English players you have to pay over the odds. It was a naïve comment that bordered on idiotic.
Benitez has made little, if any effort to blood young local players into his squad. That is why he is now finding a sizeable chunk of his transfer budget is having to be spent on a good, but not brilliant right back purely because he is English.
Managers need to have both more patience and more faith in the young players coming through their academies. As budgets are tightened, it’s not going to be possible for clubs to continue to buy their whole squad. The smaller members of the premier league will have to look increasingly to their academy sides for first team squad members, but the bigger clubs should also be casting their net closer to home.
The recent exploits of the England under-21 team prove that our players are as talented as their counterparts in Spain, Germany and Italy. If clubs are to continue to be competitive amongst the backdrop of a recession and clubs being bank-rolled by billionaire owners, maybe it’s time for them to make their real investments in their own youth academies.
Subscribe To (Claret and) Blue Monday
Posts
All Comments
Monday, 29 June 2009
Monday, 22 June 2009
It's all foreign to me
It’s little over three weeks since Frank Lampard’s 20 yarder sealed the FA Cup for Chelsea and marked the end of another football season in England.
But with the fixtures announced and the players beginning to filter back from their holidays to Marbella, attention has already turned to next season. Inevitably, much of the talk amongst fans centres on what new signings their club will bring in.
And whilst there are no guarantees clubs will be able to hold on to their star performers one thing is for sure: you won’t need two hands to count the number of British players leaving these shores this summer. For British players continue to maintain an aversion to plying their trade abroad – something not shared by their Spanish, Portuguese and French counterparts.
Footballers often cite the short length of their career as justification for their huge wages. “We’re not in the game long, so we might as well make the most of it” they proclaim. Yet this mantra is rarely followed when it comes to seeking pastures new (and that’s really new Gareth Barry, not Manchester).
Sure, plenty of British footballers have found employment at foreign clubs over the years – the likes of Lineker, Platt and Hoddle were undoubted successes. But exports from the UK have been few and far between over the last 10 years, and even those that did take the plunge have experienced only mixed fortunes.
True, the wages in the Premier League probably outstrip those in many other European countries so it’s reasonable for players to argue they would be losing out by going abroad. But one must also assume that the players at the likes of Milan, Barcelona and Bayern Munich are not closing the curtains and hiding behind the sofa when the window cleaner comes to collect his wages.
It seems our players lack the willingness to try something different – a sense of adventure. Perhaps this is an indictment of our national teams’ lack of success at major competitions? Perhaps our play lacks the bit of flair or tactical know-how that could be procured by a season or two in the sun?
For all our sniggers about David Beckham, he has at least experienced football in four different countries. Although it could also be argued he hasn’t exactly immersed himself in foreign culture, even he will have expanded his horizons a little by leaving Manchester and sampling the different atmospheres, coaching methods and mentalities of Madrid, Milan and LA.
Some may argue that our players simply do not have the opportunity to go abroad – they are just not wanted. But with agents regularly engineering English moves for French, Spanish and South American players, it’s difficult to believe it couldn’t work the other way around.
Steven Gerrard, Wayne Rooney, Rio Ferdinand and Frank Lampard are the jewels in the English crown and would walk into most European sides. But even our lesser talented players could hold their own at big clubs across the continent – just look at the recent success of trend-bucker Matt Derbyshire at Olympiakos for evidence.
Ian Rush shipping baked beans to Turin and declaring Italy as being “like a foreign country” whilst at Juventus and Garry O’Connor’s reluctance to learn a word of Russian during his time at Lokomotiv Moscow probably didn’t enhance the image of British players abroad, but maybe it’s time for someone to break the mould.
With the weak pound and new 50% tax rate for high earners, more players may well be tempted to leave the UK this summer. It would certainly make for interesting viewing, and could possibly lead to the list of successful recent exports being longer than David Beckham, Steve McManaman and er...Vinny Sammways.
But with the fixtures announced and the players beginning to filter back from their holidays to Marbella, attention has already turned to next season. Inevitably, much of the talk amongst fans centres on what new signings their club will bring in.
And whilst there are no guarantees clubs will be able to hold on to their star performers one thing is for sure: you won’t need two hands to count the number of British players leaving these shores this summer. For British players continue to maintain an aversion to plying their trade abroad – something not shared by their Spanish, Portuguese and French counterparts.
Footballers often cite the short length of their career as justification for their huge wages. “We’re not in the game long, so we might as well make the most of it” they proclaim. Yet this mantra is rarely followed when it comes to seeking pastures new (and that’s really new Gareth Barry, not Manchester).
Sure, plenty of British footballers have found employment at foreign clubs over the years – the likes of Lineker, Platt and Hoddle were undoubted successes. But exports from the UK have been few and far between over the last 10 years, and even those that did take the plunge have experienced only mixed fortunes.
True, the wages in the Premier League probably outstrip those in many other European countries so it’s reasonable for players to argue they would be losing out by going abroad. But one must also assume that the players at the likes of Milan, Barcelona and Bayern Munich are not closing the curtains and hiding behind the sofa when the window cleaner comes to collect his wages.
It seems our players lack the willingness to try something different – a sense of adventure. Perhaps this is an indictment of our national teams’ lack of success at major competitions? Perhaps our play lacks the bit of flair or tactical know-how that could be procured by a season or two in the sun?
For all our sniggers about David Beckham, he has at least experienced football in four different countries. Although it could also be argued he hasn’t exactly immersed himself in foreign culture, even he will have expanded his horizons a little by leaving Manchester and sampling the different atmospheres, coaching methods and mentalities of Madrid, Milan and LA.
Some may argue that our players simply do not have the opportunity to go abroad – they are just not wanted. But with agents regularly engineering English moves for French, Spanish and South American players, it’s difficult to believe it couldn’t work the other way around.
Steven Gerrard, Wayne Rooney, Rio Ferdinand and Frank Lampard are the jewels in the English crown and would walk into most European sides. But even our lesser talented players could hold their own at big clubs across the continent – just look at the recent success of trend-bucker Matt Derbyshire at Olympiakos for evidence.
Ian Rush shipping baked beans to Turin and declaring Italy as being “like a foreign country” whilst at Juventus and Garry O’Connor’s reluctance to learn a word of Russian during his time at Lokomotiv Moscow probably didn’t enhance the image of British players abroad, but maybe it’s time for someone to break the mould.
With the weak pound and new 50% tax rate for high earners, more players may well be tempted to leave the UK this summer. It would certainly make for interesting viewing, and could possibly lead to the list of successful recent exports being longer than David Beckham, Steve McManaman and er...Vinny Sammways.
Monday, 15 June 2009
Television: Football's addiction to the small screen
What do Michael Thomas against Liverpool in 1989, David Platt against Belgium in 1990 and David Beckham against Greece in 2001 have in common? They were all architects of last minute rescue acts, and you can now add Len Blavatnik to that list.
Blavatnik is the Russian-born billionaire who has seemingly saved Setanta Sports from going to the wall. His purchase of 51% of the Irish broadcaster has all but ensured they will continue to screen 46 matches next year, but most importantly, means the Premier League’s smaller members do not have to face some nervous meetings with their bank managers this summer.
Television has made football rich and in Sky’s case at least, football has made television rich in return. Broadcasting rights for the Premier League are sold to companies both at home and abroad for astronomical sums – helping to fund the ever increasing wages of English football’s biggest stars.
Yet Setanta’s near collapse would have had many a Premier League chairman loosening their tie with anxiety. The fact is, many clubs rely heavily on the income generated by the sale of broadcasting rights. Smaller clubs such as Bolton and Blackburn – where season ticket and merchandise sales are pitiful compared to those enjoyed at Manchester United and Arsenal, need the regular instalments of the TV money to make sure they are at least competitive and retain their Premier League status.
It is because of this that football’s obsession with television is beginning to look increasingly irresponsible. It’s said that Setanta requires 1.9m subscribers just to break even. That’s essentially asking 1.9m households to pay £12 per month on top of the money they already pay for Sky Sports, for lower quality games at inconvenient times. The only surprise is that Setanta were only 700,000 subscribers short of their target, not that they failed to meet it at all.
But surely the Premier League should be trusted to look at proposals such as this and clearly see that they are not viable business plans (sorry to sound all Dragons Den)? By selling themselves to the highest bidder – no matter what the reputation, ability to deliver on their promises or plans of that bidder are, the Premier League is in reality selling English football rather cheaply.
Television has a stranglehold on football, and it won’t let go. Both the league and the clubs themselves simply can’t live without it. The likes of Sky pay for the right not just to screen games, but to dictate when games take place, and what time they kick off. It means we now play games at lunchtime on a Saturday, with little consideration for the geographical location of the teams involved. It means we have football at tea time on a Saturday – often played in front of less than full houses and even smaller audiences at home.
Television is also a key cause of the growing financial divide between the Premier League and the Football League. Dropping out of the Premier League can cause a shortfall in television revenue of around £25m per year. Is it responsible to have two such contrasting television deals – so obviously making the rich richer, and the poor poorer? Yes there is more demand for Premier League football, but more efforts need to be made to make sure the riches of the Premier League filter down to the lower rungs of the English football ladder.
We all know that football has become more of a business in recent years, but it is said that there is no room for emotion in business. It’s hard to imagine football without emotion, and when you look at the extremely small number of people who genuinely make money from football as a result of investment – maybe it’s time football stopped trying so hard to be a business and concentrated a little more on being a sport.
Blavatnik is the Russian-born billionaire who has seemingly saved Setanta Sports from going to the wall. His purchase of 51% of the Irish broadcaster has all but ensured they will continue to screen 46 matches next year, but most importantly, means the Premier League’s smaller members do not have to face some nervous meetings with their bank managers this summer.
Television has made football rich and in Sky’s case at least, football has made television rich in return. Broadcasting rights for the Premier League are sold to companies both at home and abroad for astronomical sums – helping to fund the ever increasing wages of English football’s biggest stars.
Yet Setanta’s near collapse would have had many a Premier League chairman loosening their tie with anxiety. The fact is, many clubs rely heavily on the income generated by the sale of broadcasting rights. Smaller clubs such as Bolton and Blackburn – where season ticket and merchandise sales are pitiful compared to those enjoyed at Manchester United and Arsenal, need the regular instalments of the TV money to make sure they are at least competitive and retain their Premier League status.
It is because of this that football’s obsession with television is beginning to look increasingly irresponsible. It’s said that Setanta requires 1.9m subscribers just to break even. That’s essentially asking 1.9m households to pay £12 per month on top of the money they already pay for Sky Sports, for lower quality games at inconvenient times. The only surprise is that Setanta were only 700,000 subscribers short of their target, not that they failed to meet it at all.
But surely the Premier League should be trusted to look at proposals such as this and clearly see that they are not viable business plans (sorry to sound all Dragons Den)? By selling themselves to the highest bidder – no matter what the reputation, ability to deliver on their promises or plans of that bidder are, the Premier League is in reality selling English football rather cheaply.
Television has a stranglehold on football, and it won’t let go. Both the league and the clubs themselves simply can’t live without it. The likes of Sky pay for the right not just to screen games, but to dictate when games take place, and what time they kick off. It means we now play games at lunchtime on a Saturday, with little consideration for the geographical location of the teams involved. It means we have football at tea time on a Saturday – often played in front of less than full houses and even smaller audiences at home.
Television is also a key cause of the growing financial divide between the Premier League and the Football League. Dropping out of the Premier League can cause a shortfall in television revenue of around £25m per year. Is it responsible to have two such contrasting television deals – so obviously making the rich richer, and the poor poorer? Yes there is more demand for Premier League football, but more efforts need to be made to make sure the riches of the Premier League filter down to the lower rungs of the English football ladder.
We all know that football has become more of a business in recent years, but it is said that there is no room for emotion in business. It’s hard to imagine football without emotion, and when you look at the extremely small number of people who genuinely make money from football as a result of investment – maybe it’s time football stopped trying so hard to be a business and concentrated a little more on being a sport.
Monday, 8 June 2009
If not here, then where?
With England uncharacteristically cruising through their qualifying group, a place at South Africa's World Cup in 2010 looks assured.
But as Fabio Capello and his backroom staff begin to think about travel arrangements and an African location suitable for both players and WAGs, officials at the FA will be busy developing England's bid to host either the 2018 or 2022 world cup.
Last month, England officially declared their intention to host the prestigious tournament for the first time since....oh come on, do you really need me to fill in this blank?!
With shiny new stadia in place and the hooligan problem drastically reduced if not solved, England will feel there is a more than decent chance that football will be "coming home". But as 2006's disasterous bid proved, relying on England's football heritage will not be enough. There are plenty of other worthy bids, and England will have a real fight on their hands if they are to emerge victorious.
FIFA will decide which two bids will win the right to host the 2018 and 2022 world cups in December 2010. So, who exactly are England up against and if the world cup is not coming here, then where will it go?
Australia
With the 2014 world cup taking place in Brazil, it's unlikely that it will go to another southern hemisphere country in 2018. Sepp Blatter has even gone on record to state that the Aussies would be best off concentrating on a 2022 bid.
Relatively new ground for football, but the popularity of the sport is growing rapidly with the relaunched A-League and the national side is regularly troubling some of the world's top sides.
They have recent experience of hosting a major sporting event from the Sydney Olympics, and their sport-mad population will ensure bumper crowds. A current lack of dedicated football stadia and the expense of away fans getting to the tournament are the only things that may hold them back.
Indonesia
With no real football heritage to speak of, Indonesia present something of an unknown quantity to FIFA. Questions remain over the country's infrastructure, and they have not previously been tested in hosting major tournaments such as the world cup.
It would appear the Indonesian bid is too much of a risk at this time.
Japan
An increasingly football-obsessed nation with the facilities, infrastructure and experience from co-hosting the 2002 world cup.
But there also lies their problem. It was only 2002 and surely this bid comes too soon after their last hosting?
Absolutely no doubts over whether they could put on a show though.
Qatar
Only bidding for the 2022 competition and they'll appreciate the extended time to prepare if successful.
They have money to burn when it comes to developing stadia, but cripplingly hot conditions and a lack of interest from the home public are not conducive to memorable world cups. FIFA may be interested in using it as an opportunity to bring football to a different part of the world, but they have to be considered an outsider at this stage.
Mexico
Famously hosted in 1970 and 1986. Featuring Pele and Maradona respectively, both tournaments were memorable and there's no doubt the home fans know their football.
They would be the first nation to host the tournament three times, which may play against them when you consider the number of relatively new bids coming in for these tournaments. The recent hysteria over swine flu was not helpful, but a decent stadia redevelopment programme may swing it for them.
Portugal/Spain joint bid
Two football-mad countries with national teams boasting some of the world's greatest players.
With the Nou Camp, Bernabeu and Vicente Calderon stadiums, it's not entirely clear why Spain need Portugal's help with this but in truth it only strengthens their bid.
Easy access, great stadia and rich footballing heritage means this is a very strong bid that may get the green light should the world cup come to Europe. England beware.
Russia
With one of the fastest growing leagues in the world, Russia is becoming a major player in the football world.
Backed by a seemingly endless supply of oil-rich billionaires, money will not be a problem. Unless of course FIFA decide to take the widespread rumors of match fixing in the Russian premier league seriously that is.
They've never hosted before though, and if they can present a clear plan of how fans and teams can get around the world's largest country much more cheaply than they currently can, they may be in luck. England will be hoping that money doesn't talk in this instance.
South Korea
Having been bitten by the football bug when jointly-hosting in 2002, South Korea are hoping to go it alone in 2022.
Already have the facilities in place but like Japan, will struggle to convince people it's their turn again so soon after their last hosting.
USA
Although still behind the NFL, NBA, baseball, NHL and probably Scatch, Soccerball is now an established sport in the US. That's more than can be said for when they first hosted in 1994.
Maybe held back by a lack of large, football-dedicated stadia, but the US know how to host a major sporting event like no-one else and could be rewarded for the progress they've made since '94.
Up against some strong competition though, and are most likely to be politely asked to wait their turn.
Belgium/Holland
Neither country has hosted a world cup before, but unlike Portugal and Spain it makes perfect sense for both countries to join forces for this bid.
Organised a superb Euro 2000 tournament and the rail, sea and air links will appeal to England fans at least. No doubt they could put on a good show, but may lack the wow factor needed to be successful.
Likely to be behind the English, Portugal/Spain and Russian European bids.
Predictions
2018 hosts - Portugal/Spain
2022 hosts - Australia
Agree or disagree?
But as Fabio Capello and his backroom staff begin to think about travel arrangements and an African location suitable for both players and WAGs, officials at the FA will be busy developing England's bid to host either the 2018 or 2022 world cup.
Last month, England officially declared their intention to host the prestigious tournament for the first time since....oh come on, do you really need me to fill in this blank?!
With shiny new stadia in place and the hooligan problem drastically reduced if not solved, England will feel there is a more than decent chance that football will be "coming home". But as 2006's disasterous bid proved, relying on England's football heritage will not be enough. There are plenty of other worthy bids, and England will have a real fight on their hands if they are to emerge victorious.
FIFA will decide which two bids will win the right to host the 2018 and 2022 world cups in December 2010. So, who exactly are England up against and if the world cup is not coming here, then where will it go?
Australia
With the 2014 world cup taking place in Brazil, it's unlikely that it will go to another southern hemisphere country in 2018. Sepp Blatter has even gone on record to state that the Aussies would be best off concentrating on a 2022 bid.
Relatively new ground for football, but the popularity of the sport is growing rapidly with the relaunched A-League and the national side is regularly troubling some of the world's top sides.
They have recent experience of hosting a major sporting event from the Sydney Olympics, and their sport-mad population will ensure bumper crowds. A current lack of dedicated football stadia and the expense of away fans getting to the tournament are the only things that may hold them back.
Indonesia
With no real football heritage to speak of, Indonesia present something of an unknown quantity to FIFA. Questions remain over the country's infrastructure, and they have not previously been tested in hosting major tournaments such as the world cup.
It would appear the Indonesian bid is too much of a risk at this time.
Japan
An increasingly football-obsessed nation with the facilities, infrastructure and experience from co-hosting the 2002 world cup.
But there also lies their problem. It was only 2002 and surely this bid comes too soon after their last hosting?
Absolutely no doubts over whether they could put on a show though.
Qatar
Only bidding for the 2022 competition and they'll appreciate the extended time to prepare if successful.
They have money to burn when it comes to developing stadia, but cripplingly hot conditions and a lack of interest from the home public are not conducive to memorable world cups. FIFA may be interested in using it as an opportunity to bring football to a different part of the world, but they have to be considered an outsider at this stage.
Mexico
Famously hosted in 1970 and 1986. Featuring Pele and Maradona respectively, both tournaments were memorable and there's no doubt the home fans know their football.
They would be the first nation to host the tournament three times, which may play against them when you consider the number of relatively new bids coming in for these tournaments. The recent hysteria over swine flu was not helpful, but a decent stadia redevelopment programme may swing it for them.
Portugal/Spain joint bid
Two football-mad countries with national teams boasting some of the world's greatest players.
With the Nou Camp, Bernabeu and Vicente Calderon stadiums, it's not entirely clear why Spain need Portugal's help with this but in truth it only strengthens their bid.
Easy access, great stadia and rich footballing heritage means this is a very strong bid that may get the green light should the world cup come to Europe. England beware.
Russia
With one of the fastest growing leagues in the world, Russia is becoming a major player in the football world.
Backed by a seemingly endless supply of oil-rich billionaires, money will not be a problem. Unless of course FIFA decide to take the widespread rumors of match fixing in the Russian premier league seriously that is.
They've never hosted before though, and if they can present a clear plan of how fans and teams can get around the world's largest country much more cheaply than they currently can, they may be in luck. England will be hoping that money doesn't talk in this instance.
South Korea
Having been bitten by the football bug when jointly-hosting in 2002, South Korea are hoping to go it alone in 2022.
Already have the facilities in place but like Japan, will struggle to convince people it's their turn again so soon after their last hosting.
USA
Although still behind the NFL, NBA, baseball, NHL and probably Scatch, Soccerball is now an established sport in the US. That's more than can be said for when they first hosted in 1994.
Maybe held back by a lack of large, football-dedicated stadia, but the US know how to host a major sporting event like no-one else and could be rewarded for the progress they've made since '94.
Up against some strong competition though, and are most likely to be politely asked to wait their turn.
Belgium/Holland
Neither country has hosted a world cup before, but unlike Portugal and Spain it makes perfect sense for both countries to join forces for this bid.
Organised a superb Euro 2000 tournament and the rail, sea and air links will appeal to England fans at least. No doubt they could put on a good show, but may lack the wow factor needed to be successful.
Likely to be behind the English, Portugal/Spain and Russian European bids.
Predictions
2018 hosts - Portugal/Spain
2022 hosts - Australia
Agree or disagree?
Monday, 1 June 2009
It's mental here
And so another season draws to a close, and now the panic sets in.
Football fans across Europe are bracing themselves for nigh on three months apart from their beloved football clubs. The hopes and dreams of last August have either been realised or quashed - now considered as well placed confidence, or ludicrous optimism.
The season is well and truly over, and once again there is an air of predictability about the upper echelons of league tables across the continent.
In England Manchester United secured their third successive title, whilst Italy's Inter went one better and recorded their fourth on the spin. At the same time in Spain, Pep Guardiola's Barcelona were busy wrapping up their 20th league title. So no surprises at the end of term awards assembly then.
But here in England, the predictability of the Premier League is making its presence known further down the table than the very top. Further in fact than the top four, with two consecutive seasons ending with the exact same six teams placed at the top of the table.
Concern is growing, especially amongst fans and representatives of clubs outside of the country's now customary top four of Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool and Manchester United. By routinely securing the four champions league places on offer to English clubs, the four footballing horseman of the Apocalypse hold a monopoly on the financial rewards given to those competing in the world's biggest club competition.
The money received each year they qualify gives them the necessary power to purchase the players (and pay the wages) to ensure qualification for the next season. Or to put it simply, the rich keep on getting richer and the rest of the premier league falls behind and out of sight.
So how can Tottenham, Everton and Aston Villa break the stranglehold the big four have on champions league qualification? Well, they could follow the Manchester City route of finding themselves a very rich Arab man who likes to use football clubs as something of a plaything. But although admittedly early days, City's indifferent form last year suggest it takes more than a huge injection of cash and similarly large dose of new blood to secure success.
Maybe it's a change of attitude that's needed? How many teams actually go to one of the big four clubs looking, not hoping, for a win? Most will travel to these grounds praying for a corner, let alone a solitary point. The current vogue for playing one forward supported (or completely isolated by in most cases) by attacking midfielders has done little to help teams ambition away from home.
Maybe the threat of relegation in today's debt-laden premier league is too much of a burden for teams to consider risking defeat for the possibility of a famous victory. Maybe I'm being overly romantic, but as football fans surely we'd prefer to see our teams attack the best our country has to offer and suffer the consequences than put 10 men behind the ball and grind out a dull 1-0 defeat?
It seems to me that not enough managers are willing to take the kind of risks Messrs Ferguson and Wenger do away from home. It's somehow become acceptable for 16 teams to accept defeat against an elite of four clubs. Maybe all this talk of the Haves and the Have nots is a red herring? Maybe all it needs is a little more PMA? Maybe it's all in the head?
Whatever it is, something needs to change quickly before the English Premier League becomes as predictable as our friends' North of the border.
Football fans across Europe are bracing themselves for nigh on three months apart from their beloved football clubs. The hopes and dreams of last August have either been realised or quashed - now considered as well placed confidence, or ludicrous optimism.
The season is well and truly over, and once again there is an air of predictability about the upper echelons of league tables across the continent.
In England Manchester United secured their third successive title, whilst Italy's Inter went one better and recorded their fourth on the spin. At the same time in Spain, Pep Guardiola's Barcelona were busy wrapping up their 20th league title. So no surprises at the end of term awards assembly then.
But here in England, the predictability of the Premier League is making its presence known further down the table than the very top. Further in fact than the top four, with two consecutive seasons ending with the exact same six teams placed at the top of the table.
Concern is growing, especially amongst fans and representatives of clubs outside of the country's now customary top four of Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool and Manchester United. By routinely securing the four champions league places on offer to English clubs, the four footballing horseman of the Apocalypse hold a monopoly on the financial rewards given to those competing in the world's biggest club competition.
The money received each year they qualify gives them the necessary power to purchase the players (and pay the wages) to ensure qualification for the next season. Or to put it simply, the rich keep on getting richer and the rest of the premier league falls behind and out of sight.
So how can Tottenham, Everton and Aston Villa break the stranglehold the big four have on champions league qualification? Well, they could follow the Manchester City route of finding themselves a very rich Arab man who likes to use football clubs as something of a plaything. But although admittedly early days, City's indifferent form last year suggest it takes more than a huge injection of cash and similarly large dose of new blood to secure success.
Maybe it's a change of attitude that's needed? How many teams actually go to one of the big four clubs looking, not hoping, for a win? Most will travel to these grounds praying for a corner, let alone a solitary point. The current vogue for playing one forward supported (or completely isolated by in most cases) by attacking midfielders has done little to help teams ambition away from home.
Maybe the threat of relegation in today's debt-laden premier league is too much of a burden for teams to consider risking defeat for the possibility of a famous victory. Maybe I'm being overly romantic, but as football fans surely we'd prefer to see our teams attack the best our country has to offer and suffer the consequences than put 10 men behind the ball and grind out a dull 1-0 defeat?
It seems to me that not enough managers are willing to take the kind of risks Messrs Ferguson and Wenger do away from home. It's somehow become acceptable for 16 teams to accept defeat against an elite of four clubs. Maybe all this talk of the Haves and the Have nots is a red herring? Maybe all it needs is a little more PMA? Maybe it's all in the head?
Whatever it is, something needs to change quickly before the English Premier League becomes as predictable as our friends' North of the border.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)