Though this is a sporting post, and therefore in-keeping with the theme of my blog, it is significantly different from anything I've ever written about before. I found out this week that I will be part of the Mind team running the 2016 London Marathon on 24 April.
To provide you with a bit of background - I've never been one to take on outlandish challenges, preferring instead to make my life as consistent as possible. However, over the last 12 months, I have been presented with many challenging changes that were beyond my control, a number of which I am still struggling with. With this in mind, I felt like I needed to provide myself with a challenge of my choice, that I could manage and control.
Having always been sporty, playing a combination of football and tennis as a child, I know I am fairly good when it comes to running. However, I have never entered any formal running event, with the furthest I had run until recently a 10k at my local park. This therefore provides me with a decent base, while giving me the potential to challenge myself in a more controlled environment.
I do, however, have a tendency to get carried away, which perhaps explains my decision to skip a few steps and go straight for the most gruelling, exhausting type of race in the world. Most people would probably build up with some 10k's and then a few halves - would certainly have made the prospect easier!
Other than my own tendencies, there was another reason to jump straight into the marathon. Having found out that Mind, the mental health charity, had places to run and raise money, I wanted to get involved. Mental health remains one of the largest social taboos, despite the best attempts of both the government and charities. I have had family members and friends who have suffered from mental conditions, and have seen the difficulties that come from being unable to talk about it. Raising money to attempt to research and cure any conditions would obviously be the ideal, but my objective is simply to raise awareness of these conditions.
My target to raise is £2,000, so I've started a JustGiving page - see link below. If you've had any experience with mental illness, or understand how painful it is to run a marathon, or even if you've just enjoyed my blog posts, please give what you can.
https://www.justgiving.com/ANDREW-HAYWOOD3/
Thanks,
Andy
Analysis of sporting events, talking points and controversies.
Showing posts with label Change. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Change. Show all posts
Tuesday, 3 November 2015
Wednesday, 2 April 2014
Malaysia Grand Prix: Different Team, Same Result?
New house, new start. My move has freed me up to go back to what I've missed: writing. And what better way to restart than with the revamped F1 season? After a season dominated by one car and one man, a monumental rule change, one that has been described as the 'largest for a generation', has levelled the playing field this year. Gone are the enormous shouting V8's, in favour of the energy saving hybrid V6s (despite the noise issue that still rankles with Bernie Ecclestone). Along comes a bizarre new chassis, which sees the nose dip in places I never thought possible. New moves, fresh faces. And yet the spirit and prize is the same.
These changes and the new equaliser took effect in the opening race in Australia. After a miserable winter testing session, Red Bull and world champion Sebastien Vettel came to Melbourne on the back foot. The winner of 13 grand prix last term, and the previous nine on the bounce will have left Albert Park in similar mood, after a mechanical problem forced the German out on just the seventh lap. This will be a common theme for this season, with the most reliable car being most likely to be the most successful. The pole sitter on the day, Lewis Hamilton, was also victim to the mechanical curse, falling the lap before Vettel. That left the win to his teammate Nico Rosberg, and a space on the podium for hometown hero Daniel Ricciardo - the first Australian to take to the rostrum at their home event. Given the success of his predecessor Mark Webber, that is quite an incredible statistic! We saw the return to form of Williams and especially McLaren, with new rookie Kevin Magnusson matching the feat of Lewis Hamilton in 2008 by getting himself into 3rd. With Jenson Button following in close behind, McLaren left Australia leading the Constructors Championship. Who would have guessed that at the end of last year?
If the teams thought Australia was bad, they would have been dreading Malaysia. Traditionally one of the most testing circuits on reliability, with temperatures pushing 50 degrees on track, it is a car killer. However, after Mercedes dominance in Melbourne, the rest of the field were granted the ultimate leveller in qualifying: a monsoon. Delaying the beginning of Q1 by fully 45 minutes, the rain just carried on. When the session eventually started, the cars were more concerned with tip-toeing around the circuit to keep it out of the gravel than taking it to the limit. As a result, Q1 began by maintaining the status quo, with a comfortable Mercedes 1-2. However, this safety was obliterated for Vettel with the news that he had a problem with the car and needed to pit for a reboot. Though this seemed to leave his place in qualifying in the balance, Red Bull managed to turn him round quickly and get him safely into Q2.
The next part saw an even more incredible turnaround as Q2 began in a blaze of drama. Toro Rosso's impressive youngster Daniil Kyvat had a nightmare, locking up and careering into the slow moving Fernando Alonso. The Ferrari driver, who had quite wrongly elected to run with the intermediate tyres, saw his front left suspension and wishbone broken, leaving him to limp back to the pits with his qualifying campaign seemingly in tatters and bringing out a red flag. Impressive work from the Ferrari mechanics meant that not only did the Spaniard get back out, but he qualified for Q3 ahead of his illustrious new teammate Kimi Raikkonen. The only real surprise to come out of Q2 was the failure of the high-flying Williams pair to reach the top ten shootout, with both Massa and Bottas unable to make the cut. However, up front Vettel managed to split the two Mercedes to give fans an indication of a competitive final part of qualifying.
Q3, like the two parts before it, began rather anti-climactically, with cars looking to set a banker lap. With the initial fears that Mercedes would run away with the pole, the initial 1-2 seemed set to stay. However, both Red Bull and Ferrari had other ideas. Fernando Alonso, who seemed to have completely recovered from the crash in Q2, got himself between the two German cars, before Sebastien Vettel came within a whisker of grabbing pole. As the chequered flag loomed large, the fight was on between the German and Hamilton for the top spot - or so it seemed. Whilst squabbling with Nico Rosberg to be the last one across the line to start their flying lap, Vettel inexplicably failed to make it before the flag fell, losing his final lap, handing Hamilton the pole on a silver platter. The only other change was Rosberg managing to drag himself into third and within striking distance of the lead. After a qualifying session that began slowly, with everyone assuming a Mercedes coronation, this handed fans some hope of a competitive season. For Hamilton, a personal milestone: he equalled the British record for pole positions that has stood since 1964 and Jim Clark.
In typical Sepang fashion, Sunday saw the return of baking conditions, with the teams preparing for the most challenging weather of the year. As the lights went out, pole-sitter Hamilton got away well, leaving team-mate Rosberg to jump the slow-starting Vettel into 2nd. The big winner was Daniel Ricciardo, who managed to sneak his way around the outside of the two Ferraris before hanging his teammate out to dry on the outside of turn two. With the Mercedes in clean air, Hamilton clearly relished the chance, repeatedly setting fastest lap after fastest lap to ease the gap out to five seconds after just 8 laps. Further back, Ferrari continued to struggle, although not entirely of their own doing. Kimi Raikkonen, embroiled in a close battle with the rookie McLaren of Daniel Magnusson, found himself carrying a right rear puncture after a tussle got too close. This left the Finn limping back to the pits and ending any realistic chance of a large points haul.
The collision hardly did Magnusson any favours either, breaking his front wing and causing him to hold up a gaggle (I believe that is the correct term!) of cars. In a frenetic start up front, Sebastien Vettel began homing in on his teammate before cruising past under DRS. It was the first time that the two had been wheel to wheel since becoming teammates, and the world champion seemed intent on sending a message to his less illustrious companion. As the cars began to look at pit stops, it became clear that the undercut would play a significant part in the race. Ferrari's Fernando Alonso, having made his first stop, began lapping at over two seconds a lap faster than the cars ahead. Although the Red Bulls acted quickly enough to keep Vettel in front of the Spaniard, Daniel Ricciardo eventually fell foul of this. However, by this point, the Mercedes drivers were out of sight of the chasing pack, bringing F1 fans a reminder of the dominant scenes seen so frequently last year.
However, all is not lost. With Rosberg struggling with the balance of his rear tyres, the Red Bull began reeling the German in at almost a second a lap, giving F1 fans an indication that perhaps Mercedes would not run away with races. However, it is worth remembering that Rosberg's was a wounded car, with his teammate continuing to scamper away up front. By the time Hamilton pitted for his second stop, the gap was up to over 10 seconds, at it was looking simply a battle for second.
With this, and the battle for the minor places the only close track action, attention turned towards the skies. Radio transmissions between Raikkonen and the Ferrari team intimated a spattering of rain around turn 14, threatening to spice up a rapidly predictable race. As it happened, it wasn't to be. Between the revelation and the chequered flag dropping, there was only one more piece of action worth commenting on. Daniel Ricciardo, after the misfortune of being disqualified in Australia (his fuel level gauge stopped working - something that strangely happened again here, but not on Vettel's car-coincidence?) found himself battling with Fernando Alonso and Nico Hulkenberg for 4th place as he arrived at his pit box for his final stop. However, a wheel failure, followed by a front wing failure a few laps later (both completely unrelated - coincidence?) seemed another example of the German world champion's teammate having the most outrageous bad luck. Where have we seen an Aussie get a raw deal at Red Bull before?
Nevertheless, hats off to Lewis Hamilton, who led home a Mercedes one-two for his first win in Malaysia by fully 15 seconds. Vettel's return to the podium was a welcome one for a man who has been too accustomed to the rostrum in recent years, but I get the feeling we will be seeing silver on that podium a huge amount of times this season. With the mind-numbing repetitiveness of last season, Formula 1 can ill-afford another season as one sided. Unfortunately, this rule change seems to have favoured one car, and until the rest can catch up, there seems little sign of changing.
These changes and the new equaliser took effect in the opening race in Australia. After a miserable winter testing session, Red Bull and world champion Sebastien Vettel came to Melbourne on the back foot. The winner of 13 grand prix last term, and the previous nine on the bounce will have left Albert Park in similar mood, after a mechanical problem forced the German out on just the seventh lap. This will be a common theme for this season, with the most reliable car being most likely to be the most successful. The pole sitter on the day, Lewis Hamilton, was also victim to the mechanical curse, falling the lap before Vettel. That left the win to his teammate Nico Rosberg, and a space on the podium for hometown hero Daniel Ricciardo - the first Australian to take to the rostrum at their home event. Given the success of his predecessor Mark Webber, that is quite an incredible statistic! We saw the return to form of Williams and especially McLaren, with new rookie Kevin Magnusson matching the feat of Lewis Hamilton in 2008 by getting himself into 3rd. With Jenson Button following in close behind, McLaren left Australia leading the Constructors Championship. Who would have guessed that at the end of last year?
If the teams thought Australia was bad, they would have been dreading Malaysia. Traditionally one of the most testing circuits on reliability, with temperatures pushing 50 degrees on track, it is a car killer. However, after Mercedes dominance in Melbourne, the rest of the field were granted the ultimate leveller in qualifying: a monsoon. Delaying the beginning of Q1 by fully 45 minutes, the rain just carried on. When the session eventually started, the cars were more concerned with tip-toeing around the circuit to keep it out of the gravel than taking it to the limit. As a result, Q1 began by maintaining the status quo, with a comfortable Mercedes 1-2. However, this safety was obliterated for Vettel with the news that he had a problem with the car and needed to pit for a reboot. Though this seemed to leave his place in qualifying in the balance, Red Bull managed to turn him round quickly and get him safely into Q2.
The next part saw an even more incredible turnaround as Q2 began in a blaze of drama. Toro Rosso's impressive youngster Daniil Kyvat had a nightmare, locking up and careering into the slow moving Fernando Alonso. The Ferrari driver, who had quite wrongly elected to run with the intermediate tyres, saw his front left suspension and wishbone broken, leaving him to limp back to the pits with his qualifying campaign seemingly in tatters and bringing out a red flag. Impressive work from the Ferrari mechanics meant that not only did the Spaniard get back out, but he qualified for Q3 ahead of his illustrious new teammate Kimi Raikkonen. The only real surprise to come out of Q2 was the failure of the high-flying Williams pair to reach the top ten shootout, with both Massa and Bottas unable to make the cut. However, up front Vettel managed to split the two Mercedes to give fans an indication of a competitive final part of qualifying.
Q3, like the two parts before it, began rather anti-climactically, with cars looking to set a banker lap. With the initial fears that Mercedes would run away with the pole, the initial 1-2 seemed set to stay. However, both Red Bull and Ferrari had other ideas. Fernando Alonso, who seemed to have completely recovered from the crash in Q2, got himself between the two German cars, before Sebastien Vettel came within a whisker of grabbing pole. As the chequered flag loomed large, the fight was on between the German and Hamilton for the top spot - or so it seemed. Whilst squabbling with Nico Rosberg to be the last one across the line to start their flying lap, Vettel inexplicably failed to make it before the flag fell, losing his final lap, handing Hamilton the pole on a silver platter. The only other change was Rosberg managing to drag himself into third and within striking distance of the lead. After a qualifying session that began slowly, with everyone assuming a Mercedes coronation, this handed fans some hope of a competitive season. For Hamilton, a personal milestone: he equalled the British record for pole positions that has stood since 1964 and Jim Clark.
In typical Sepang fashion, Sunday saw the return of baking conditions, with the teams preparing for the most challenging weather of the year. As the lights went out, pole-sitter Hamilton got away well, leaving team-mate Rosberg to jump the slow-starting Vettel into 2nd. The big winner was Daniel Ricciardo, who managed to sneak his way around the outside of the two Ferraris before hanging his teammate out to dry on the outside of turn two. With the Mercedes in clean air, Hamilton clearly relished the chance, repeatedly setting fastest lap after fastest lap to ease the gap out to five seconds after just 8 laps. Further back, Ferrari continued to struggle, although not entirely of their own doing. Kimi Raikkonen, embroiled in a close battle with the rookie McLaren of Daniel Magnusson, found himself carrying a right rear puncture after a tussle got too close. This left the Finn limping back to the pits and ending any realistic chance of a large points haul.
The collision hardly did Magnusson any favours either, breaking his front wing and causing him to hold up a gaggle (I believe that is the correct term!) of cars. In a frenetic start up front, Sebastien Vettel began homing in on his teammate before cruising past under DRS. It was the first time that the two had been wheel to wheel since becoming teammates, and the world champion seemed intent on sending a message to his less illustrious companion. As the cars began to look at pit stops, it became clear that the undercut would play a significant part in the race. Ferrari's Fernando Alonso, having made his first stop, began lapping at over two seconds a lap faster than the cars ahead. Although the Red Bulls acted quickly enough to keep Vettel in front of the Spaniard, Daniel Ricciardo eventually fell foul of this. However, by this point, the Mercedes drivers were out of sight of the chasing pack, bringing F1 fans a reminder of the dominant scenes seen so frequently last year.
However, all is not lost. With Rosberg struggling with the balance of his rear tyres, the Red Bull began reeling the German in at almost a second a lap, giving F1 fans an indication that perhaps Mercedes would not run away with races. However, it is worth remembering that Rosberg's was a wounded car, with his teammate continuing to scamper away up front. By the time Hamilton pitted for his second stop, the gap was up to over 10 seconds, at it was looking simply a battle for second.
With this, and the battle for the minor places the only close track action, attention turned towards the skies. Radio transmissions between Raikkonen and the Ferrari team intimated a spattering of rain around turn 14, threatening to spice up a rapidly predictable race. As it happened, it wasn't to be. Between the revelation and the chequered flag dropping, there was only one more piece of action worth commenting on. Daniel Ricciardo, after the misfortune of being disqualified in Australia (his fuel level gauge stopped working - something that strangely happened again here, but not on Vettel's car-coincidence?) found himself battling with Fernando Alonso and Nico Hulkenberg for 4th place as he arrived at his pit box for his final stop. However, a wheel failure, followed by a front wing failure a few laps later (both completely unrelated - coincidence?) seemed another example of the German world champion's teammate having the most outrageous bad luck. Where have we seen an Aussie get a raw deal at Red Bull before?
Nevertheless, hats off to Lewis Hamilton, who led home a Mercedes one-two for his first win in Malaysia by fully 15 seconds. Vettel's return to the podium was a welcome one for a man who has been too accustomed to the rostrum in recent years, but I get the feeling we will be seeing silver on that podium a huge amount of times this season. With the mind-numbing repetitiveness of last season, Formula 1 can ill-afford another season as one sided. Unfortunately, this rule change seems to have favoured one car, and until the rest can catch up, there seems little sign of changing.
Wednesday, 5 February 2014
F1's Double Points Finale: Just How Ridiculous Is It?
The news that Formula 1 is planning to award double points for at least the final race of the season has been greeted with almost universal derision from fans and drivers alike. I pride myself on attempting to put both sides of the argument before coming to a reasoned decision, and this will be no different. Personally, I disagree whole-heartedly with the changes, but then again I generally am averse to major change in sport. I disliked the points move to 25 initially, but this has widely been accepted.
After such an emphatic title victory by Sebastian Vettel last time around, it is unsurprising that bosses want to prevent the same repetitive, boring season next year. Handing double points for the final race of the season would certainly prolong the title race, as an individual would need to be more than 50 points clear before travelling to the final race to be assured of the title. However, even this argument has flaws. It would not prevent the situation that we saw this season, as Vettel would still have been champion entering the final race in Brazil, and his win in the final race would only add further emphasis to the margin of victory.
I have further issues with this proposal. At the beginning of the season, every team sets up their car in a particular way, with different top speeds and cornering ability. This means that the best car often changes depending on the type of track. If a track has a huge amount of straights, like Spa-Francorchamps or Monza, this inevitably favours a car with a high top speed. On the other hand, a track like Monaco or Singapore's Marina Bay circuit rely on twisting turns, meaning that cars with excellent turning ability and high downforce will be at an advantage. What this has to do with the proposal is regardless of the track that is chosen to be the final race of the season, it will favour one team in particular. Either this, or, even worse in my opinion, all of the teams will set their cars up with the final race in mind, meaning that there will be no difference between the cars from track to track, meaning that we will almost certainly repeatedly see the type of emphatic Vettel win each season. It will become who can set their car up for the final race best.
As I mentioned earlier, this proposal has been met largely with disapproval. Most outspoken of the drivers has been Sebastian Vettel. Whether that is because it disadvantages him should his championship lead next year not be as emphatic as this, or whether that is me being cynical, I am not sure. Nevertheless, his comments have been covered in media across the globe, and he has become the face for the anti-50 points campaign. As much as I agree with the sentiment behind his words, I have a serious issue with something he said. One of the soundbites used during his comment was 'it's like giving double points for the final game of the Bundesliga'. That got my back up. I do love a good analogy, but it is this kind of ill-conceived and poorly constructed notion that makes me think that sportsmen should just stick to 'I think that...'.
The reason this simple statement got me irritated is that the two aren't really comparable. Whilst they are both sports, there is pretty much where the similarities end. The key point that makes me disagree is the fact that not all of the teams play each other on the final day. In racing, every driver is on the track at the same time, and therefore each can alter their own fate and position. On the final day of the football season, Bayern Munich (the team in first) could be playing Eintracht Braunschweig (the team currently bottom), whilst their main title rivals Borussia Dortmund could be playing Bayer Leverkusen for double points. I know which I would favour in that equation. In football, the fixtures leave more to fortune than F1 ever can, and therefore the double points in football would be far more unfair than the double points in motor racing.
However, just because I am arguing against Vettel's usage of a misguided metaphor, please do not think that I support the new rules. I do not. I think, for the reasons I have outline, it is a ridiculous notion, which doesn't even achieve its original purpose. If an individual is really as dominant as Vettel was this season, they will win the final race regardless, as Vettel did. Designed to attract TV audiences, all this new rule would do would be to force the other 19 races into a lesser category, meaning that viewers are unlikely to watch them. This makes no sense, either for the benefit of the sport, or the wallet of Bernie Ecclestone.
After such an emphatic title victory by Sebastian Vettel last time around, it is unsurprising that bosses want to prevent the same repetitive, boring season next year. Handing double points for the final race of the season would certainly prolong the title race, as an individual would need to be more than 50 points clear before travelling to the final race to be assured of the title. However, even this argument has flaws. It would not prevent the situation that we saw this season, as Vettel would still have been champion entering the final race in Brazil, and his win in the final race would only add further emphasis to the margin of victory.
I have further issues with this proposal. At the beginning of the season, every team sets up their car in a particular way, with different top speeds and cornering ability. This means that the best car often changes depending on the type of track. If a track has a huge amount of straights, like Spa-Francorchamps or Monza, this inevitably favours a car with a high top speed. On the other hand, a track like Monaco or Singapore's Marina Bay circuit rely on twisting turns, meaning that cars with excellent turning ability and high downforce will be at an advantage. What this has to do with the proposal is regardless of the track that is chosen to be the final race of the season, it will favour one team in particular. Either this, or, even worse in my opinion, all of the teams will set their cars up with the final race in mind, meaning that there will be no difference between the cars from track to track, meaning that we will almost certainly repeatedly see the type of emphatic Vettel win each season. It will become who can set their car up for the final race best.
As I mentioned earlier, this proposal has been met largely with disapproval. Most outspoken of the drivers has been Sebastian Vettel. Whether that is because it disadvantages him should his championship lead next year not be as emphatic as this, or whether that is me being cynical, I am not sure. Nevertheless, his comments have been covered in media across the globe, and he has become the face for the anti-50 points campaign. As much as I agree with the sentiment behind his words, I have a serious issue with something he said. One of the soundbites used during his comment was 'it's like giving double points for the final game of the Bundesliga'. That got my back up. I do love a good analogy, but it is this kind of ill-conceived and poorly constructed notion that makes me think that sportsmen should just stick to 'I think that...'.
The reason this simple statement got me irritated is that the two aren't really comparable. Whilst they are both sports, there is pretty much where the similarities end. The key point that makes me disagree is the fact that not all of the teams play each other on the final day. In racing, every driver is on the track at the same time, and therefore each can alter their own fate and position. On the final day of the football season, Bayern Munich (the team in first) could be playing Eintracht Braunschweig (the team currently bottom), whilst their main title rivals Borussia Dortmund could be playing Bayer Leverkusen for double points. I know which I would favour in that equation. In football, the fixtures leave more to fortune than F1 ever can, and therefore the double points in football would be far more unfair than the double points in motor racing.
However, just because I am arguing against Vettel's usage of a misguided metaphor, please do not think that I support the new rules. I do not. I think, for the reasons I have outline, it is a ridiculous notion, which doesn't even achieve its original purpose. If an individual is really as dominant as Vettel was this season, they will win the final race regardless, as Vettel did. Designed to attract TV audiences, all this new rule would do would be to force the other 19 races into a lesser category, meaning that viewers are unlikely to watch them. This makes no sense, either for the benefit of the sport, or the wallet of Bernie Ecclestone.
Saturday, 12 October 2013
England Series: Jack Wilshere's 'English'
In the build-up to Tuesday's do-or-die fixture at home to Poland, I will be running an England mini-series, looking at the talking points that have haunted the England side's preparations, and looking at their chances going forward. A few weeks ago, I gave my opinion on Greg Dyke's comments that England should be looking to reach the semi-finals of the Euro 2020 competition, and win the World Cup in 2022 in Qatar. This assumes that the groundwork is already in place for England to become a viable winner of trophies, as Spain's 'Golden Age' really began a decade or so previously, with the change of several rules regarding training of youngsters. Using the State of the Game report, as well as evidence from the current England squad and the lower leagues, I will examine just how much creedence can be given to Dyke's claims. I dismissed them a few weeks ago-was I wrong to?
However, I will begin with the stories that have hit the headlines over the last few days, perhaps affecting the run-up to what Hodgson himself has called his most important week in management. Earlier today I wrote about the plight of Joe Hart, one not entirely of his own doing. The reasons that Jack Wilshere has been in the headlines, however, is wholly the Arsenal man's fault. He hasn't had the best of fortnights, with allegations of smoking following a photo of him caught outside a nightclub with a cigarette, prompting widespread criticism, including from his manager. Then this. On Wednesday, Wilshere, in an interview, made his views on England (sort of) clear. He stated that only English people should play for England, making an implicit argument that FIFA's residency rules are wrong. This has led to widespread criticism of his remarks in the footballing world, and many comments (made both seriously and in jest) likening his comments to the racist rhetoric of the English Defence League and the British National Party.
Before we completely condemn Wilshere's comments, we really need to take a more detailed look at exactly what was said and what we can imagine was intended to have been said. Despite the complaints of many, labelling the Englishman a racist, I refuse to believe that was the intended message of his statement. Wilshere's statement of 'just because you've lived in England for 5 years, it doesn't make you English' doesn't help his cause much, as it certainly sounds off, but I think most reasonable people understand the intent behind his words. The idea that the finer points of a nation (being the cultural influences and lifestyle) can be picked up and internalised within 5 years is unlikely, and this is what I think Wilshere is referring to. He himself said that this was not a dig at any individual player (meaning the recent comments over Manchester United's Adnan Januzaj), nor was he saying that those born outside of the country should be instantly considered ineligable. The midfielder explained that the target of his comments were adults that arrived in this country, having been brought up and spent their formative years elsewhere, and therefore have an attachment to another county.
Being a Politics graduate, I hate it when sportsmen dip their toes into political waters, using terms and concepts that they don't wholly understand. The idea of nationality and nation is something far deeper than something you have on your passport, and, in this respect, I understand exactly what Jack Wilshere has said (albeit disastrously from a PR standpoint). Being from a specific country means more than just the specific rules and regulations. It is getting in touch with the nation, rather than the state. This means getting a real feel of English life (queuing, tea, complaining etc.), and really attaching themselves to the culture and heritage of England. In footballing terms, it is like making a transfer and then learning about the past legends and overall history of the club you have joined. However, unlike another club, whose history can generally be learnt in a couple of days, the history and culture of a state and nation is extremely difficult to learn, even more so to take on as your own. However, it could certainly be argued that a significant portion of the English culture is tolerance, with cultures from far and wide encouraged to add to the 'melting pot' style feel of British life. To that extent, I think that Jack Wilshire is wrong with his comments about Britishness, however I do understand the frustration that he feels over adults coming over and claiming to feel the same attachment to a country in five years that Wilshere has had to cultivate over 20. As a child, your formative years are generally when you form your strongest attachments, and begin to get a sense of who you really are. That is why Wilshere later made it clear that he had nothing against those who moved here from an early age, as they have had the experience of growing up in the country and gathering all the necessary national characteristics and feel an attachment to them. Perhaps the Arsenal player was simply attempting to question the FIFA eligibility rules. Nevertheless, a footballer getting involved in immigration policy, philosophy (yes, I do mean you Joey Barton) and politics in general is not advisable.
So does Wilshere have a point? By looking at FIFA's rules regarding eligibility, we can see there there are certainly areas that need tightening up. Whilst there is a rule that states that to play for any country, you must hold a passport from the state that you wish to represent. In order to gain a new nationality, you must either: be born in the country, have a biological mother, father or grandparent born in that country, or have resided in the country since the age of 18 for 5 years continuously. It is the latter that the midfielder was complaining about. I think he has a point. No-one can garner sufficient information of a nation's history and culture in 5 years to be able to strongly identify with it. I think that the rule would be far more accurate and appropriate if we said that anyone wanting to claim a new nationality must have lived in the country for 5 years before the age of 18, or 15 years over the age of 18. That should enable those that truly identify with the country, i.e. those that go through their formative years there, to represent the nation they want, whilst preventing those who simply want to represent a competitive team or, in the case of athletics, get better funding, with no concept of what it is to be 'British'. Wilshere should perhaps have said that the rules need changing-not by seeming to claim that only those that were born here are eligible. 'England for the English' is a headline often seen on BNP propaganda, and not an organisation that Wilshere will want to be associated with, especially if he is genuinely attempting to present a reasoned argument to change FIFA's rules.
However, if he is looking to change the rules, there will be many in this country wanting to oppose him. Now, I am by no means saying that any of the people mentioned do not feel a strong sense of attachment with England, merely that they were born in another country, and have now gone on to become highly successful at their sport. In many sports, England are heavily reliant on individuals that were not born in this country, and perhaps would not even fit the rules as I have suggested them to be. In cricket, both Kevin Pietersen and Jonathan Trott were born in South Africa. Both are now considered critical to the success of the batting lineup, and both were integral parts of the successful Ashes winning team this summer. In athletics, poster boy Mo Farah was born in Somalia, and he was one of the British faces of the 2012 Olympic Games last year. In golf, Justin Rose, like cricketers Pietersen and Trott, was born in South Africa. In both rugby forms, there are a multitude of names that are from Australasia and South Africa, with rugby union's Manu Tuilagi arguably the most high profile. Even in football, future talents like Saido Berahino (born in Burundi) and Wilfried Zaha (born in Ivory Coast), who are both widely considered English, were in fact born elsewhere. I dislike the idea that goes around, somewhat cynically, that 'if they are good, they can be English'. It seems too much like glory supporting. Personally, as long as those individuals truly feel like they identify with England, I am happy to have them representing us, however, this identification may be difficult to prove when determining whether someone should receive a passport.
Jack Wilshere's comments were ill-concieved and poorly delivered. He did not say exactly what he intended, and as a result left himself open to wild accusations of racism from the PC brigade and sections of the media, and more reasonable criticism from the majority of the footballing world. That being said, I do understand where he was coming from, as there do appear to be faults with the current residency part of the FIFA rules of eligibility. I have set out what I believe to be better to satisfy both criteria, to allow those that genuinely have a connection with a country from a young age to play for the country to which they have become attached, whilst denying those adults that have no concept of being part of the nation that they compete for. However, when applying any rules over nationality, we run the risk of alienating people who genuinely feel a strong connection to a nation. Therefore, perhaps it is best to have rather broad rules, as I would rather let 10 people who don't care about England represent us than deny a single person who really does identify. On a very basic level, people who value and identify with the shirt that they are playing for will perform to their potential. This will eventually show who cares and who doesn't, and bring the best performers to the top. I think that is how Wilshere should have prefaced his statements.
However, I will begin with the stories that have hit the headlines over the last few days, perhaps affecting the run-up to what Hodgson himself has called his most important week in management. Earlier today I wrote about the plight of Joe Hart, one not entirely of his own doing. The reasons that Jack Wilshere has been in the headlines, however, is wholly the Arsenal man's fault. He hasn't had the best of fortnights, with allegations of smoking following a photo of him caught outside a nightclub with a cigarette, prompting widespread criticism, including from his manager. Then this. On Wednesday, Wilshere, in an interview, made his views on England (sort of) clear. He stated that only English people should play for England, making an implicit argument that FIFA's residency rules are wrong. This has led to widespread criticism of his remarks in the footballing world, and many comments (made both seriously and in jest) likening his comments to the racist rhetoric of the English Defence League and the British National Party.
Before we completely condemn Wilshere's comments, we really need to take a more detailed look at exactly what was said and what we can imagine was intended to have been said. Despite the complaints of many, labelling the Englishman a racist, I refuse to believe that was the intended message of his statement. Wilshere's statement of 'just because you've lived in England for 5 years, it doesn't make you English' doesn't help his cause much, as it certainly sounds off, but I think most reasonable people understand the intent behind his words. The idea that the finer points of a nation (being the cultural influences and lifestyle) can be picked up and internalised within 5 years is unlikely, and this is what I think Wilshere is referring to. He himself said that this was not a dig at any individual player (meaning the recent comments over Manchester United's Adnan Januzaj), nor was he saying that those born outside of the country should be instantly considered ineligable. The midfielder explained that the target of his comments were adults that arrived in this country, having been brought up and spent their formative years elsewhere, and therefore have an attachment to another county.
Being a Politics graduate, I hate it when sportsmen dip their toes into political waters, using terms and concepts that they don't wholly understand. The idea of nationality and nation is something far deeper than something you have on your passport, and, in this respect, I understand exactly what Jack Wilshere has said (albeit disastrously from a PR standpoint). Being from a specific country means more than just the specific rules and regulations. It is getting in touch with the nation, rather than the state. This means getting a real feel of English life (queuing, tea, complaining etc.), and really attaching themselves to the culture and heritage of England. In footballing terms, it is like making a transfer and then learning about the past legends and overall history of the club you have joined. However, unlike another club, whose history can generally be learnt in a couple of days, the history and culture of a state and nation is extremely difficult to learn, even more so to take on as your own. However, it could certainly be argued that a significant portion of the English culture is tolerance, with cultures from far and wide encouraged to add to the 'melting pot' style feel of British life. To that extent, I think that Jack Wilshire is wrong with his comments about Britishness, however I do understand the frustration that he feels over adults coming over and claiming to feel the same attachment to a country in five years that Wilshere has had to cultivate over 20. As a child, your formative years are generally when you form your strongest attachments, and begin to get a sense of who you really are. That is why Wilshere later made it clear that he had nothing against those who moved here from an early age, as they have had the experience of growing up in the country and gathering all the necessary national characteristics and feel an attachment to them. Perhaps the Arsenal player was simply attempting to question the FIFA eligibility rules. Nevertheless, a footballer getting involved in immigration policy, philosophy (yes, I do mean you Joey Barton) and politics in general is not advisable.
So does Wilshere have a point? By looking at FIFA's rules regarding eligibility, we can see there there are certainly areas that need tightening up. Whilst there is a rule that states that to play for any country, you must hold a passport from the state that you wish to represent. In order to gain a new nationality, you must either: be born in the country, have a biological mother, father or grandparent born in that country, or have resided in the country since the age of 18 for 5 years continuously. It is the latter that the midfielder was complaining about. I think he has a point. No-one can garner sufficient information of a nation's history and culture in 5 years to be able to strongly identify with it. I think that the rule would be far more accurate and appropriate if we said that anyone wanting to claim a new nationality must have lived in the country for 5 years before the age of 18, or 15 years over the age of 18. That should enable those that truly identify with the country, i.e. those that go through their formative years there, to represent the nation they want, whilst preventing those who simply want to represent a competitive team or, in the case of athletics, get better funding, with no concept of what it is to be 'British'. Wilshere should perhaps have said that the rules need changing-not by seeming to claim that only those that were born here are eligible. 'England for the English' is a headline often seen on BNP propaganda, and not an organisation that Wilshere will want to be associated with, especially if he is genuinely attempting to present a reasoned argument to change FIFA's rules.
However, if he is looking to change the rules, there will be many in this country wanting to oppose him. Now, I am by no means saying that any of the people mentioned do not feel a strong sense of attachment with England, merely that they were born in another country, and have now gone on to become highly successful at their sport. In many sports, England are heavily reliant on individuals that were not born in this country, and perhaps would not even fit the rules as I have suggested them to be. In cricket, both Kevin Pietersen and Jonathan Trott were born in South Africa. Both are now considered critical to the success of the batting lineup, and both were integral parts of the successful Ashes winning team this summer. In athletics, poster boy Mo Farah was born in Somalia, and he was one of the British faces of the 2012 Olympic Games last year. In golf, Justin Rose, like cricketers Pietersen and Trott, was born in South Africa. In both rugby forms, there are a multitude of names that are from Australasia and South Africa, with rugby union's Manu Tuilagi arguably the most high profile. Even in football, future talents like Saido Berahino (born in Burundi) and Wilfried Zaha (born in Ivory Coast), who are both widely considered English, were in fact born elsewhere. I dislike the idea that goes around, somewhat cynically, that 'if they are good, they can be English'. It seems too much like glory supporting. Personally, as long as those individuals truly feel like they identify with England, I am happy to have them representing us, however, this identification may be difficult to prove when determining whether someone should receive a passport.
Jack Wilshere's comments were ill-concieved and poorly delivered. He did not say exactly what he intended, and as a result left himself open to wild accusations of racism from the PC brigade and sections of the media, and more reasonable criticism from the majority of the footballing world. That being said, I do understand where he was coming from, as there do appear to be faults with the current residency part of the FIFA rules of eligibility. I have set out what I believe to be better to satisfy both criteria, to allow those that genuinely have a connection with a country from a young age to play for the country to which they have become attached, whilst denying those adults that have no concept of being part of the nation that they compete for. However, when applying any rules over nationality, we run the risk of alienating people who genuinely feel a strong connection to a nation. Therefore, perhaps it is best to have rather broad rules, as I would rather let 10 people who don't care about England represent us than deny a single person who really does identify. On a very basic level, people who value and identify with the shirt that they are playing for will perform to their potential. This will eventually show who cares and who doesn't, and bring the best performers to the top. I think that is how Wilshere should have prefaced his statements.
Thursday, 5 September 2013
England's Future: Should We Prepare For Success?
As the Premier League season takes a break for international qualifiers, our attention has turned to the national side. With World Cup 2014 qualifiers this weekend against Moldova and Ukraine, there has been much discussion over what our expectations should be for present and future tournaments. English football in recent years has, in general, been burdened with a ridiculously heightened set of expectations. Every pre-tournament begins with a select group of fans insisting that 'this will be our year'. And it never has been.
The subject has reared its head once again with the new FA Chairman Greg Dyke making his first official speech in his new capacity. Having been appointed as David Bernstein's successor in March, beginning his new role in July, the 66 year old has been making headlines in recent days. Yesterday, the news broke that Dyke expects England to be capable of reaching the Euro 2020 semi finals, and then potentially win the 2022 World Cup in Qatar. In this post, I will be examining just how realistic this statement is, and giving my opinions on England's chances over the next decade or so.
A good place to start when examining this statement is to look at England's historical performances in tournaments. If Dyke's comments are to be believed, then an upward trend, no matter how small, should be expected in order to see a progression towards the later stages of competitions. This would give evidence for such optimism. I will go back to my earliest memories of England, to see if we have progressed since the mid-90s. Euro 96' was obviously a massive competition for the nation, as it was the first time since 1966 that England had hosted an international tournament. With the home crowd urging their side on, England progressed to the semi finals of a major tournament. There they faced the pre-tournament favourites Germany, and after 120 minutes the two could not be separated. In a repeat of the famous 1990 World Cup semi, England were to lose on penalties, with Gareth Southgate the man to shoulder the responsibility. This penalty shootout would start an alarming pattern of spot-kick exits. In 1998, England made the short journey to France for the World Cup. After getting through the groups, they met Argentina in the knock-out round. This game will best be remembered for the emergence of Michael Owen, who at 18 scored a wondergoal, and then the dismissal of David Beckham, for a retaliatory kick on Diego Simeone. These events would lead to another penalty shootout, with David Batty the unfortunate individual this time around.
In 2000, England were placed in a 'Group of Death' with Germany, Portugal and Romania. Having lost their opening game by the narrowest of margins to the Portuguese, the English gained revenge over their great rivals Germany, meaning a final game showdown with the Romanians. There, despite leading 2-1 at half time, England let that slip, eventually losing 3-2 to exit the tournament at the group stage. The Japan/South Korea World Cup of 2002 saw the English once again placed in the toughest group, with Sweden, Nigeria and Argentina their opponents. After drawing their opening game, the English claimed revenge for their 1998 defeat to Argentina, with Beckham redeeming himself with the winning goal from the spot. Another draw with Nigeria saw the English scrape through in second place, where they met Denmark. There they cruised through, winning 3-0 to face Brazil in the quarter final. With many saying that the winner would come from this match, England raced into a lead, with Owen opening the scoring mid-way through the half. But once again they conspired to lose, with goals from Rivaldo and a freak free-kick from Ronaldinho knocking the English out. Euro 2004 saw the return of the penalty kick exit. After progressing through the groups relatively easily, England faced hosts Portugal in the quarters. After taking the lead, the English lost prodigy Wayne Rooney to a broken metatarsal, before Portugal fought back to take the match to penalties. There, misses from Darius Vassell and, most spectacularly, from David Beckham condemned England to another exit.
Germany hosted the 2006 World Cup, and after a comfortable journey through the group, England edged past Ecuador thanks to a Beckham free-kick. The quarter-finals saw the English up against Portugal, and after a controversial red card to Rooney, with Cristiano Ronaldo the villain, England once again exited on penalties. After misses from Lampard, Gerrard and Carragher, it was over to Ronaldo to deal the final blow. Two years later, after a dismal campaign under manager Steve McLaren, England lost 3-2 to Croatia in their final qualifying game to deny them a place in Austria-Switzerland. Fabio Capello's England managed to qualify for South Africa 2010 without losing, but they struggled to get out of the easiest group in the competition. After dismal draws against the USA and Algeria, they laboured to a 1-0 win against Slovenia. The knockout round saw them face the Germans, where they were destroyed 4-1. Most recently, last summer saw the English side travel to Poland-Ukraine, where after cruising through the group, they met a strong Italian outfit in the quarters. After 120 minutes of stalemate, it was once again down to the lottery of a penalty shootout. There, misses from Young and Cole sent England packing. In none of the last seven tournaments have England progressed past the quarter finals. Rather than the upward trend that would support the claims, it has been almost the exact opposite, so Dyke's comments that he expects England to win the 2022 World Cup seem completely against historical evidence.
But maybe I am being pessimistic on our young and upcoming players. Perhaps we have in our youth ranks the next Lionel Messi, who will lead England to stardom and success. If these prospects are what Dyke is basing his claims on, it is therefore worth looking at England's up and coming talent. If we discard those players that are over the 30 year old mark, England's next team will roughly consist of: Hart, Baines, Jones, Cahill, Walker, Wilshere, Walcott, Oxlade-Chamberlain, Cleverley, Welbeck, Rooney. Whilst an above average team, I would not consider this side capable of winning major international honours, especially when compared with the Spanish and the Brazilians. In terms of the youth prospects, players like Ross Barkley and Nathan Redmond have started this new season well, but they are hardly likely to push England to the international victory that is being suggested. The longer-term future prospects are not much better either, as the grassroots game has all too often been criticised for not bringing the players through. Dyke's argument seems to assume that we are now at as good if not a better position than the 'Golden Era' of 2002-2006. This is backed up by his recent comments that an English World Cup win in 2014 is 'unlikely'. The very fact that we are thinking about it seems deluded, as we do not have the history or the squad to support these claims.
The final reason why I believe Dyke's claim of England's chances of victory in 2022 is ridiculous is a simple one: it takes place in Qatar. There has already been a great deal of controversy over whether a summer World Cup in the Middle East country is possible, with temperatures of up to 50C expected. It is no coincidence that England tend to do badly in countries with a high temperature. South Africa 2010 is a good example of this, and I expect to see another example next summer. Sides that are used to the Middle Eastern climate will benefit from the 2022 World Cup, unless the switch to a winter World Cup occurs. I disagree with the idea, but it would level the playing field somewhat. The climate alone would ordinarily be enough to leave England at a disadvantage, and I suspect that that is what we will see in 2022.
So how can we rectify this situation? I think we have to start from square one, go right back to basics and make revolutionary changes to the grassroots of our game. Having considerable experience of youth football, having been a player, and later, a referee, I know all too well the problems that young players face. Even from a very young age, technical ability and training is bred out of players, replaced by the desire to win at all costs. This leaves current players with an exceptionally bad attitude, to both referees and managers, and lacking in the technical ability to move to the next level. This is not aided by the way that I have observed families behave on the touchlines of matches. In my refereeing days, I genuinely enjoyed the matches, and the kids in general were well-behaved. You at times got the odd one that would mouth off, but the majority were respectful. The parents, on the other hand, were disgraceful. The abuse and language that I as the referee, the opposing players, and even their own children would recieve was horrendous, and it made me despair of parenting in this country. It is not difficult to see how players pick up those disrespectful habits, and this, coupled with the lack of training, is precisely why English players are not as successful. For those who complain that we do not see enough English transfers, this is simply because we want to be the best league in the world, and those who blame this on the national side's failure start the blaming process too late in the players' development.
I think we have to adopt a much more Spanish or German approach, with the emphasis on training and nurturing, rather than the victory-based emphasis on resentment and anger that currently exists. We have to do this from the very earliest age, with any talent encouraged and technique valued over victory. Parents forget that their children are not fighting for £50,000 a week and 3 points in the Premier League, and they need to calm down. I would happily hand out lifetime bans for misbehaviour at football grounds and school fields. That may appear harsh, but some of what I have witnessed and been subjected to from parents is astonishing and disgusting, and I would never want any referee (bear in mind I was only 14 at the time) going through that. We see this happen all too often in the Premier League (the Respect campaign is, in my opinion, a joke), and children and parents are inevitably going to continue this. Stamping it out, like we have seen with racism, is the only way we are going to improve.
As for the English game and their chances, I think that Dyke appears to be one of those England supporters that goes into every tournament with a sense of optimism about England's chances. I, for one would like to hear some refreshing honesty from the upper echelons of the FA for once. Saying things like 'we should expect to win the World Cup in 2022' is at best laughable, as I see no reason why the slump we have become so accustomed to will not continue. It is perhaps best to accept that England as a footballing nation are no better than a quarter final place at major tournaments. That way we won't have to feel the disappointment and anger at our players when we lose on penalties to Portugal. Without an overhaul of our mentality at the grassroots level, both in terms of training and anger management, I fail to see England winning anything for a long time.
The subject has reared its head once again with the new FA Chairman Greg Dyke making his first official speech in his new capacity. Having been appointed as David Bernstein's successor in March, beginning his new role in July, the 66 year old has been making headlines in recent days. Yesterday, the news broke that Dyke expects England to be capable of reaching the Euro 2020 semi finals, and then potentially win the 2022 World Cup in Qatar. In this post, I will be examining just how realistic this statement is, and giving my opinions on England's chances over the next decade or so.
A good place to start when examining this statement is to look at England's historical performances in tournaments. If Dyke's comments are to be believed, then an upward trend, no matter how small, should be expected in order to see a progression towards the later stages of competitions. This would give evidence for such optimism. I will go back to my earliest memories of England, to see if we have progressed since the mid-90s. Euro 96' was obviously a massive competition for the nation, as it was the first time since 1966 that England had hosted an international tournament. With the home crowd urging their side on, England progressed to the semi finals of a major tournament. There they faced the pre-tournament favourites Germany, and after 120 minutes the two could not be separated. In a repeat of the famous 1990 World Cup semi, England were to lose on penalties, with Gareth Southgate the man to shoulder the responsibility. This penalty shootout would start an alarming pattern of spot-kick exits. In 1998, England made the short journey to France for the World Cup. After getting through the groups, they met Argentina in the knock-out round. This game will best be remembered for the emergence of Michael Owen, who at 18 scored a wondergoal, and then the dismissal of David Beckham, for a retaliatory kick on Diego Simeone. These events would lead to another penalty shootout, with David Batty the unfortunate individual this time around.
In 2000, England were placed in a 'Group of Death' with Germany, Portugal and Romania. Having lost their opening game by the narrowest of margins to the Portuguese, the English gained revenge over their great rivals Germany, meaning a final game showdown with the Romanians. There, despite leading 2-1 at half time, England let that slip, eventually losing 3-2 to exit the tournament at the group stage. The Japan/South Korea World Cup of 2002 saw the English once again placed in the toughest group, with Sweden, Nigeria and Argentina their opponents. After drawing their opening game, the English claimed revenge for their 1998 defeat to Argentina, with Beckham redeeming himself with the winning goal from the spot. Another draw with Nigeria saw the English scrape through in second place, where they met Denmark. There they cruised through, winning 3-0 to face Brazil in the quarter final. With many saying that the winner would come from this match, England raced into a lead, with Owen opening the scoring mid-way through the half. But once again they conspired to lose, with goals from Rivaldo and a freak free-kick from Ronaldinho knocking the English out. Euro 2004 saw the return of the penalty kick exit. After progressing through the groups relatively easily, England faced hosts Portugal in the quarters. After taking the lead, the English lost prodigy Wayne Rooney to a broken metatarsal, before Portugal fought back to take the match to penalties. There, misses from Darius Vassell and, most spectacularly, from David Beckham condemned England to another exit.
Germany hosted the 2006 World Cup, and after a comfortable journey through the group, England edged past Ecuador thanks to a Beckham free-kick. The quarter-finals saw the English up against Portugal, and after a controversial red card to Rooney, with Cristiano Ronaldo the villain, England once again exited on penalties. After misses from Lampard, Gerrard and Carragher, it was over to Ronaldo to deal the final blow. Two years later, after a dismal campaign under manager Steve McLaren, England lost 3-2 to Croatia in their final qualifying game to deny them a place in Austria-Switzerland. Fabio Capello's England managed to qualify for South Africa 2010 without losing, but they struggled to get out of the easiest group in the competition. After dismal draws against the USA and Algeria, they laboured to a 1-0 win against Slovenia. The knockout round saw them face the Germans, where they were destroyed 4-1. Most recently, last summer saw the English side travel to Poland-Ukraine, where after cruising through the group, they met a strong Italian outfit in the quarters. After 120 minutes of stalemate, it was once again down to the lottery of a penalty shootout. There, misses from Young and Cole sent England packing. In none of the last seven tournaments have England progressed past the quarter finals. Rather than the upward trend that would support the claims, it has been almost the exact opposite, so Dyke's comments that he expects England to win the 2022 World Cup seem completely against historical evidence.
But maybe I am being pessimistic on our young and upcoming players. Perhaps we have in our youth ranks the next Lionel Messi, who will lead England to stardom and success. If these prospects are what Dyke is basing his claims on, it is therefore worth looking at England's up and coming talent. If we discard those players that are over the 30 year old mark, England's next team will roughly consist of: Hart, Baines, Jones, Cahill, Walker, Wilshere, Walcott, Oxlade-Chamberlain, Cleverley, Welbeck, Rooney. Whilst an above average team, I would not consider this side capable of winning major international honours, especially when compared with the Spanish and the Brazilians. In terms of the youth prospects, players like Ross Barkley and Nathan Redmond have started this new season well, but they are hardly likely to push England to the international victory that is being suggested. The longer-term future prospects are not much better either, as the grassroots game has all too often been criticised for not bringing the players through. Dyke's argument seems to assume that we are now at as good if not a better position than the 'Golden Era' of 2002-2006. This is backed up by his recent comments that an English World Cup win in 2014 is 'unlikely'. The very fact that we are thinking about it seems deluded, as we do not have the history or the squad to support these claims.
The final reason why I believe Dyke's claim of England's chances of victory in 2022 is ridiculous is a simple one: it takes place in Qatar. There has already been a great deal of controversy over whether a summer World Cup in the Middle East country is possible, with temperatures of up to 50C expected. It is no coincidence that England tend to do badly in countries with a high temperature. South Africa 2010 is a good example of this, and I expect to see another example next summer. Sides that are used to the Middle Eastern climate will benefit from the 2022 World Cup, unless the switch to a winter World Cup occurs. I disagree with the idea, but it would level the playing field somewhat. The climate alone would ordinarily be enough to leave England at a disadvantage, and I suspect that that is what we will see in 2022.
So how can we rectify this situation? I think we have to start from square one, go right back to basics and make revolutionary changes to the grassroots of our game. Having considerable experience of youth football, having been a player, and later, a referee, I know all too well the problems that young players face. Even from a very young age, technical ability and training is bred out of players, replaced by the desire to win at all costs. This leaves current players with an exceptionally bad attitude, to both referees and managers, and lacking in the technical ability to move to the next level. This is not aided by the way that I have observed families behave on the touchlines of matches. In my refereeing days, I genuinely enjoyed the matches, and the kids in general were well-behaved. You at times got the odd one that would mouth off, but the majority were respectful. The parents, on the other hand, were disgraceful. The abuse and language that I as the referee, the opposing players, and even their own children would recieve was horrendous, and it made me despair of parenting in this country. It is not difficult to see how players pick up those disrespectful habits, and this, coupled with the lack of training, is precisely why English players are not as successful. For those who complain that we do not see enough English transfers, this is simply because we want to be the best league in the world, and those who blame this on the national side's failure start the blaming process too late in the players' development.
I think we have to adopt a much more Spanish or German approach, with the emphasis on training and nurturing, rather than the victory-based emphasis on resentment and anger that currently exists. We have to do this from the very earliest age, with any talent encouraged and technique valued over victory. Parents forget that their children are not fighting for £50,000 a week and 3 points in the Premier League, and they need to calm down. I would happily hand out lifetime bans for misbehaviour at football grounds and school fields. That may appear harsh, but some of what I have witnessed and been subjected to from parents is astonishing and disgusting, and I would never want any referee (bear in mind I was only 14 at the time) going through that. We see this happen all too often in the Premier League (the Respect campaign is, in my opinion, a joke), and children and parents are inevitably going to continue this. Stamping it out, like we have seen with racism, is the only way we are going to improve.
As for the English game and their chances, I think that Dyke appears to be one of those England supporters that goes into every tournament with a sense of optimism about England's chances. I, for one would like to hear some refreshing honesty from the upper echelons of the FA for once. Saying things like 'we should expect to win the World Cup in 2022' is at best laughable, as I see no reason why the slump we have become so accustomed to will not continue. It is perhaps best to accept that England as a footballing nation are no better than a quarter final place at major tournaments. That way we won't have to feel the disappointment and anger at our players when we lose on penalties to Portugal. Without an overhaul of our mentality at the grassroots level, both in terms of training and anger management, I fail to see England winning anything for a long time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)