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.

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.