England lost to Russia in the qualifying match for Euro 2008. English newspapers and channels are doing anatomy of each section of the national team. What went wrong to England? Is it just tactical inability of Steve McClarin? Or the English team is not good enough to play in international level? Here, I am looking into the performace of England for last one decade.

English Media claims that English Premier League is the best football league in the planet. I don't want to challenge it, even though i can't agree with it. But, it is sure that EPL is the league which makes more money than any other leage for the time being. It has more number of clubs which high quality players than other leagues. Still, England is not doing well in the internatioanl arena, why?

It is better take a retrospective of English league and England's national performance. Of course, in the last 10 year, England managed to reach in the finals of two world cup and 2 Euro cups. In the tournament, they also managed to overcome the league rounds and reached till quarter finals. So -this proves that England is not a bad team. The world TEAM is very important. Most of the media projects, over the last few years, that English team means few players. All the reporting were around few players. From the reports, once can easly make out, they are not looking for a team performance and they are for individual performance from the most marketed players. I still believe that England did well in the last one decade than most of other European team. They played much better than other European teams. Where things went wrong?

Whenever England loses, the English media turns against the leading clubs who makes achievements through foreign players. For the last 5-7 years, whenever, the national team loses, the blame will first hit on the leading club like Manchester United, Arsenal, Liverpool, etc. Claim is that foreign players are doing well in the clubd and blocking the emergence of talent in national pool. How much it is true? This should be analysed under the background of globalisation. After all, clubs are for profit and their main income comes from fans and followers. Their primary object is to win the league and trophies than producing good players for the national team. 

After losing to Russia, English media started the blame game. First they will try to find out the  scape goat. In 2002 world cup, it was David Seaman the goal keeper. Interestingly, after Seaman, they failed to find a dependable goalkeeper for last 5 years. David Seaman emerged as a Hero of 1996 Euro and he never struggled to be the first choice till 2002 world cup exit. After him, England tried David James and Paul Robinson and but never satisfied with their performance. What was lacking? Why England failed to find a good replacement for goalkeepers? Is it just because of the failure of the goalkeeper or there is something to do with the back four for keeping the goal post in best condition?

For years, the dominance of foreign players (non-euro) is a big issue in England. Tell me how many English player has experience in playing abroad? It is a matter of exposure. It is foolish to say that England team will play in a particular way and expects other teams should play against them in same way. Remember, English clubs are also changing the method of their game according to their managers and coaches strategies. Football is a game based on strategies, tactics, technique, and athleticism. If England is adamant to say they will play only in a particular way....it will end up in more trouble. Others will change their game plans according to their abilities and advantages.

England did a very good experiment by appointing Sven Goran Erickson as their manager. The Swede was big success in his native country and in Italy and tried to get best out of English team. My observation is, he did extremely well. But his failure was more in dealing of team members. During his tenure, i rarely come across any report covering about English Team and most of them were covering about individual achievements. They rarely talked about the team performance, its tactical abilities, its cohesion as a team...etc. but they explained the celebrity side of the team, their wifes, injuries of most popular players ..etc. Everybody knows that the selection of a national team is not just selecting playing 11, it includes backup players in each department. If one is injured, there will be replacement. That part is always missed from the media.

Apart from David Beckham, Michel Oven and Oven Hargraves, how many players were exposed to other leagues? Oven's experience was accidental and Beckham's was forceful. Hargreves made his name in Germany before joining in English team. Why it is so less in number? Is it because English players are not good enough to break into best clubs of Spain and Italy? Yes, the money factor is there, but the first layer of clubs in Spain and Italy are extremely good in financial position. Still, why they rarely come for buying an English player... this says some extra truths..isn't it? How many English managers have foreign experience? Yes, Sir Boby Robson and Terry Wenebles had Spanish experience....but the number is very small.

Premier league is the best league in the planet. Yes, i accept it. But who made it? I don't think English FA will come and take the whole credit. Everyone knows that the credit is more with the foreign managers and foreign players who changed the rough and boring face of premier league. They contributed to English clubs but FA failed to convert these achievements to national level. The English Club Arsenal was known for the most boring approach. One-nil-to-Arsenal was a well known slogan. Appointment of the French manager Arsene Wenger changed it. Sir Alex Ferguson, Rafael Benitez, Jose Mourinho, even Sven Erickson.. changed the face of English club football and made it as part of world football. Still, when it matters to English national team, they will go back to old tactics of long passes and headed goals.

I don't know when they will realize that they don't have Alan Shearer in up front to get goal. Wayne Rooney is not a player like him. Oven is not a player like old time English strikers. Yes, Peter Crouch is there, but the whole team is not composed in such a way for one player. Owen will play better in a game with small passes. Rooney is a better creator and good finisher. But he generally carries the midfield and defence burden on his shoulders. This is because of the game plan. That's why they lost to Russia. Steve McClaren is a good manager but very conventional. He strongly believes in conventional English game. For the national team, which includes players from different clubs who plays under the direction of foreign managers, it is difficult to cope up with old pattern. I think, it was the main problem. When the club football is flowing in full course, it is difficult to pick the best players from each club and produce a team and make them to play in a different method –especially in a short time span. This is what happened to McClaren’s team. Along with they underestimated the strength of Russian team. Yes, of course, Russian team is not known as a great team and they lost to England in their qualifying round in London. This margin produced a huge confidence in the team management and they didn’t prepare well against the Russian who are playing in their home turf. In fact, Russians took advantage of all available aspects, which are not familiar to English team. The English team and media cried a lot about the plastic (synthetic turf) ground.

I have gone through few pre-match analysis and saw how they approached the game. The analysis of pundits in media also reflects the thoughts of English football management. They observed that Russian team who lost in London against English is not good enough to beat them at any cost. Most of them expected a draw and very few expected victory. This shows the casual approach of English team. Injury and replacements were discussed but none of them analysed English team as a football team. Most of the analysis were based on individual achievements and individual injury crisis. None of them talked about the strength and weakness of opposition team. The tactics of their well known manager Guss Hiddinks. Very few observed the crowd factor. Russia is not a small country and they are not new to football. English media forget about the inspiration factor from the crowd, which comes around 75,000. They also forgot that fact their manager made wonders with perennial under achievers like South Korea and Australia in World cups.

In fact, Russian manager approached the game in a pragmatic manner. They took the advantage of all key factors –synthetic turf, inspirational crowd, and game based on small passes. On the other hand, England tried to play their conventional game which was based on defensive approach. When the key players, especially in midfield and defence are absent, why they approached a game with defensive tactics? The post game reports says, the game was one sided and English team was just their shadows of the London game between them. Now English media is looking for a scapegoat. They pinpointed Steve McClaren as the chief culprit of the failure. Yes, as the person responsible for that, he is. But, is it just McClarin only? I think, the entire English football should take the responsibility of failure. It is difficult to follow the conventional English game when the entire clubs in England are following a different format. In this system the transition of players of leading clubs to national team and vice versa require more effort and time. On the other hand, if FA and management decided to combine the club approaches according the requirement of the game, in future, English game will achieve something.