England are playing with control and
presuming all those from abroad are enlightened, speaking a language none of us previously understood, and all those at home are still in need of being directed out of the dark ages. Clearly, there are some who have imported methods successfully and had a profound impact – most notably Arsene Wenger and Pep Guardiola. Obviously, there are some English coaches who conform to stereotype, preferring the pragmatic 4-4-2 of old.
When Steve Mcclaren, Roy Hodgson and, albeit briefly, Sam Allardyce failed in the England job, it did not help those emerging coaches in this country who wanted to play a different way. There has been a lot of tarring with the same brush.
But in my experience, there are generalisations about English and foreign coaching, with plenty conveniently spinning arguments to imply vast differences in philosophy. My experience working under both British and overseas coaches contradicts this. The best coaches – wherever they are from – are curious about different styles, so it makes sense that many of those who have come here from Italy, France, Spain or Scandinavia have been influenced by English football. In the same way I have worked with British coaches who preferred Dutch or Spanish methods.
At club level, the managers I worked with who were most obsessed with possession-based football were from Bootle (Roy Evans), Glasgow (Kenny Dalglish) and Northern Ireland (Brendan Rodgers).
This brings me back to Southgate and his ideas, which are more influenced by playing from the back, not only when compared to Hodgson and Allardyce, but also to his European predecessors. Southgate is taking the national team in a direction we have not seen since Glenn Hoddle and Terry Venables’s reign.
We have to say the FA has been lucky rather than designed it this way. Allardyce would have been old school like Hodgson had he stayed. You could argue between Hoddle and Southgate – stylistically, at least – England missed a chance, having appeared to be going in the right direction with the possession game more suited to international football in 1990, 1996 and 1998. International football is slower, more defensive and, as a whole, there are fewer chances against well-organised teams.
The quality is poorer, but defences sit deep. It is imperative not to be wasteful on the ball, yet that has been a negative feature of England’s performances in recent major championships. The loss to Iceland in Euro 2016, when we were unable to string passes together, was the lowest point. There are similar examples over
He is taking the team in a direction we have not seen since Glenn Hoddle and Terry Venables
two decades, England found wanting against technically better sides in major competitions.
Watching England over the past few weeks has felt different, the excitement around the team comparable to the 1990s. I reached the quarter-final under Eriksson in 2006, but it was not like this. There was negativity because we did not play very well to get there.
Despite the hype around reaching the World Cup quarterfinal, I cannot sit here and suggest we are watching brilliant football now. This is not a side creating lots of chances, cutting through defences and playing like Manchester City. But it feels more proactive, and the reason is greater control of the ball, especially from the back. On average, England are completing over 100 more passes a game than in 2006, and 169 more than in Euro 2012.
Apart from a brief spell in the first period of extra time against Colombia – which coincided with a slight change of shape – England have never been under pressure defensively. The foundation was