The most consistently disappointing aspect of Eriksson’s time in charge is that most of his best ideas — and a sprinkling of his worst — have come from other managers. With what should have been an entirely fresh eye on the English game, there is almost nothing Eriksson has shown us that we did not already know or was not introduced at club level. Indeed, in many areas, he seems slow off the mark.
The potential for Ferdinand to be used more imaginatively beyond central defence has been floated in these pages and beyond for some time. Before the arrival of Wayne Rooney (but in the time of Paul Scholes), Gary Neville described Ferdinand as the best technical footballer in the England team. Plainly, he has the potential to occupy a variety of positions: stepping into midfield as one of three central defenders, as a forward or backward sweeper or, given time and tuition, as a holding midfield player.
Deployed with greater wit, he is a player who could have changed the way England attacked a game. It might be asked what is the point of appointing a foreign head coach if not to be exposed to fresh, sometimes radical, foreign ideas? Yet when asked to encapsulate Eriksson’s vision, Ferdinand replied: “He likes his defenders to defend.”
Hail El Wilko. Profundity will have to wait, then.
Eriksson’s reciprocal view of Ferdinand is that he is almost too talented, which makes him lazy. Or bored, maybe? Could it be that Ferdinand’s renowned lapses of concentration are a result of dumbing down his talent, of being asked to limit his game? If a brief experiment at Manchester United becomes a longer one and if that bleeds into England’s World Cup preparations, are we not also entitled to ponder the point of the England manager if the most significant decision- making occurs within Sir Alex Ferguson’s office at the Carrington training ground?
Eriksson hides behind the mantra that he keeps players happy by using them in club positions, but the subliminal message is that English footballers are too thick to think. So why has Steven Gerrard performed well in roughly six positions for Liverpool? Why has Joe Cole occupied at least four for Chelsea? Even the much-maligned Neville switches effortlessly from right back to central defence for club and country on request.
I asked Eriksson about a change in role for Ferdinand recently and was told that because he has never played anywhere but central defence for his club, he would find it hard now; but is that not where five million quids’ worth of coaching comes in? The latest explanation is that there is no time to alter England’s tactical approach before the World Cup — yet, after five years in the job, whose fault is that?
Eriksson’s refusal to move beyond the comfort zone of 4-4-2 — he has a plan B, but because last time out it sent his best player crackers in Belfast, it is fair to assume that we will not be seeing much of it in Germany — means that if England are to win the World Cup, it will be down to the great individuals in the team. The rest of the world knows how Eriksson’s team will play and unless a club manager pulls a rabbit from the hat (such as Ferdinand the midfield player, with Jamie Carragher and John Terry in central defence), there will be no surprises.
What departures there have been were largely hatched elsewhere anyway. José Mourinho, the Chelsea manager, gave Cole his run on the left, after which Eriksson found the courage to commit to it, while the failed experiment of Rooney wide in a three-pronged attack was first tried at Manchester United. Martin Jol, the head coach, toyed with the concept of Ledley King in holding midfield at Tottenham Hotspur and Real Madrid had played David Beckham in deep central midfield long before England tried it, to no great success, against Wales and Northern Ireland.
()
Aside from playing Ashley Cole and Wayne Bridge on the left against Macedonia — an experiment that lasted 45 minutes and yielded a 2-2 draw — it is hard to think of a single occasion when Eriksson has strayed from the well-signed path. He introduces players such as Rooney or Terry, but that is more a consequence of age than managerial wisdom. It would have been very ambitious for Kevin Keegan to have named Rooney in his first England squad at the age of 13.
Mourinho has pledged to do all he can to aid England in Germany by resting players in May, if possible. He has loaned Bridge to Fulham to try to secure his squad place and may even find room for Shaun Wright-Phillips once the title is won, but why should this be his responsibility? Either Wright-Phillips is England material or he is not. If his place in the squad truly depends on his selection at Chelsea, then Mourinho is as much the England head coach as Eriksson.
Wright-Phillips is kept out of the first team at Chelsea by any one of three players: Joe Cole, the most improved midfield player in the country, Arjen Robben, one of the finest wide players in the world, and Damien Duff, a winger whose excellent technique married to a Trojan workrate encapsulates what Mourinho’s teams are about.
Is there any shame in struggling for recognition beside this trio? No. Robben and Duff would walk into Eriksson’s England team and Cole is already there. So why should Wright-Phillips’s limited first-team opportunities impact on his place in the England squad, provided that his fitness is up to standard? Why should Mourinho’s preferences affect Eriksson’s thinking?
Put it like this. Suppose Barcelona sign Rooney in the hope of playing him with Ronaldinho, behind Samuel Eto’o, next season. Suppose after six weeks it is not working. Eto’o is thriving but Rooney and Ronaldinho cannot hit it off. One has to drop to the substitutes’ bench. Unsurprisingly, the coach chooses Rooney. Does this make him a lesser player — because he cannot get in the team ahead of Ronaldinho? Does this indicate that he is no longer good enough for England? Of course not.
Eriksson stood by Michael Owen in similar circumstances when the forward was at Real, but less established squad members may not be so lucky. Yet unless Eriksson has decided that Wright-Phillips is not an international player after his ordinary display against Northern Ireland, what has really changed?
The reason Eriksson will not play with wing backs is because he believes that neither Neville nor Beckham has the capability to play on the right. He believes that only one player in his squad could operate successfully in that position — Gerrard — but feels that to use him there would be wasteful. This may be true.
Finding a holding midfield player would certainly be easier than restructuring large areas of the team at this late stage, but the debate raises two important points. The first is how much of a waste would any switch be if having the courage to make it brought England the World Cup? Next, why in five years of chopping and changing personnel in friendly matches has there been no significant test run of Gerrard in this position, beyond the final ten minutes against Argentina, after the player had been used on the right by Rafael Benítez at Liverpool? Once again, Eriksson seems to be waiting for another coach’s torch to illuminate his path. It is going to be strange for him, after July 9, when he has to generate his own ideas once again.
- E-mail Martin Samuel at aogy90@dial.pipex.com
