It is just a calendric coincidence that a new England manager should be appointed less than two weeks before the 50th anniversary of England's one and only World Cup triumph. Roy Hodgson's resignation after yet another ignominious English exit from a major tournament came only a month ago, and with the 2018 World Cup qualifying campaign starting soon, the Football Association has had to get a new man in place as quickly as possible.
As always when England goes through this brutal ritual a rich assortment of names is bandied about, from the plain fanciful to the unsparingly mundane. England, however, is not alone in such perpetual upheaval: just look around any of the world's national football associations and you'll see the same periodic disembowelling, the range of choices - even in Italy, France and the Netherlands, three of the world's traditional powerhouses of tournament football - it is usually pretty contentious, as the decision making prevaricates over which ex-pro or current club manager should get the job.
It is, of course, about making a choice on a role which acts as a touchpoint for national sensitivities, national pride even. But rarely in these countries do the choices stray beyond national borders. England, however, crossed that rubicon long ago, with the "marquee" appointments of Sven-Göran Eriksson and Fabio Capello, as the-then latest attempts to find the formula to improve England's dismal record. At the time of their appointments no one really questioned either manager's pedigrees, but after their respective departures there was a collective "was that really worth it?". With both men the FA stood accused of hiring 'glamourous' Eurocrats, managers who'd enjoyed reasonable success at equally glamourous European clubs, but wouldn't necessarily 'get' the expectation of England fans. Hope, though, was held high that their breadth of experience, coaching internationally, represented the missing ingredient to address England's stubborn failure to deliver more than a couple of semi-final appearances in the 50 years since Bobby Moore was famously held aloft by his teammates, clutching the Jules Rimet Trophy.
Since Hodgson resigned many have called for the FA to once again up their ambition by hiring someone of a Mourinho or Guardiola pedigree - unrealistic as that would be. So consider this: Eriksson took over from the flimsy Kevin Keegan (whose win ratio was just 38% from 18 games in charge) and reached three consecutive quarter finals. Capello took over from Steve McClaren, whose win ratio was 50%, also from 18 games, and failed to qualify for Euro 2008 before overseeing England depart the 2010 World Cup at the first knockout stage, being crushed 4-1 by Germany, and also putting in one of the worst games of football I've ever seen, a 0-0 draw with Algeria in the group stages. Of course, so they say, you can make statistics prove anything, but when you look at England's history since 1966 there is no pattern of success. Indeed Alf Ramsey, who managed England to that single World Cup trophy in 1966, took England to third place in the 1968 European Championships, a quarter final of the next World Cup, and then failed to qualify for both the 1972 Euros and the 1974 World Cup.
In Hodgson, England clearly went for a hybrid: an Englishman (tick) who'd managed so-called elite European clubs (tick) who would be somewhat plain vanilla when it came to fan expectations (tick). And still he oversaw England's early departure from two tournaments, despite having delivered consistently successful qualifying efforts for both. The only real conclusion we can draw from this is that there is no secret solution to managing England. Over 50 years, the FA has tried everything and everyone: Joe Mercer, Don Revie, Ron Greenwood, Bobby Robson, Graham Taylor, Terry Venables, Glenn Hoddle, Howard Wilkinson (ad interim), Keegan, Peter Taylor (also ad interim), Eriksson, McClaren, Capello, Stuart Pearce (for one game) and Hodgson, all with a similar topography of tournament qualification and performance records.
The England job isn't so much of a poisoned chalice as a supersized, Las Vegas-style mojito of toxicity. It will consume the appointee, turn their hair grey and after the mandatory media honeymoon, lay them open to vilification on a brutal scale. And, yet, that doesn't stop people thinking it's the job for them. In recent weeks we’ve even seen Arsène Wenger give an apparently "why not?" response to the idea of applying for the job, while Jürgen Klinsmann was said to be “intrigued”. For the rest, the list of runners and riders have included usual suspects like Harry Redknapp and Alan Pardew, plus Eddie Howe, Hoddle (again) and Steve Bruce - all as English as a sausage sandwich dripping in HP Sauce.
Wenger may have a mostly creditable club record on his side, and would have been an interesting appointment, but realistically he wouldn't have been available for another year, keen to see out the remaining 12 months of his Arsenal contract, when the FA needs someone available straight away to prepare for the qualifier with Slovenia in September. It's hard to have seen the FA trying to buy out his contract and risk a political rift with the Gunners. Klinsmann’s five years as USA coach saw the team rise in prominence but play utterly dull football - not a qualification for the England job; Redknapp may be a top bloke, a renown survivalist, wheeler-dealer and favourite of London cab drivers, but his history as a football manager has never been all that stellar, one season at Spurs and several narrow escapes notwithstanding; Pardew talks the talk but has yet to really prove he can deliver consistently; and Bruce might represent the image of grit and industriousness that England fans identify with, but could he conclusively transform the “overpaid”, “over-indulged” and “mollycoddled” players - to quote from Danny Baker’s legendary Twitter rant after the Iceland defeat - drawn from clubs managed by Mourinho, Guardiola, Klopp, Pocchetino, Ranieri, Wenger, Conte, et al, with such a diversity of footballing philosophies to go with them?
The answer, quite simply, is that we don’t know - and haven't known for 50 years - what the silver bullet is. So what, really, are the qualities required? More or less all of the names put in the England frame this time are seasoned managers, who know how to pick teams, organise and motivate them. In principle any one of them could hold the as-yet undiscovered key to make English players, most of whom play in the most revered and lucrative football league in the world, successful at international level. But, as we always seem to discover, promise and potential are rarely realised.
So step forward Sam Allardyce, who has been named by the FA as the successful candidate, having been the clear front runner over the last few days. His appointment does carry an odd parallel to the recent coronation of Theresa May as Prime Minister. Sorry to drag politics into this - we’ve all had enough of it this summer, I know - but May fitted the bill of what the Tories needed in a leader: a no-nonsense, unflashy pragmatist with a strong work ethic. Allardyce, the Dudley-born, 61-year-old former uncompromising defender, offers England the same. His totally unwarranted reputation for one-dimensional football and, simply, not being glamorous enough has divided opinions amongst some fans, but my argument is that Allardyce is EXACTLY what England needs right now.
He may not be the long-term solution (not that anyone ever is) but he does a good line in containment, having never suffered relegation at any of the Premier League clubs he’s managed. Now, I know that avoiding relegation is not the same as winning the title (I refer you to Chelsea last season…), and that the ability to stoically stave off disaster is the most British attribute of all, but Allardyce does have other things going for him, especially his approach to mindset management.
Following this summer’s sojourn to France, mentality may be England’s biggest challenge, as Danny Baker so eloquently pointed out. Allardyce has no time for egos, is an exceptionally good organiser and has the innate ability to fine-tune tactics to suit each occasion - a marked contrast to Hodgson’s intransigent lack of tinkering and dull, possession-based football which may have cost England so dear last month.
These are forensic examinations of Allardyce’s qualities, and the FA board responsible for hiring him will have, one supposes, done its due diligence by considering them in depth. There is clear risk, however: for all his English bulldog chops, Allardyce is completely untested as a manager on the international stage (having never coached a club in European competition). But could that even be to his and England’s advantage?
Is it so much of a prerequisite that England take on foreign teams from a position of trying to match them technically? What if England went out and played English football, the kind that adorns parks on a Sunday morning? It may not be pretty, it may not even be elegant, but if the defeat to Iceland demonstrated anything, it’s that winning football can’t just be measured in terms of salaries and expensive cars, but in the ability to get stuck in and do the job. And, simply, win.
Sam Allardyce might just be the manager to deliver that. Until the next one comes along, of course.
