So, why Venables again? And why now? The answer is simple. He may just have the answers. If his reputation has taken a battering from without in recent years, within football it has remained strong. He is respected as a tactician and technician. His reading of a match is sound.
Tony Adams says that he is the best coach he worked with, placing him ahead of Arsène Wenger. Steve McManaman agrees, giving Venables the jump on Vicenté Del Bosque, a double European Cup winner at Real Madrid. Gary Lineker said that Venables was the only coach to give him fresh instruction in the art of goalscoring after he left Leicester City, meaning that he knew more than Johan Cruyff or Sir Bobby Robson. This is what McClaren wants to tap in to with England next season: knowledge that comes from nearly half a century of thinking about football.
Nor will it have escaped McClaren’s attention that England’s 2008 European Championship qualifying group is no cakewalk. Croatia and Russia are difficult opponents, particularly with Guus Hiddink exchanging Sydney for Moscow after the World Cup. Maybe McClaren is mindful of what happened the last time Venables and Hiddink were in opposition: England 4 Holland 1, a performance that remains a high-water mark for the national team.
That victory was about the evolution of ideas and the belief that English footballers, given the chance, could be as technically talented and imaginative as their rivals on mainland Europe. McClaren is an ideas man, too, and privately says that he would have experimented with formations had he been in charge of England before this World Cup. When he is, who better to consult than Venables, an innovator whose England team moved between three and four at the back and defeated Holland using the infamous Christmas tree formation? In recent years, Sven-Göran Eriksson’s England have hit a quarter-final brick wall playing 4-4-2. Perhaps McClaren believes that, with subtle variations, he can spring a surprise that will take his team the remaining distance. To help to hatch that plan, he needs a sounding board, a talented, imaginative coach, preferably with international experience. Given that brief, Venables leads the field.
At the weekend, playing fantasy England manager in a newspaper column, Venables outlined his team for this summer’s World Cup. Working without Rooney, plan A lined up 4-4-1-1, with Gerrard behind Michael Owen and Michael Carrick in Gerrard’s midfield position. Plan B used the same personnel to play 4-3-3, with David Beckham and Joe Cole high on the flanks and Carrick sitting between Gerrard and Lampard.
Venables’s ideal is the Brazilian model that uses a three-man defence, with one stepping into midfield — a role that could be performed by Ledley King, Rio Ferdinand or Jamie Carragher, given time and direction. At the very least, McClaren is right to seek counsel on how, in principle, this could be achieved.
What this change demonstrates, at least, is McClaren’s strength of character and self-belief. Yet while he may not feel threatened by the older man, cynically it is suggested in some quarters that he is making a naive mistake, that by employing Venables he will be as good as redundant in the eyes of the public and his employer and that any victories or innovations will immediately be credited to his assistant. It is an argument that says more about the dark nature of those advancing it.
The bottom line: McClaren is the England head coach. He does not have to play the part, to posture or boast. It is his job and his call and his glory at the end. If he wants the best team around to help to make it happen, what is wrong with that? When Venables was in charge, among his assistants was Don Howe, a vastly experienced international coach who had worked with previous England managers, Ron Greenwood and Robson. With his team struggling at half-time in a quarter-final against Spain, Venables was contemplating changes when Howe, citing a similar situation in a previous match, offered an alternative requiring the simple repositioning of one player. It worked. England were significantly improved in the second half.
Did this undermine Venables? Should he have been frightened? Would he have been better off with a parrot on his shoulder, mimicking his every word, whose only contribution would be toadying agreement? More importantly — and this is the heart of the matter — would his team? Presumably, Venables’s detractors would have McClaren surrounded by fools, so he could always be sure of remaining the smartest man in the room. Now that’s baggage.
Tony Adams says that he is the best coach he worked with, placing him ahead of Arsène Wenger. Steve McManaman agrees, giving Venables the jump on Vicenté Del Bosque, a double European Cup winner at Real Madrid. Gary Lineker said that Venables was the only coach to give him fresh instruction in the art of goalscoring after he left Leicester City, meaning that he knew more than Johan Cruyff or Sir Bobby Robson. This is what McClaren wants to tap in to with England next season: knowledge that comes from nearly half a century of thinking about football.
Nor will it have escaped McClaren’s attention that England’s 2008 European Championship qualifying group is no cakewalk. Croatia and Russia are difficult opponents, particularly with Guus Hiddink exchanging Sydney for Moscow after the World Cup. Maybe McClaren is mindful of what happened the last time Venables and Hiddink were in opposition: England 4 Holland 1, a performance that remains a high-water mark for the national team.
That victory was about the evolution of ideas and the belief that English footballers, given the chance, could be as technically talented and imaginative as their rivals on mainland Europe. McClaren is an ideas man, too, and privately says that he would have experimented with formations had he been in charge of England before this World Cup. When he is, who better to consult than Venables, an innovator whose England team moved between three and four at the back and defeated Holland using the infamous Christmas tree formation? In recent years, Sven-Göran Eriksson’s England have hit a quarter-final brick wall playing 4-4-2. Perhaps McClaren believes that, with subtle variations, he can spring a surprise that will take his team the remaining distance. To help to hatch that plan, he needs a sounding board, a talented, imaginative coach, preferably with international experience. Given that brief, Venables leads the field.
At the weekend, playing fantasy England manager in a newspaper column, Venables outlined his team for this summer’s World Cup. Working without Rooney, plan A lined up 4-4-1-1, with Gerrard behind Michael Owen and Michael Carrick in Gerrard’s midfield position. Plan B used the same personnel to play 4-3-3, with David Beckham and Joe Cole high on the flanks and Carrick sitting between Gerrard and Lampard.
Venables’s ideal is the Brazilian model that uses a three-man defence, with one stepping into midfield — a role that could be performed by Ledley King, Rio Ferdinand or Jamie Carragher, given time and direction. At the very least, McClaren is right to seek counsel on how, in principle, this could be achieved.
What this change demonstrates, at least, is McClaren’s strength of character and self-belief. Yet while he may not feel threatened by the older man, cynically it is suggested in some quarters that he is making a naive mistake, that by employing Venables he will be as good as redundant in the eyes of the public and his employer and that any victories or innovations will immediately be credited to his assistant. It is an argument that says more about the dark nature of those advancing it.
The bottom line: McClaren is the England head coach. He does not have to play the part, to posture or boast. It is his job and his call and his glory at the end. If he wants the best team around to help to make it happen, what is wrong with that? When Venables was in charge, among his assistants was Don Howe, a vastly experienced international coach who had worked with previous England managers, Ron Greenwood and Robson. With his team struggling at half-time in a quarter-final against Spain, Venables was contemplating changes when Howe, citing a similar situation in a previous match, offered an alternative requiring the simple repositioning of one player. It worked. England were significantly improved in the second half.
Did this undermine Venables? Should he have been frightened? Would he have been better off with a parrot on his shoulder, mimicking his every word, whose only contribution would be toadying agreement? More importantly — and this is the heart of the matter — would his team? Presumably, Venables’s detractors would have McClaren surrounded by fools, so he could always be sure of remaining the smartest man in the room. Now that’s baggage.
His face may not fit, but McClaren knows that England will be a better team with Venables
Published by Ceser.
HANG around with Terry Venables and the strangest thing happens. You learn about football. Not used cars or Spanish timeshares, as those peddling tired clichés and prejudices would have us believe. You learn about systems and formations and the Dutch and Brazilians and how to make a midfield four into five and when to turn 4-4-2 into 4-3-3. You are in on the ground floor.
You hear that the man to replace Wayne Rooney is Steven Gerrard, immediately, not a match-winning FA Cup Final performance later. You hear, in the build-up to Euro 2004, that the central midfield partnership between Gerrard and Frank Lampard will not reach its potential without a holding player, so when it all goes wrong you have half an inkling why.
This is not mysticism, nor genius. It is knowing the game. The biggest myth around Venables is that there are consistently grandiose claims made on his behalf in the media. On the contrary, all that is regularly stated is that he knows his stuff. Sadly, this secret club — the Friends of Tel — has become such an old chestnut that one almost feels the need to apologise or announce membership in advance.
So I’ll declare my baggage now. I strongly believe the national team would be better with Venables than without. And while I am happy to call him a friend, my reasoning goes deeper than that. There are some people you would trust to call a football match and others you wouldn’t trust to call bingo at the Royal British Legion. Venables falls into the first category; those who expend most energy deriding him remain firmly in the second.
Steve McClaren, the England coach-in-waiting, has never been a Friend of Tel but would like Venables to work with him next season because he knows a proper football man when he sees one. Venables appears amenable to the idea. This is an excellent start. Not because McClaren on his own would be inadequate, but because he is big enough not to feel intimidated or undermined by Venables’s presence, which speaks volumes.
Venables is going halfway, too, putting to bed previous clashes with the FA. The news that he would be welcomed back into the England fold contained one minor omission: acceptance is a two-way street.
It is widely believed that the FA told Venables that his contract would not be renewed in 1996. Untrue. He was informed that he would have to wait until after the European Championship to find out whether he would be given an extended term. He found this unacceptable.
There are various versions of what took place between the England coach and members of the FA’s international committee at the Hyatt Regency in Birmingham the night before the Euro 96 draw, but most involve Venables being told that the FA wanted to see what happened in the competition before deciding whether he would take England into qualification for the 1998 World Cup. Venables replied that he did not do auditions.
Because England qualified as Euro 96 hosts, it was pointed out that he had yet to win a competitive match as manager. “Nor has the next man,” he said.
The way the FA’s proposal worked, Venables was as good as unemployed the day after the final and would either be discarded or could open negotiations with his employer from the queue at the Jobcentre. It was this unsatisfactory schedule that moved him to give the FA notice of his intended departure several months in advance. There was never a suggestion of brinkmanship or playing hard to get. He felt that his position was untenable, that he lacked support within Lancaster Gate and it was best if he served his contract and left. Within weeks, the FA appointed Glenn Hoddle. He received a four-year deal.
You hear that the man to replace Wayne Rooney is Steven Gerrard, immediately, not a match-winning FA Cup Final performance later. You hear, in the build-up to Euro 2004, that the central midfield partnership between Gerrard and Frank Lampard will not reach its potential without a holding player, so when it all goes wrong you have half an inkling why.
This is not mysticism, nor genius. It is knowing the game. The biggest myth around Venables is that there are consistently grandiose claims made on his behalf in the media. On the contrary, all that is regularly stated is that he knows his stuff. Sadly, this secret club — the Friends of Tel — has become such an old chestnut that one almost feels the need to apologise or announce membership in advance.
So I’ll declare my baggage now. I strongly believe the national team would be better with Venables than without. And while I am happy to call him a friend, my reasoning goes deeper than that. There are some people you would trust to call a football match and others you wouldn’t trust to call bingo at the Royal British Legion. Venables falls into the first category; those who expend most energy deriding him remain firmly in the second.
Steve McClaren, the England coach-in-waiting, has never been a Friend of Tel but would like Venables to work with him next season because he knows a proper football man when he sees one. Venables appears amenable to the idea. This is an excellent start. Not because McClaren on his own would be inadequate, but because he is big enough not to feel intimidated or undermined by Venables’s presence, which speaks volumes.
Venables is going halfway, too, putting to bed previous clashes with the FA. The news that he would be welcomed back into the England fold contained one minor omission: acceptance is a two-way street.
It is widely believed that the FA told Venables that his contract would not be renewed in 1996. Untrue. He was informed that he would have to wait until after the European Championship to find out whether he would be given an extended term. He found this unacceptable.
There are various versions of what took place between the England coach and members of the FA’s international committee at the Hyatt Regency in Birmingham the night before the Euro 96 draw, but most involve Venables being told that the FA wanted to see what happened in the competition before deciding whether he would take England into qualification for the 1998 World Cup. Venables replied that he did not do auditions.
Because England qualified as Euro 96 hosts, it was pointed out that he had yet to win a competitive match as manager. “Nor has the next man,” he said.
The way the FA’s proposal worked, Venables was as good as unemployed the day after the final and would either be discarded or could open negotiations with his employer from the queue at the Jobcentre. It was this unsatisfactory schedule that moved him to give the FA notice of his intended departure several months in advance. There was never a suggestion of brinkmanship or playing hard to get. He felt that his position was untenable, that he lacked support within Lancaster Gate and it was best if he served his contract and left. Within weeks, the FA appointed Glenn Hoddle. He received a four-year deal.