F.A.U.K. part 2

The indecision makers

Let’s forget the team selection for a moment. Sven Goran Erikkson is still in the job for the World Cup and the question is why.

The sexual scandal may have passed with a fierce scolding, but how did the News of the World’s fake-Sheik scam only manage to get Sven a detention after school? Most other associations would have said goodbye to their national selector more assertively, especially in the pre-existing context. Or would they? You can’t forget Spain manager Luis Aragones and his racist remarks about Thierry Henry that went largely unpunished and, indeed, opened the journalistic door for opportunistic anti-racism snatch-and-grab runs against Spain, but no real anti-rascist assault. Then there is Italy's Marco Lippi who has refused to step down and resisted the push three weeks before the start of the World Cup because of his alleged alegation in match fixing. One can only manage a complicated legal network that paralyses decisiveness at the national level. Or perhaps its purely financial, though clubs seem able to be able to pay the price for dismissing managers, sometimes at an alarming rate. Why cant the national association? Even if ONLY for pride or honour?

A culture of protecting the national manager is not without saying. But what is more the point is the excuses, the fumbling and the nervousness that pervades the FAs final decisions and presence. First there was the protracted selection process fed by media pressure and rumours. What really happened to Scolari? The BBC website even had a Scolari time-line up before the confusion broke; someone was having a joke by making bad mistakes. The FA also sustained an ambiguous position with regard to a national or international candidate, as if to experiment with public opinion in the media. A fair ‘democratic’ process, maybe, or maybe not, for an ‘electorate’ that is largely spoken to, rather than for. But where is the determination and the vision? What is it that the FA CLAIMS as its own? What promises do they keep for the worthiest of hungry men? What are they saying about their own passions?

Steve McClaren was the best English choice for successor, but the worst for the FA. They chose McClaren not promising the best, but promising they wouldn’t rock the boat before the tournament. But why then, promote the second in charge just before the competition, but to only hand over the job after? Why when he already knows the team, his staff (barring a few changes) and the organisation? Surely his change wouldn’t rock the boat too much and could instil an edge of concentration in the players? It seems that the FA were only promising they wouldn’t rock themselves.

But what have they really created? You can imagine Sven will be there, passive and waiting, sweating a little more than usual as he watches the last minutes of his greatest epoch pass away. McClaren will be sitting beside him, rubbing his hands mentally, practising in his mind the ways and solutions HE WILL employ. Will it really be like this? Less romantic I imagine. Is the end really as important to Sven as the beginning is for McClaren? McClaren’s hands are blood-free, or is that bloodless? As for Sven, he is already well remembered.

It seems that McClaren is to Erikkson what Pope Benedict XVI is to Pope John Paul II: fodder for forgetting. You can carry on the same policies in the next man and justify them in the same process, but gradually weaken them with a little age and reality. Then the change will come and the new order begikn. Yo destroy the cult of individuality is to destroy the angel or the devil. Choose your man, I mean. There are many covenants from which to pray for the chalice.

McClaren’s nearest competitor was Allardyce, who probably didn’t win because of McClaren’s existing connections. Their Premiership records are nearly equal, both with 190 games in charge and both with 64 wins. The difference is that McClaren has lost 9 more than Allardyce, but taken ‘Borough to two finals, one victorious. McClaren’s fame has thus briefly and fortuitously eclipsed Allardyce’s, more by the drunken swagger of Middlesborough into the UEFA Cup Final than the recent League Cup win. Neither of their teams is popular either, which is also an advantage to annonymity.

Charlton’s ex-manager, Alan Curbishley seemed to struggle in the media storm, by symbolically or nervously leaving Charlton at a critical juncture in history of Premiership power struggles. His patient, wilful and above all humane success in sustaining Charlton sadly lacks a little potency when compared to Allardyce or McClaren. As solo manager (since 1995), he managed 266 Premiership games with only 85 wins, 72 draws and 109 losses. You have to wish McClaren well though. You have to hope he fights for more than he was bought for.