“The inquest starts here”…? Assessing England’s Under-21s after more disappointment

Stuart Pearce saw it coming a mile away. On the eve of the Czech Republic game, a game that offered England complete clarity of purpose by virtue of being what, in journalistic parlance, is referred to as a ‘must-win’ game, the England Under-21s coach had this to say:

“We knew it would probably go to the last game. I’m not so sure English teams are particularly good at defending draws. The way it’s panned out, we have to win the game. That will get us on the front foot.”

With those words, the one-time snarling Nottingham Forest defender turned prophet of his own downfall.

This particular England team, it transpired, is not particularly good at defending draws. In fact they turned out to be pretty hopeless at defending leads too. And so it was that, after taking a 76th minute lead through a rare piece of craft that punctuated an otherwise unimaginative campaign, England conceded in the 89th and – as hat tip to the manager’s own perceptiveness – 94th minutes to bow out of this year’s Under-21 European Championships at the group stage.

“The inquest starts next” bellowed Sky Sports’ host for the match after England’s disappointing exit; a quip only marginally more pithy than “England expects”, which the same host uttered as if by default before England’s first group game against Spain, merely minutes after running through the mouthwatering promise of Spain’s emerging generation of torch-carriers.

However, despite certain media efforts to package this particular international tournament in the same wrapping paper as at senior level – build up blindly, knock down mercilessly – attempts at an ‘inquest’ came across as insincere at best, patronising at worst.

The Under-21 European Championships are a two-year process. Any serious reflections need take that into account. Approaching it from a there’s-no-other-football-on-TV-this-summer-so-let’s-watch-England-U21s-and-rag-about-how-bad-we-are perspective is neither helpful, nor does it paint the full picture.

The good

For a truer assessment of England’s U-21 campaign we should, in honour of the first official days of UK summer and, you know, optimism, start by looking at the positives. Defensively England looked encouraging. The Chris Smalling-Phil Jones combination could well become the cornerstone of England’s backline for years to come, a kind of homemade Ferdinand and Vidic if you will, although Jones’ many driving runs deep into opposition territory against Ukraine showed an adventurous side unlike the Serbian.

Kyle Walker’s fearless forays down the right hand side offer hope for the future. Again though, one wonders about his international prospects given competition from Micah Richards and the fact that up to now Harry Redknapp – his club and, likely, next international manager – hasn’t particularly taken a shine, twice shipping the 21-year-old out on loan.

The high prices paid for Jones and Jordan Henderson by Manchester United and Liverpool suggest that both represent the future of their respective clubs and therefore, by definition, England too, given the confidence entrusted in each by two of the nation’s footballing giants. Both will be expected to grow organically in their new environments and blossom into talismanic lions in blue and white. Anything less given the transfer fees would represent disappointment for England fans.

And in Danny Welbeck and Daniel Sturridge there was undoubtedly a certain verve upfront. Both looked briefly lost on the field on occasions, but this may be explained by Pearce’s odd tactical deployment of the pair in a front three that was akin to putting gloves on your feet. Scott Sinclair was also lively whenever called upon.

Aside from individual analysis, collectively this England U-21 squad was also the youngest in the competition. Hope from which springs eternal for future tournaments.

The bad

Unfortunately however, like falling down a well and finding a penny in its bowels, the negatives outweigh the positives. As unfair as it might be to judge players at such early stages of their career development, one wonders how many of Pearce’s chosen squad really possess the ability and persistance to mature into regular senior internationals.

Jack Rodwell showed nothing to suggest he is England’s future and worth a £25 million price tag. When put under magnified scrutiny by Czech Republic’s introduction of two forwards late on, axis Jones-Smalling cracked. Henderson began the tournament with some faintly encouraging quick passes and an eagerness to get on the ball, but faded to the point of oblivion. Danny Rose and Tom Cleverley offered next to nothing.

In Denmark, England’s overall technical ability was also a real worry. Watch Spain caress the ball around as if partaking in a graceful ballet, or Switzerland’s sense of purpose, clarity in possession and final third attacking threat. Then watch England. Stodgy in possession like desperately unwholesome gruel served up by a Roald Dahl villain. Bloated. Slow. Pregnant. The baby inside – that of spontaneous, free-flowing football – kicks and screams. “Let me out!” it cries. But bosh! goes another panicky long ball (61 in three games overall), and it can’t escape. When England play, the water never breaks.

Though England’s lack of technical prowess has been identified repeatedly in recent times, witnessing the raw evidence remains genuinely concerning. As one shrewd commenter put it on Twitter, the ‘under-21′ suffix for England could well refer to the number of minutes viewing needed before falling asleep.

Pearce’s gameplan was often questionable. Like putting a leash on a greyhound the former defender’s tactics brought restraint to a team that, with some tinkering, may have offered more joie de vivre in their play. It was disappointing not to see more of attack-minded players like Sinclair, Henri Lansbury and Marc Albrighton, sacrificed so as to cram a defender (Michael Mancienne) into midfield.

What’s more, some pronouncements from both Pearce and his players simply baffled. “If we had kept the ball from the Spanish team for as long as they did, we’d have won,” Pearce stated after the 1-1 draw with Spain. It probably makes sense in some parallel universe, but on planet Earth it came across as missing the point completely.

Against the Czechs, whose strategy was, patently, to sit back and play for the requisite point, England saw more of the ball without doing much, finally went a goal up and then collapsed – before emerging to tell the world how well they had played.

“Tonight we played really well,” Smalling commented afterwards. “I don’t know how we’re going out after that performance,” added Welbeck. “It’s probably the best we played in the tournament [...] it’s quite hard to take,” continued Fabrice Muamba. England had 63% possession and managed 5 shots on goal, but if a largely drab 2-1 defeat in a must-win fixture constitutes playing ‘really well’ visions of Brazil 2014 and beyond can only be bleak.

The worrying and the future

In the end, you get what you put in. If Sky TV genuinely harboured the desire for an ‘inquest’ into the current predicament we could start by actually listening to the nation’s own director of football development, Trevor Brooking:

“Before the tournament we said the challenge would be to score goals. Creativity and subtlety in the final third is probably something neglected in all the age groups. That is something we have to transform in academies.

“You have to be doing those things at 12-13 and one of the key areas is playing in-between opposing players, looking forward or diagonally. I think we look at the safety pass too early. Ukraine worked and our composure went in certain situations or people don’t offer themselves up for angles. That’s when it breaks down.”

Collectively taking international tournaments seriously at all age groups is needed urgently. That means the TV stations, FA, Premier League and Football League all pulling together and leaving narrow self-interests to to one side.

Instant and substantial funding to help implement Brooking’s 25-point plan for producing better young players would be a nice start. One wonders how exactly Pearce would have deployed Jack Wilshere given his insistence on cramming a defender into an unbalanced midfield, but it would have no doubt been positive to have the Arsenal youngster along for the ride. In future the media needs to do more to pressure the Premier League and its constituents into making England’s best young players available for duty, tired legs or not.

With the benefit of hindsight, over two years England’s Under-21 European Championship campaign cannot be deemed the total failure some have tried to portray. Qualifying for the tournament proper in itself was an achievement Germany, Holland, France, Italy and many other European nations could only envy.

Winning in Portugal, an exciting 6-3 victory over Macedonia and a 1-0 win over Portugal in front of nearly 34,000 at a wet and windswept Wembley will be remembered fondly by this current crop  – some of whom, like Muamba, now reach the end of their time as youth internationals – for years to come.

But as the next generation now embark upon the quest to qualify for Israel 2013 many of the problems facing English football as a whole still remain. Hopefully another smartly dressed anchorman won’t be emptily declaring the start of a phoney inquest into England’s failures from a television studio in two years time.

(Photo credit: James Njuguna on Flickr)

England, Stuart Pearce, Under-21 European Championships, Youth Football