Rot in the Roots of England: Why Capello Will Make No Difference

First, I'd like to congratulate Fabio Capello on his appointment as England manager this week.

My fears of Jose Mourinho were, delightfully, dissolved—although I find it hard to digest the lack of an Englishman anywhere in the new setup, and that is the next problem the FA faces. More on that later.

I have no doubt that Capello will be a better manager than McClaren or Sven—he has more passion for the game and more power within it than either of them. While we may not always see entertaining football under him, tactically he is not only astute, but decisive. His stints at AC Milan, Roma and Juventus are testament to his skill and dedication to football.

However, this crisis has highlighted some problems and issues within English football that I feel we all need to take into account, and examine logically. So...

1. The England Manager must have managed a "big four" club or similar.

This surely has to be the biggest headache for me. With Arsenal and Manchester United keeping the same manager for over 30 years combined, it simply has not been possible for any young English manager to take over the reins at either club. 

Liverpool and Chelsea have both seen foreign managers come and go over the last ten years. Roy Evans was joint manager at Liverpool with Houllier until 1998, when Houllier took over as the stand-alone boss. Chelsea have not had an English manager since Glen Hoddle in 1993 (ignoring caretaker-boss Rix, who managed for only two games, winning one and losing one).

The fact of the matter is: Wenger and Ferguson are good—therefore, no change there—whereas Liverpool and Chelsea are "quick fix" teams who'll take the best in Europe. I have no problem with this, as long as people don't then go on to say that English managers aren't good enough.

We should look at the limited opportunites of top jobs for English managers, and judge them how they've coped with what's been available, not on the fashionability of the clubs they've managed.

You'd never see the equivalent attitude in another country: "Sacres bleu! You never managed Paris-St Germain, you cannot be our national manager! Pardon, Monsieur!"

2. The England Manager must have international experience.

This one kept on for about a week until Mourinho popped up, claiming he wanted—then didn't want—the job. Very few good managers have actually played football at the highest levels, and it is very rare that exceptional players become good managers. Roy Keane has done very well in the short time he's managed Sunderland—but remember, he's learnt from the best.

The moral here? A good manager doesn't need to be experienced on the pitch, nor does success as a player actually make them better.  There may be some notable exceptions, but let's look at the best two examples—Wenger and Ferguson. End of story!

The England manager could be any of the not so successful players of past years—Pearce, Curbishley, Redknapp and so on. It's probably better for them not to have international experience—the style of the game changes year to year. Let them develop their own team and style based on the tests they have to face.

3. The England manager must NOT have managed [insert team lower than 4th place in premiership here].

Sorry, but the buck stops here. What Curbishley did with Charlton was amazing, and, given the money and players, he would have been as good as—if not better—than 'ole Special Gone at managing Chelsea.

The same goes for Redknapp, Alladyce, and Pearce at their respective clubs, and the England U21 squad. With what they've been given, and the problems they've faced—administration, injury crisis, lack of decent players or even bung scandals—they've still managed every bit as well as Jose.

Even with £300 million-plus at his disposal, Mourinho still failed to win the European cup or more than one trophy a season. Come to think of it—with £300 million I'd have been able to win Chelsea the European cup.

Why nobody looks at the situations English candidates have been put into, and what they managed to accomplish despite such limitations, I'll never know. It must be fashionable to lose all sense of perspective, and talk up just four clubs in a country of over 300!

4. It is racist or xenophobic to want the next manager of England to be English.

I'd like to remind everyone that if Stuart Pearce became the next Italian manager, the mafia would probably have the whole of the Italian FA and Pearcey shot.

Yes, it really is that bad. Not only do Italians see it as an affront not to have a national as their manager, they see it as humiliation. So do the French and Germans, and probably a whole lot more. Yes, teams like Greece and Korea have had foreign nationals, but there was a large degree of unrest at both appointments.

How has it come to this? That anyone who suggests the next manager of England should be English is met with derision by fellow Englishmen? I suspect many of those deriding want only glory.

It used to be that it was not the winning that counted, but how you won as well—with self-respect intact, ideally. At least in the Sven era, the back-room staff was English.

But not under Capello. A whole Italian mob have been assembled to start training Italand. Or Engaly. Whichever you prefer.

I'm sorry if I come over as opinionated and bitter again, but I feel that the real problem has been overlooked—again:

There is a substantial lack of English players, coaches, managers and even referees coming through the English game, and with this tightening of the talent pool, the exceptional skills brought by exceptional people are being lost.

At a grassroots level, in fact at the very roots of the tree of English football, we must act—to save the tree, and stop the rot.

I will of course support Capello and England with all my heart. But I must call upon the FA to help reinvigorate the game at the lowest levels, so we do get an English manager in charge of Arsenal after Wenger, or an Englishman in charge of Manchester United after Ferguson.

Or even—dare I say it—an Englishman in charge of England.