A forthright airing of views or player power and indiscipline?

The last few days at this World Cup have raised an interesting question about what happens behind the scenes, not just at international level but when players return to their clubs to. That is, when do players expressing their opinions descend into player power, unrest and anarchy? Or should the best coaches in the world be able to take the opinions of their senior professionals on board, if there are clearly problems in the camp and things aren’t working?
This weekend, two of world football’s biggest nations have been the subject of such questions having started their World Cup’s in disappointing fashion. Let’s start with France – and it is clear their World Cup campaign has descended into disarray. Despite failing to qualify for the 1994 World Cup after losing at home to Israel and Bulgaria and being knocked out of the 2002 Wold Cup, as holders, without winning a game or scoring a goal, French football journalist Phillipe Auclair described these last few days as ‘the most shameful episode in the history of our football.’ Following Thursday’s limp defeat against Mexico which almost confirmed France’s elimination, it is fair to say things have spiralled. Striker Nicolas Anelka let his feelings be known to coach Raymond Domenech (that is the diplomatic way to put it) after being substituted during the Mexico game. After a leak to the media, then French Football Federation felt it had no option but to send him home. Which begs the question – are footballers just glorified machines if they cannot air their views, especially the experienced professionals? Of course Anelka didn’t earn the nickname ‘The Incredible Sulk’ for nothing, and could have dealt with the situation better. And if there had not been a leak to the media, the incident would have been dealt with in-house and we wouldn’t have heard anything else about it, which probably says a lot about the disharmony in the French camp at the moment.
But when a whole squad is upset at the treatment of an individual player, when there are already grievances in the camp and in the rarefied atmosphere of a World Cup, the consequences can be dire. And Sunday’s scenes were the most shameful I have ever seen in any sporting context. The final match tomorrow is not a dead rubber, but it may as well be. A live ‘training’ session, in front of the world’s media, was anything but that. After the expulsion of Anelka, the squad refused to train in front of the cameras. This sparked a furious row between captain Patrice Evra and fitness coach Robert Duverne. Duverne denied he was the source of the dressing room leak, and simply stated, ‘we play an important match in two days, and when Evra came to me and told me the players weren’t going to train, I was furious because we have no right to destroy our last chance.’
Domenech had to intervene, and Duverne was seen walking away, throwing away his FIFA accreditation badge. Which presumably was him quitting his post. Which is precisely what Jean-Louis Valentin, the FFF’s Managing Director, did, such was his disgust at the incident. Following the Evra-Duverne incident, the players made their way to the team bus, where a meeting behind closed curtains led to a statement from Domenech detailing that the players were not going to train. It is unclear whether they are going to reverse their stance today, on the eve of what will probably be Domenech’s last match in charge (Bordeaux coach Laurent Blanc has already been installed for after the World Cup). What is also unclear, is whether these ramifications are a show of solidarity behind Nicolas Anelka, or whether it was just the final straw for the players in a country who’s football is littered with unprofessional behaviour and in-fighting. Domenech has been a controversial figure since being appointed in 2005 – from omitting the in-form Robert Pires as he ‘distrusted scorpio’s, refusing to explain his team selections, picking Claude Makelele despite the Chelsea midfielder having retired from international football, and a dismal Euro 2008 suggesting their World Cup final appearance in 2006 was a flash in the pan, it is a surprise Domenech has lasted this long. But if this decision taken by the squad was just a show of solidarity behind the Chelsea striker, then that really is player power getting out of hand.

Which brings us on to another of football’s leading lights, England, where the situation is not quite as catastrophic, but only just. At least all the talk is being kept in-house. But first of all, let’s have a history lesson. In both of England’s World Cup campaigns under Bobby Robson, in 1986 and 1990, the starts were as bad, or worse, than the current generation have experienced. But both of those World Cup’s turned into successful tournaments, where with a bit more luck, England could have gone all the way to erase the memory of 1966. But neither of these occurrences were coincidences. In the former, having lost to a poor Portugal in the opening game, then drawing 0-0 with minnows Morocco (sound familiar), Robson realized changes had to be made. Some of these decisions were made for him – captain Bryan Robson was again injured in a major tournament, and Ray Wilkins was sent-off, so was suspended. But Chris Waddle was also withdrawn from that midfield, and the trio was replaced by Steve Hodge, Peter Reid and Trevor Steven. However, the most important change was replacing the ineffectual Mark Hateley with Peter Beardsley. The tiny Geordie helped Gary Lineker to a hat-trick against Poland, and they went on to thrash Paraguay 3-0 before being defeated by the hand and foot of Diego Maradona.
The 1990 World Cup, however, shows remarkable similarities to the 2010 version. After a 1-1 draw in their opening match against the Republic of Ireland, Robson was once again being vilified by the British press. This led to clear the air talks, although Robson insists the players didn’t persuade him to change formation. He ditched the stale 4-4-2 for a 3-5-2 system with a sweeper, to cope with the sapping Italian heat. After a containing 0-0 draw with the talented Holland, the man brought in to the system, Mark Wright, scored the only goal against Egypt, and England ended up being only a penalty shoot out from the World Cup final.
So despite Robson’s protestations, there was a team meeting and the system and the personnel were changed. Sound familiar? So England have held clear-the-air talks, amidst rumours of dressing room unrest and that coach Fabio Capello will quit should England not progress on Wednesday. Although the talks have been described as ‘positive’, it seems unlikely the Italian will back down to player power. There are a number of grievances which are likely to have been aired – including boredom in the camp, Capello’s tactical system – with many advocating Gerrard supporting Rooney as a lone striker, player selection – John Terry candidly backed Joe Cole for a starting berth in his press conference, and aspects of the Italian’s man management – such as naming the starting line-up only two minutes before kick-off and his apparent aloofness with the players.
But this is a far different situation to the one engulfing the French national team. Capello invited the players to air their views, and senior players such as Terry and David James have stated the squad is still universally behind the coach with measured press conferences. The idea was not to spark panic, and concentrate on the job in hand – that is, beating Slovenia on Wednesday or experiencing one of the most embarrassing episodes in England’s sporting histories. From now on the, players should have the mind frame that the knockout stages start on Wednesday. Every match is a must win, or the players will be on the next plane home. With games coming so thick and fast, only in a World Cup would so much attention be drawn to a team meeting. We will find out in two days times how much influence the players have had on the coach. But my view is that Capello is a fiercely strong and independent personality. He is unlikely to change the team and/or system unless he deems it the right thing to do – if he doesn’t, he will staunchly stick to his guns, and then any potential repercussions are squarely on his shoulders.
So what has been learnt from the events of the last weekend? In short, probably not a great deal, other than how to handle a perceived crisis and how not to. Sometimes, in a high pressured sporting environment, things need to be said when the team isn’t performing to expectations. If this is kept behind closed doors, the team can move forward, and the man in charge can make whatever changes he deems necessary. This may or may not help the English cause on Wednesday. If these confrontations aren’t kept behind closed doors – well, you only have to look at how France have imploded in the last couple of days to see the potential dangers.