Skip to main content

England under Sven

Obs World Cup 2002 trail

Republic of Ireland football Obs trail

Observer Sport Monthly

Text-only version >
Send it to a friend
Clip >


1972 European Championship: England outclassed

Why Sir Alf should end this field warfare

"Cautious joyless football was scarcely bearable even while it was bringing victories. When it brings defeat there can be only one reaction". How Germany's easy 3-1 victory at Wembley showed that the Ramsey era had run its course.

England v Germany: a rivalry of two halves

England under Sven - Observer special

Hugh McIlvanney
Tuesday 9 May 1972
The Observer

There was never any likelihood that Sir Alf Ramsey would react dramatically to England's defeat by West Germany at Wembley.

To make sweeping changes of personnel before the second leg of the European Championship quarter-final would be to question his own basic philosophy of the game, and Ramsey is not given to such rigorous introspection. He has come too far along his chosen road to start wondering if he has been reading the right map.

The omission of Hurst from the squad that will travel to Berlin this week may seem meagre recognition of the need for change, but it is perhaps more than might have been expected. Hurst would now appear to have joined the distinguished company of those who made a vital contribution to the winning of the World Cup in 1966 but can no longer justify a place in the England team. He is unlikely to come back to international football.

Ramsey, as his choice of players for Berlin and for the home international championship shows, has men who can replace the specific strengths of Hurst or any other veteran who loses his edge. Filling the gaps caused by the natural decline of the 1966 team has never been a crippling problem. But substituting talent for talent is only a partial answer.


Ramsey's principal achievement as a manager was to integrate his players to the point where their collective will and ability was infinitely greater than the sum of their individual attributes. His teams, especially the one that he sent out at Wembley six years ago, had a belief in themselves that was almost irresistible. At least, their opponents found them nearly irresistible even if the crowds did not.

England's football under Ramsey has been characterised by industry and organisation rather than joy. He argues that his methods have been vindicated by success, but not all of us are able to accept that. At times, he has talked about football as if it were a war not a game. My own inclination is to agree with those who insist that football is not about winning but about glory.

Ramsey's continuing reluctance to take that view was demonstrated after the match with West Germany. He was quoted as saying that that experience had proved again that only results matter. Nothing could be less true. The point about what the Germans did was not that they won, bit that they won with style, by playing superb, creative, adventurous football. The greatest criticism to be made of Ramsey's England is that their really memorable performances, the days on which they overwhelmed the opposition with brilliance rather than grinding them down with dour efficiency, could probably be counted on the fingers of one hand.

It is that truth that is behind the wave of resentment which has risen from England's failure last weekend. Cautious joyless football was scarcely bearable even while it was bringing victories. When it brings defeat there can be only one reaction. Obviously, some of those who are offering the noisiest condemnation of Ramsey are being hypocritical, for they were happy enough to ride with him while the results were good.

Those of us who have always had serious misgivings about his approach have neither the need nor the desire to gloat. What is happening now we always felt to be inevitable, because anyone who sets out to prove that football is about sweat rather than inspiration, about winning rather than glory, is sure to be found out in the end.

It is as true as it is unrewarding to say that what Ramsey requires now is not a different ream but a different philosophy. His method was, to be fair, justifiable in 1966, when it was important that England should make a powerful show in the World Cup, but since then it has become an embarrassment.

England should stop going on to the football field as if they are going to war. They should start playing the game again. To do that they need a new spirit symbolised by new players and the expedition to Berlin could have been the starting point of a minor revolution.

But Ramsey has ignored the opportunity. He is relying, almost entirely, on the men who were destroyed at Wembley to put things right in Germany. Maybe he will be lucky. Perhaps with Storey in the midfield to discourage Netzer from renewing his devastating alliance with Wimmer and Hoeness (or with Overath), England will gain a respectable result.

But will that mean anything? As I have said, the need is for a new spirit, and I believe Ramsey has at hand one young player who could do much to inject it into his team. That man is Hudson of Chelsea, a lion of a midfield player, young and strong and skilled and surging with confidence. He should have been out there in Berlin pitting his tremendous talent against Netzer and the rest. Instead, Ramsey seems to be saving him for the home championship. This is just Scotland's luck.

UP © Guardian News and Media Limited 2011