The aftermath of a (de)feat

There are very few occasions when our athletes compete against the very best. Football is arguably one of the few disciplines in which we get the opportunity to face world class opponents from time to time. The last two home matches against Norway and Italy were a case in point, which inevitably awakened the hidden coaching qualities in all of us.

Waking up to the day-after comments of hundreds of closet-Mourinhos would have been exasperating enough. Some were happy with the result, others simply called for the manager’s head. But quite a few tended to outdo themselves with all sorts of strategic advice to players, coaches, administrators, politicians, and the lot. I wouldn’t be surprised if even the national team mascot got the blame for our lack of good results.

These are some of the suggestions we all came across in some form in the past week: more professionalism; the need to have players play abroad; better development of youth players; more investment; better club set-up; etc, etc.

So here I am, pitching in with my proverbial tuppence worth.

In any sphere of activity, making it to the top is hard. Very hard. Football is no exception. It is clear that, as in other areas, investment is crucial. Yet, do we ever ask ourselves: where does (or should) the money come from? The demand side of football is dwindling, and even if it weren't, our economies of scale are what they are. That is where so many actors involved in the game find endless stumbling blocks, despite being well-intentioned, well-prepared, and determined to research and implement fresh ideas, models, and methodologies.

Of course we'd like to have serious planning and development policies in our clubs! But there are very very few clubs that have constant and reliable revenue streams allowing for a decent non-amateur set-up.

This is not a rant about our limitations. In fact, I hate self-pity as much as I hate the complete lack of a sense of perspective.

Is it that difficult to accept that losing 1-0 to Italy or 0-2 in Croatia is a feat in itself when you consider the real gap between the respective levels? Would it be the end of the world if we acknowledged that losing 0-3 to Norway was simply a fair reflection of the quality of the teams on the pitch? This despite, or thanks to, the diligent and generous performance by the lads on most occasions.

  

Does this mean that I would be happy if we kept losing ad aeternum against any opposition? Of course not!  At the same time, I think close results like the one obtained/suffered against Italy (depending on the category of Mourinhos you belong to) tend to skew our judgment as they invariably lead to the illusion that we can compete at par with anybody every time.

I do think there are huge margins of improvement. If there is one thing we can learn from the much-vaunted success stories of the likes of Iceland (yes, they beat Holland) and Belgium (yes, they made it to the World Cup Quarter-Finals), it is the need for integrated planning. It does not mean that we’ll beat Holland or that we’ll make it to the World Cup. But it could mean that we maximise our potential better – whatever that potential is.

Laudable efforts have been made throughout the years, but these were mostly isolated in separate silos: technical, administrative, infrastructural; each aspect is developed without much interaction with the others. It is easy to point fingers at only one of these branches: some blame our lack of good results on the level of our coaching, others on the dismal administration of some of our clubs, or on the players, or the MFA, or the government, and on and on we go. 

Truth is that all these aspects need to grow together. Government and sports associations, for instance, cooperate only on one-off infrastructural projects or initiatives. Rarely, if ever, do they get together to implement long-term policy. It is easier said than done, but it can be done - as it has been elsewhere. 

Photo: Mark Cassar Photography

The MFA has so far been the only actor that has been able to invest in the various aspects of the game. It has the facilities and it has the required revenues(an ancillary benefit of the overall economies of scale that football enjoys at European and international level). Yet, pointing fingers exclusively at the MFA is rather restrictive. It is true that the association is to be at the forefront of any strategy aimed at improving the level of our game, but it also needs the cooperation of all the stakeholders involved. There are, after all, improvements that can be made by others at minimal costs – I’m thinking nurseries, clubs, but also parents and educators.

Integrating football in schools, for example, is something that we never really managed to achieve in a structured way. This applies equally to other sports. Before anybody gets too excited, it needs not necessarily take up school hours. And it need not even be a burden on the state. Rather, it could be a way to fuse the efforts of nurseries within our schools.

Our resources and manpower (which is increasingly harder to come by) are too fragmented to afford to leave stones unturned in seeking ways to improve. If we can only manage a handful of players that make the cut to play abroad, how many decent coaches can we produce? How many ‘fit and proper’ administrators are able to manage our clubs? Ironically, the less resources we have, the more stretched out our efforts are: 53 clubs in the MFA leagues, each with its own nursery. Countless others in other amateur leagues.

How many times do stakeholders sit together to discuss things holistically: coaches, administrators, public servants, academics, players, parents? Do we ever, at all? I'm not referring to some grand conference once every blue moon, but to direct, constant consultation with all involved. Around the same table. That is what I call an integrated approach. Each of them has a role. Administrators cannot take on the pitch themselves – only players can; players are not expected to worry about where their salary is coming from – administrators should; club officials should care more about development and less exclusively about winning cups; the same goes for parents.

It is not easy to assess or measure improvement and success. Our objective should be to move as close as possible towards the conviction that we are really doing our best. With our limitations, but to the best of our possibilities.

We would not even need a Mourinho in that case.