England’s recent loss to France in Euro 2004 raises interesting issues about the meaning of “World Class” and, beyond that, of “Bradman Class”.

My view is that football (soccer) has not produced a Bradman. There are a number of players who were or are markedly better than most other players and good arguments may be made for against their relative “greatness”; Pele, di Stefano, Puskas, Best, Matthews, Cruyff, Beckenbauer, Maradonna, Bobby Charlton, Matthaeus and Platini, among others, are retired players who fall into this category. There is a much broader category that might usefully be called “World Class” and current players who would be included in this class without much argument would be, e.g. Beckham, Zidane, Figo, Henry, Owen, Totti, Maldini, Nedved, van Nistelrooy, Kluivert, Raul and quite a few others.

England’s failure to win a major trophy since 1966, I believe, turns on the failure to produce enough World Class players.

Why are such players so important in this quintessential team game? Simply because the standards at the international level are so high. Just about everyone on any pitch in any game can “play”. In particular, defensive players are so good (I include defensive midfielders) that much of any match may be thought of as a chess game, albeit amongst “pieces” of tremendous technical physical skill. The outcome of games, then, do tend to depend on either mistakes or moments of unexpected brilliance or both. This is the difference that “World Class” makes, either in correcting or extinguishing mistakes or creating opportunities or capitalizing on mistakes.

To illustrate this, compare the current England team to the benchmark, the 1966 squad. In my view, that team had the unusual feature of three players who were not only “World Class” but “high end” World Class, i.e. arguably among the “greats”. One I have mentioned, Bobby Charlton; the other two are Banks, the ‘keeper, and Moore, a defensive midfielder who was almost as good as Beckenbauer. I yield to few my admiration for the defence of that team – Wilson (my favourite defensive fullback of any), Jack Charlton and Cohen – but England has always had good or even great defenders. Yesterday’s back four – Neville, King, Campbell and Cole – played magnificently and are generally comparable. (Jack Charlton has always been a favorite of mine – I think he’s very underrated – but Campbell is truly superb, perhaps the best pure defensive player in the World right now and King showed he belongs at this level). However, there is no Moore. The midfields, other than Bobby Charlton, are likewise comparable – Stiles, Ball and Peters versus Lampard, Gerrard, Scholes and Beckham and at striker it’s close, too – Hurst and Hunt against Owen and Rooney.

Substitution makes a difference, too but not such a big one. The key differences are Banks, Moore and Bobby Charlton. Let’s go a little further and compare Charlton and Beckham. Without reiterating points made in earlier posts, Beckham is a “low-end” World player; aside from his (admittedly superior) deadball and right-wing crossing, he’s fairly pedestrian. Bobby C was the complete package, with both feet. Beckham tackles better but Bobby was equally tireless and, in my view, a superior positional player on defence. Moore is harder to classify; he made his own role, like Beckenbauer. It’s not fair to compare King or his likely sub, Terry. Moore was a consummate defender. He was, bar none, the best pure tackler I’ve ever seen, as near to perfection as is humanly possible. Part of this stemmed from his legendary “reading” of the play, part from strength and determination, part from peerless technique. Yet he was more than that; with Moore defence was the foundation for attack. Whether it was simply ultra-cool controlled transition with short passes or carrying the ball or a rapier long-ball (like the one that set up Hurst’s third goal in the Final), he added a dimension that England have lacked ever since. In addition, in his prime, he simply didn’t make mistakes; more than that he cleaned up for others. I would hazard that the only mistake he made wearing an England shirt was in one of his final games; he allowed Lubanski to dispossess him, which led to the great Polish forward scoring.

In a previous post I’ve rhapsodized about Banks. Let me just emphasize here his steadiness. In addition to his acrobatics and his command of the box, he just didn’t let the side down with errors.

So, to get specific, would Banks have saved Zidane’s free-kick? Would Moore have read and snuffed out Gerrard’s faulty back-pass? If he hadn’t would Banks have avoided giving up a penalty? Obviously, we don’t know. Football just doesn’t work that way. What we do know is that having the presence of players like Banks, Moore and Bobby Charlton over the course of several matches, lifts their team to another level. A level, alas, that will not reached by the current one.

To a degree, let me say that Rooney epitomizes England’s problem. He’s almost good enough. He has skill and speed and determination but he’s too much of the “blood and guts” heritage of England. I cringe slightly as I say this; wholehearted toughness is an English virtue, not vice, but it doesn’t carry the day at this level of play. In contrast, Owen is the “real thing” but he’s stymied by unimaginative service. This isn’t to knock Gerrard, Lampard, Scholes, Butt, Hargreaves, etc.. They’re as good as most of their counterparts but they’re not Zidane or Figo or Nedved.

In the end, yesterday’s game, while this a gross simplification, did personify the difference between Beckham – a low-end World Class – and Zidane, who will surely join Platini in the exalted category, even though he’s clearly on the wane. Paranthetically, France is going to have get more creative if it’s going to win the championship again. Give credit to England’s excellent defensive work, but there were too many useless crosses from forward of the box, too little of Henry and Pires taking on Neville and Cole, respectively, to pull back dangerous crosses.

To compare Henry, the best player in the World right now, with a true “great” – a possible contender for Bradman class – let’s recall that Stan Matthews faced the same challenge and never backed away. What did Matthews do when faced with massed defences? Two things. First, the same. He knew that only one defender at once can face you as go for the byline to cross the ball; more than one just get in each other’s way. He had the supreme confidence that he could make that jink, beat whoever was marking him and get in the cross. Second, different. If he got the ball too far from the box he would draw the crowd and pass the ball off, stranding at least one marker. So he did rely on service. You could keep him quiet by choking off passes that let his get into “his” territory, right side of the box 20 yards out but it came at a cost – gaps elsewhere for lesser players to exploit. Henry has the pace and the skill. Does he have the savvy and the fortitude?

The phrase “gaps elsewhere for lesser players” brings us full circle. This is why the exceptional players are needed to create champions at the international level. It’s the accumulation of flashes of brilliance or creation of opportunities that makes all the difference at the attacking end and the snuffing out of the same by exceptional defending and goalkeeping at the defensive end.