Share
18th November 2016
09:52pm GMT
The idea that how footballers prepare for games is crucial to how they perform in them is now so well established throughout English football that the advice of sports scientists and nutritionists is as valued as that provided by analysts and coaches. Rooney, therefore, might not have deserved the level of outrage which greeted his decision to refuel into the early hours but given he is supposed to exist in a culture of peak performance in which every marginal gain is sought, he could hardly expect his big night out to go without criticism once pictures emerged.
As with Sam Allardyce's own questionable behaviour while under the influence and the wholly unnecessary and unbecoming posturing over poppies, the FA offered an illusion of power by taking the moral high ground. Dan Ashworth's much vaunted DNA blueprint for the national game demanded nothing less than disapproval; if England and their players want to be the best, their standards across the board have to be of that level.
Which is all well and good and hard to argue with until any examination is given to the way in which the FA treats some of the young players who Rooney is supposed to be inspiring is afforded any scrutiny. During the latest international break, England under-19s played three matches as part of their bid to qualify for next summer's European Championships. The games, staged over six days, were against Luxembourg, Wales and Greece. For the record, England won two and lost one of the fixtures.
Clearly, it is to England's credit that they got the points they needed to qualify and Keith Downing, the head coach, fully deserves the plaudits that should come his way if they haven't done so already. Look beneath the success, though, and a more troubling picture emerges, one which goes against the principle, supposedly enshrined in elite youth development, that adequate rest and recovery is of significant importance to young footballers. Despite having a full squad to choose from, Downing opted to use five of his players – Chelsea's Trevoh Chalobah, Dujon Sterling and Jay Dasilva, Everton's Tom Davies and Sheffield United's Aaron Ramsdale – in every one of the 270 minutes that England played. A sixth, Trent Alexander-Arnold of Liverpool, played in all but nine of the available minutes.
It is worth repeating that these games took place over just six days; in other words, England were playing a match every other day. Everything we have come to understand about sports science and the need for rotation when hectic fixture schedules create the risk of overload informs us that placing so much strain on half a dozen players is not advisable and it is hard to envisage that England's decision to demand so much from a group of teenagers will be welcomed by their clubs.
It was only a year ago that Jurgen Klopp, the Liverpool manager, accused the FA of treating players like “horses” after Jordan Rossiter played three games in six days for England under-19s, suffering a hamstring tear in the process that ruled him out for several weeks. “This is a special story, I would say,” Klopp said at the time.
“I have never heard of such a young player having to play three games in six days. I don't know who I need to speak to about this but people from the club will be contacting the FA because this is not okay. It cannot be normal to play three games in six days, even in England. What can I say? These young players are our future. If we handle them like horses, then we get horses. We would prefer them to have time to develop and not feel too much pressure. Three games in six days for an 18-year-old is just wrong.”
You do not have to subscribe to the Twitter rantings of Raymond Verheijen to recognise that too much football played over such a short space of time increases the risk of fatigue and injury which, at such a crucial stage in their development, can restrict or, in the worst case scenario, halt the progress of young players. As one industry leading report puts it: “In elite soccer, players are frequently required to play consecutive matches interspersed by three days and complete physical performance recovery may not be achieved. Incomplete recovery might result in under-performance and injury.”
The report goes on to state that a period of 72 hours is likely to be insufficient. Yet six of England's most promising young played three times in just 144 hours. In their defence, the FA can claim that they do not choose the schedule, but, equally, they are responsible for picking the team and they opted to go down the route of flogging half a dozen of their players like horses. By doing so they have given the impression, not for the first time, that doing the right thing is not as high in their priorities as being seen to say the right thing. While there is no question that having behaved as he did, Rooney needed to be reminded of his responsibilities, it is also true that the FA must live up to theirs.
Footballers need to take the best possible care of themselves but they should also be looked after by those who position themselves as guardians of the game. And once the furore over Rooney has died down, which it inevitably will when the next controversy emerges, he will remain the yesterday's man that he has become. The future belongs to the six players who were pressed into action three times in six days, or at least it should, but they are going to need rest and recovery between games to be the priority that the FA claim it to be when taking Rooney to task. Anything else would just be hypocrisy.
Catch up with the latest episode of Football Friday Live:
Explore more on these topics:
