English football has changed beyond all recognition over the last 30 years. Why did this happen, who was responsible and has it been a good or bad thing?
If I remember correctly, Wenger's Myth really took off around the time of the Invincibles. At the same time, with Wenger's revolutionary methods being deployed at Arsenal, a gruff, no-nonsense Proper Football Yorkshireman was doing the same thing at Bolton.
And being laughed at.
On the other hand, Allardyce never had the rumours about being a nonce.
Very nice write-up. In retrospect, 1996 does seem a pivotal year for English football. 1992 obviously the transformative moment structurally but ’96 was the first proper reveal of the long-term effects of the breakaway and TV deals. It should also be noted that 1996/97 was the first season after the Bosman ruling, and when UEFA ditched its ‘max. five foreigners’ rule. Take Man Utd, who suddenly went on a splurge of foreign signings that summer (van der Gouw, Johnsen, Solskjaer, Cruyff, Poborsky), where before they’d largely prioritised homegrown talent. It’s also famously when Middlesbrough brought in a bunch of garlanded foreigners and tried to bolt them onto a team of dogged, but limited, British players. Their relegation can be seen in hindsight perhaps as the moment the PL became an elitist competition, dominated by an entrenched few clubs. No provincial side ever again dared believe they could challenge for the title (one freak season for Leicester excepted).
To give Wenger his due, the Back Four all credit him with prolonging their careers and making them more skillful players. And when the so-called ‘Invincibles’ were about to break Forest’s unbeaten run record, Brian Clough himself said - just a few weeks before he died - that they played the most attractive football he’d ever seen in this country (“they don’t just pass to feet, they pass to each others’ better foot”). I might also contend picking at Wenger for not winning a European trophy. Ironically, the Champions League expansion perhaps made it harder for him and Arsenal to do so than in previous generations - as did playing their home games at Wembley - though admittedly they did blow a couple of great chances in 2000 and 2004.
However, I do agree with the general thrust that Wenger is a little overrated. I would say there are some parallels to the impact Cantona made. Both arrived at a specific moment when they were able to stand out and be a pioneer of sorts. A moment when English football was newly awash with money and unusually open to new ideas, and when local talent was at a relatively low ebb. Our island-nation insularity anointed them as world-class. But when you compare them to their continental contemporaries, they don’t quite match up.
You also make a great point about how and why George Graham too often gets written out of the picture, and a very important one about Margaret Thatcher being a hugely important figure in the creation of the Premier League. I think there is now an acknowledgement in the mainstream football media of her unwitting part in the Premier League’s creation. But I did previously perceive a curious denial that the PL was - is - Thatcherism incarnate. And not just from liberal-leaning fans more likely to credit Fever Pitch for making football 'acceptable' - whatever that really means - but also from conservative commentators and older, Thatcher-voting fans, bemoaning the rapid inflation of players’ wages, even as they celebrated the economic impact she brought to everything else.
This was a rather spooky read to me because that myth about Wenger is almost identical to a narrative in Portugal about Eriksson's impact on Portuguese football during a short stint at Benfica back in the early 80s. I'm now wondering whether a similar myth is at play here - we certainly have a native manager, Artur Jorge, who was active roughly during the same period and was arguably more successful on account of having won Porto its first Champions League. But then the only cause I can think of is the natural instinct to think foreign is better, as all is those economic changes were still to come at the time. Interesting!
To borrow from Fever Pitch, Hornby wrote that Malcolm MacDonald's contribution at Arsenal was perhaps overstated because he leant them a degree of glamour they simply weren't accustomed to at the time. The same may also be true of Wenger to an extent, with regard to both Arsenal and the English game as whole. I'd maybe compare him to Ginola in that they both arrived when foreign imports were still relatively new and glamorous creatures. Both were good - very good in fact - but neither were era-defining talents.
Nice stuff.
If I remember correctly, Wenger's Myth really took off around the time of the Invincibles. At the same time, with Wenger's revolutionary methods being deployed at Arsenal, a gruff, no-nonsense Proper Football Yorkshireman was doing the same thing at Bolton.
And being laughed at.
On the other hand, Allardyce never had the rumours about being a nonce.
Very nice write-up. In retrospect, 1996 does seem a pivotal year for English football. 1992 obviously the transformative moment structurally but ’96 was the first proper reveal of the long-term effects of the breakaway and TV deals. It should also be noted that 1996/97 was the first season after the Bosman ruling, and when UEFA ditched its ‘max. five foreigners’ rule. Take Man Utd, who suddenly went on a splurge of foreign signings that summer (van der Gouw, Johnsen, Solskjaer, Cruyff, Poborsky), where before they’d largely prioritised homegrown talent. It’s also famously when Middlesbrough brought in a bunch of garlanded foreigners and tried to bolt them onto a team of dogged, but limited, British players. Their relegation can be seen in hindsight perhaps as the moment the PL became an elitist competition, dominated by an entrenched few clubs. No provincial side ever again dared believe they could challenge for the title (one freak season for Leicester excepted).
To give Wenger his due, the Back Four all credit him with prolonging their careers and making them more skillful players. And when the so-called ‘Invincibles’ were about to break Forest’s unbeaten run record, Brian Clough himself said - just a few weeks before he died - that they played the most attractive football he’d ever seen in this country (“they don’t just pass to feet, they pass to each others’ better foot”). I might also contend picking at Wenger for not winning a European trophy. Ironically, the Champions League expansion perhaps made it harder for him and Arsenal to do so than in previous generations - as did playing their home games at Wembley - though admittedly they did blow a couple of great chances in 2000 and 2004.
However, I do agree with the general thrust that Wenger is a little overrated. I would say there are some parallels to the impact Cantona made. Both arrived at a specific moment when they were able to stand out and be a pioneer of sorts. A moment when English football was newly awash with money and unusually open to new ideas, and when local talent was at a relatively low ebb. Our island-nation insularity anointed them as world-class. But when you compare them to their continental contemporaries, they don’t quite match up.
You also make a great point about how and why George Graham too often gets written out of the picture, and a very important one about Margaret Thatcher being a hugely important figure in the creation of the Premier League. I think there is now an acknowledgement in the mainstream football media of her unwitting part in the Premier League’s creation. But I did previously perceive a curious denial that the PL was - is - Thatcherism incarnate. And not just from liberal-leaning fans more likely to credit Fever Pitch for making football 'acceptable' - whatever that really means - but also from conservative commentators and older, Thatcher-voting fans, bemoaning the rapid inflation of players’ wages, even as they celebrated the economic impact she brought to everything else.
Thank you. And thank you for the thoughtful reply.
This was a rather spooky read to me because that myth about Wenger is almost identical to a narrative in Portugal about Eriksson's impact on Portuguese football during a short stint at Benfica back in the early 80s. I'm now wondering whether a similar myth is at play here - we certainly have a native manager, Artur Jorge, who was active roughly during the same period and was arguably more successful on account of having won Porto its first Champions League. But then the only cause I can think of is the natural instinct to think foreign is better, as all is those economic changes were still to come at the time. Interesting!
Very well-written, I thoroughly enjoyed reading this article! Looking forward to read more of your posts! :)
Thank very much
To borrow from Fever Pitch, Hornby wrote that Malcolm MacDonald's contribution at Arsenal was perhaps overstated because he leant them a degree of glamour they simply weren't accustomed to at the time. The same may also be true of Wenger to an extent, with regard to both Arsenal and the English game as whole. I'd maybe compare him to Ginola in that they both arrived when foreign imports were still relatively new and glamorous creatures. Both were good - very good in fact - but neither were era-defining talents.
Thats very interesting. This is the first time Ive heard of this. I had assumed that it was just an English thing!
Thanks for reading Graham. The Ginola analogy is a good one I think.