I seem to remember a lot more pride going into to International friendlies and a lot less politics. England would have a reasonably steady squad of players, so to receive a call up was a real honour.
The purpose of any international was to win the game, the players doing their absolute best to make sure they got into the next team.
Now every match seems to be just a stop gap in preparing for some tournament. The team changes are frequent, not only between games, but within the games themselves.
Apparently, this is to see as many players as possible in an England shirt. Of course, anyone with a brain could tell you that the best possible way to see how a new player copes is to give him a full game so he experiences all aspects of what an international is all about.
The changes last night, and on previous occassions do no on any favours. The new players in the first half had little time to make a lasting impression. For example, Beattie's fitness was never going to be a telling factor over 90 minutes as he was removed at half time.
The established players turned up in body only. They put in a shocking international display which under other circumstances would surely have put at risk future caps. Whether or not the big clubs want their stars rested is immaterial. Representing your country should be the biggest honour in your career. If it isn't then you shouldn't be there. If your match on Saturday is more important, then you shouldn't be there. The commitment of several players was absent and frankly, England would be better off without a few of them.
If Eriksson wanted to learn about his players for larger tournaments, he should have taken away one valuable lesson. Many of the England players do not show sufficient commitment to the cause to be trusted on the larger stage. That is why England will not win one of these tournaments any time soon.
With such poor passing, positional awareness or will to win, Beattie's debut was always going to be a difficult one. He spent much of the first half looking for anything resembling a decent pass into the box. Such a pass could be seen in the second half from Jenas. Francis Jeffers got an excellent headed goal from exactly the sort of pass Beattie thrives on.
While he didn't score, it's not as though he was at fault. He worked the channels well and was always available for the pass, often in a bit of space. He pulled Australian defenders away and put in a couple of crosses. England seemed more capable of implementing long balls into the box. While it's not the best of tactics to be using all the time, at least Beattie provides a much better player at receiving them than Heskey. If only any of the other players could have put in a decent ball which he could have got to. The passing was truly dismal and England struggled to create anything for their strikers. Owen had to drop deep just to get the ball, making Beattie's job harder still.
Fortunately, while England were rightfully slated by the press following the 3-1 defeat, there does seem to be a groundswell of sympathy for Beattie. When you're playing in a poor side, you just have to do the best you can. Hopefully Eriksson will realise this and perhaps >gasp< actually develop some tactics to take advantage of the presence of someone like Beattie.
I said before the game, that unless Beattie scored a hat trick, then he would have to keep putting away his chances in the Premiership to be sure of another chance. I get the feeling that Eriksson is quite happy to stick with his big club players with their losing international mentality. But if Beattie continues to get the goals, he will have to be included again.
Ratings:
James: He's a decent shot stopper, but he's a complete liability in other areas. There's a reason he's had to wait so long for a starting place. Let's hope that reason makes it a long time before he makes his second start.
Neville: I have to assume he's carrying an injury. His marking was dreadful, his positioning not much better. He failed to get to the byline for any crosses and England posed no threat down that flank. He was too prone to making the easy passes to his club mates rather than picking out the best pass for his England colleagues.
Cole: Having no cover whatsoever from Dyer made his job a tough one. However, his naivety in assuming that he could still go upfield meant that England were punished severely down the left. In addition, his tackling was poor and he really doesn't look like an international full back. Bring back Bridge. At least he knows when to defend and when to push forward.
Ferdinand: Totally at fault for the second goal. He failed to deal with the situation decisively and was caught as a result. Pulled out of position by the shoddy marking of his team mates.
Campbell: While he didn't have a good game defensively, he was made to look a lot worse by his team mates. England's best defender on the night, and poses an attacking threat from set pieces.
Beckham: Poor passing, worse crosses. Provided nothing for his strikers from wide positions, which is surely the point of having him in the side. Played a lot of short passes to Scholes in narrow positions instead, preventing England from really penetrating the Australian defence.
Dyer: If the job of the left hand side of midfield is to support the attack in a number of varied ways. If your opponents know that Dyer is always going to go towards the centre, then they will take full advantage of it. Which is exactly what happened. Dyers dreadful approach completely unbalanced the England team and resulted in no threat from the left. Until he learns that it is a team game, then he shouldn't be there.
Scholes: Restricted to a few half hearted attempts to break through the defence from the centre. Scholes was certainly given a lot of the ball, starving the strikers, but England's midfield was over run and he couldn't really do a lot with it.
Lampard: Well, at least he tried to play the ball to feet, which was a plus. A couple pf promising early passes but he went downhill as the half wore on. The passing got worse and he was unable to stop the tide of Australian attacks. I'd like to think that he was the victim of the play of those around him, but, like Beattie, he's going to have to put in more good club performances to be included again.
Owen: It's really enjoyable watching Michael Owen taking on defenders and dribbling past them. He's got bags of skill. Of course, the only ties we see Michael doing this are when he has to drop to deep positions just to get the ball. His lack of club goals is also more likely to make him fall back and provide support for others. Had his midfield done it's job, Owen wouldn't have had do ignore his striking duties to the extent he did.
Beattie: Didn't do anything wrong as I detailed above. The lack of any play going to him though, means that you can't say he's a must for the next game. A full ninety minute run out is definitely going to be worth while for him. He'll have to keep banging in the goals for the Saints (something I could live with) and hope that Eriksson isn't stupid enough to pick Heskey ahead of him.
Eriksson: Clearly picks his tactics out of a hat. Also clearly has no impact on the the way his players perform. The United players will always pass mainly to each other, Dyer will always abandon his midfield duties and so on. If he can't forge an effective team and impose his own style on his players, and also the media and Premiership managers, then England will not be winning anything soon.