Strong leaders needed from top to bottom

Published on Saturday 21 November 2009 19:39

SFA must stop fluffing its lines and find a manager who commands total respect, argues Tom English

LAST AUTUMN in his office at Hampden, George Burley was talking about the bruising few months he'd experienced in the Scotland job. Macedonia had already landed a seismic blow to his credibility by then. He was getting it in the neck from some of the tabloids for the twin eruptions of Lee McCulloch's surprise retirement and Kris Boyd's irate departure. The manager had a lot on his plate.

He was asked if he thought that others might follow the lead of the other two and walk out of the squad. A few names were put to him. Barry Ferguson? No, he had nothing but good things to say about his captain at that point. Allan McGregor? The same. Total praise for the Ibrox goalkeeper. What about Kevin Thomson? Aye, said Burley. He was the one he was most worried about. He admired Thomson as a player but the vibe he was getting from him wasn't great. Not something he could put his finger on, just a feeling.

Maybe Burley was being paranoid, but the fact is that Thomson withdrew, through injury or illness, from five of the six squads Burley included him in and the moment the manager was sacked the Rangers midfielder was calling for the new man to reinstate Barry Ferguson and Allan McGregor. Thomson had a lot to say for a player with just 45 minutes of international football in the bank, but that's where we've got to with this Scotland team.

Burley's weak management allowed the cancer of dissent to spread within his squad. It manifested itself for the final time last Saturday, a heartless surrender to a modest Welsh team. Some were undone by a basic lack of talent, but others suffered from a palpable lack of interest in saving their manager's skin. Obviously, they didn't think him worth saving.

The manager deserved to be fired but our guns should be trained on some of his former players also. Craig Burley went over the top during the week when he said they were too thick to understand his uncle's tactics, but he was closer to the mark when wondering how many of the Scotland boys could say, hand on heart, that they gave their manager everything they had. There were some who didn't and their arrogance remains a problem to be solved.

The man who would be king. Is Craig Levein really the best guy for the job?

He is at the top of every bookmakers' list and has an overwhelming advantage in every poll. Ever since Walter Smith declared himself a non-runner, Craig Levein has assumed favouritism in the race to succeed George Burley. And it is easy to see why. Levein has presence, has that "don't mess with me" quality that Burley never had. He looks the part. He talks well; honestly and bravely. He commands respect. Be you a player or a reporter, Levein is not a guy you're going to take liberties with. In that sense, he's the anti-Burley. That strength of character is what is needed right now.

His rise to front-runner status is down to his forceful personality – he'll kowtow to nobody – and his team's results against the Old Firm. No other manager in Scotland has been able to trouble Celtic and Rangers on a sustained basis the way Levein's Dundee United have since he arrived at Tannadice just over three years ago. United have met the Old Firm 23 times during his spell in charge and they have only lost on nine occasions, drawing more than half of the games and scoring 25 goals. It's quite a record. His teams are motivated and organised and have little fear of their Glasgow opponents. An ability to make the most of what you have – isn't that what Scotland are crying out for right now?

But there are other factors that should put the brakes on the kind of quick coronation some want. Levein has had two full seasons in charge at Tannadice and his team has finished fifth both times. That's decent form, but is it enough? Motherwell ended up eight points ahead of them two seasons ago. Hearts were six points clear of them last season.

Levein is a serious option for the SFA, no doubt about it. But are we in danger of over-hyping him? Is there a little tendency to see him as the solution just because of his strength in front of the cameras and his record against the Old Firm? After all, across the span of a championship, Mark McGhee, Csaba Laszlo and Jimmy Calderwood – twice – managed to get the better of him in the past two seasons with similar budgets. And few people would see those three as worthy candidates for the job.

There is an assumption that the SFA will appoint a native, given what happened the last time they looked overseas. There are valid reasons why a Scot should always manage Scotland, but citing the disaster that was Berti Vogts isn't one of them. Closing off the continental option just because of one bad experience doesn't seem like a sensible way to proceed. They're not all like Berti.

Nobody knows for sure how much money the SFA can afford to offer a new manager – somewhere between 300,000 and 500,000 is the best guess – and nobody knows what stellar names might be attracted to it. There is a tendency to talk down the position within these shores, to call it a poisoned chalice when it is anything but. Walter Smith got a move back to Rangers because of what he achieved as Scotland manager. Alex McLeish is in the Premier League not because of what he did at Rangers but because of what he did in his brief, but brilliant, spell as the national team boss.

A good manager will make something of this Scotland team, just as Giovanni Trapattoni has done with a Republic of Ireland side that were in disarray when he took over. Ambitious ones might see it as a stepping stone to a bigger gig in England, as McLeish did. Nothing wrong with that. Nothing wrong with throwing the net far and wide and seeing what comes back in. Leo Beenhakker, Roberto Mancini, Lars Lagerback, Slaven Bilic, Luis Aragones: you don't ask, you don't get. The Republic found the money for Trapattoni, but only after they had the breadth of vision to go looking for a man of his pedigree in the first place.

Maybe Levein will still prove the best option in the end. Certainly, he will know more than most about the complexities of the job and the characters involved, be they a group of players, some of whom appear to have an undimmed conceit of themselves, or a chief executive, whom Levein has had little time for in the past.

Partly, you want Levein to get it just to see how the dynamic of his relationship with Gordon Smith would work. Frankly, you could make an Olympic sport out of it, such would be the entertainment.

Mars and Venus. How Gordon Smith and Craig Levein live on different planets

Under questioning last week, Smith denied there was any difficulty between himself and Craig Levein. Indeed, he seemed incredulous at the very notion of a feud. "I don't know where the stories have come from," said Smith. Listening to him, you'd think there was no history between them at all. For the record...

"For Gordon Smith to say he has received a letter from us complaining about referees being biased is absolutely ridiculous... He should know better than to open his mouth and talk like that without even thinking... For me it's just another blunder by Gordon Smith. He just stumbles from one thing to the next and, honestly, I'm livid about this" – Levein on Smith, February 2008

"He accused me of one blunder after another but what blunders is he talking about? All I ask is fairness and no preconceived agendas" – Smith on Levein, March 2008

"You can ask any other team if they get the breaks in Glasgow and the answer will be no. All I can do is complain through the media but Gordon Smith will stick his head in the sand. I expect the SFA will now try and brush it under the carpet" – Levein on Smith, May 2008

"I knew Levein didn't fancy me. I was on the bench every week... In my last game for (Dundee] United against Falkirk I came off after dislocating my arm. We lost 5-1 and on the Monday he told me he wouldn't be offering me anything. He was actually embarrassed as he was telling me" – Grant Smith, son of Gordon, on Levein, October 2008.

So there is baggage there and to deny it is ridiculous. No matter how Smith might dismiss what has gone on it is still legitimate to ask if they can ever work together.

And Smith must score. Can the SFA really change its ways?

When Gordon Smith sat down with reporters on Wednesday he was asked what the appointment of a new manager might mean to Barry Ferguson and Allan McGregor's international prospects. It should have been as straightforward as being asked his favourite colour. It was the most obvious question in the world. Smith responded by saying that if the new boss wanted them back in the fold then the decision-makers at Hampden would give it due thought. "The SFA's stance would be if the manager says he wants these players back in we'd vote on it to decide whether we agreed with it."

It was a terrible indictment of the bureaucracy of the association. Can you imagine what a Craig Levein or anybody else with an eye on the job would have made of that admission. Surely if a manager wants them back, his is the last word? Moments later, Smith corrected himself. "I take back what I said before. The manager will have the autonomy to do this. I'm determined that will be allowed, that the board will say yes to that."

That little cameo doesn't so much give the impression of a slick organisation rather than an administration choked by its own red tape. The Burley era has many lessons and not all of them begin and end with a failed manager and some players who have cause to examine their consciences. This is also a look-in-the-mirror time for the association as a whole, for Smith and George Peat, in particular.

They have accepted no share of the blame these past two years, for the daft comments they've made that have undermined the manager – and each other. Peat clumsily insulting – and then having to apologise to – Chris Iwelumo in the days before the pivotal Macedonia and Netherlands games was an embarrassment, but in that crucial week there were other moments of slapstick from Smith and Peat. The president, unhelpfully from Burley's point of view and from the point of view of many of the players, piled the pressure high on the manager by talking about what defeat to Macedonia might mean for his job prospects. On the morning of the game, Smith was in the paper saying he didn't enjoy watching Scotland play any more. How did he think those comments would aid the cause?

The national team is in need of a lot of things right now – a manager with presence, a humble and disciplined set of players, but what is also required is an awakening among the suits. It would have been nice to hear Smith and Peat saying, "Yes, we made mistakes, too", but there has been no such admission from them.

They can make amends, of course, by appointing a marquee manager some time before February. Smith fluffed his lines more than once in the Burley era but this is not a decision he wants to stumble over. He should scour the world for candidates. For his own sake, and for the sake of the country, this is a challenge he daren't get wrong again.