Perhaps Sam Allardyce is the best man for the England job. With the exception of his friend Steve Bruce, he was just about the only man. Or the only Englishman, anyway; the English Football Association is forever trapped between appointing the strongest candidate or maintaining the pretence that home-grown candidates are their equal.
At the very least, Allardyce’s appointment is the culmination of a 25-year managerial career that began in the unglamorous surroundings of Limerick, Ireland.
He is English management's great survivor, one who has coached in the Premier League for 14 seasons, never at one of its superpowers, and has never been relegated. His methods have jarred with some, but they have worked. He is a damage-limitation specialist who has accepted a job that has done untold harm to predecessors' reputations. He has the self-confidence to stride into an arena where others – the recalcitrant Under 21 coach Gareth Southgate in particular – feared to tread. Allardyce's bravado may serve him well, certainly until major challenges materialise.
• Vote: Is Allardyce the right man for the job?
Yet his anointment is also the latest indictment of the FA. If the plan was to groom an eloquent, former international with tournament experience and a track record of playing with major talents to succeed Roy Hodgson, they failed. Southgate opted out. Gary Neville's candidature collapsed amid failure with both Valencia and England. Rather than fast-tracking a wunderkind, they are settling for a 61 year old who will be in his 10th post.
Paradoxically, given he has been accused of playing long-ball football, Allardyce has taken the long route to the top. He is three years older than Glenn Hoddle, who became England manager in 1996. Hoddle was a purist. Allardyce is a pragmatist.
The England DNA – defined by the FA – states "England teams aim to dominate possession intelligently". Allardyce has no interest in possession statistics – several asterisks would be required to use his description of what he feels is pointless passing – and his teams tend to have the minority of the ball on average. The two biggest clubs he has managed were Newcastle United and West Ham United. Both fanbases became disenchanted with his brand of football, perhaps harshly but, in the Tynesiders' case, very quickly.
Contrary to some perceptions, Allardyce’s teams are not flair-free. He is prepared to select skilful players, but charges them with being purposeful and productive along with doing their defensive duties. He believes in organisation, cherishes clean sheets and regards set-pieces as the simplest method of scoring goals.
None of which is wrong. Allardyce’s egotistical pronouncements can camouflage a cleverer strategist than is often acknowledged. He may be indelibly associated with 4-5-1, but he has experimented with a back three. West Ham prospered for a while with a midfield diamond. He happily claimed he had “out-tactic-ed” Jose Mourinho in 2014 while the Portuguese said West Ham team played “19th-century football”.
Yet not too many dinosaurs have embraced sports science or been influenced by the use of statistics in American sports. Allardyce is a more complex character than the caricature he has both cultivated and railed against.
The England job is very different from his annual attempts to avert relegation. The demands – if only for four weeks every two years – are higher. The gap between rhetoric and reality is particularly pronounced, given England's ambitions. The FA's stated aim of winning the World Cup in 2022 and determination to forge a brand of football. At the moment, England's identity consists purely of constructing teams that are less than the sum of their parts and under-performing in tournaments. Allardyce is charged with changing that. Wish him good luck. He may need it.
Follow us on Twitter @NatSportUAE
Like us on Facebook at facebook.com/TheNationalSport
