Tuesday 28 June 2016 16:44, UK
England’s Euro 2016 exit at the hands of Iceland has sparked a renewed debate about the way forward for English football.
The introduction of a winter break has long been identified as a potential means of optimising England's chances of success on the international stage.
But would it really work? Here, we take a look at the key arguments for and against.
For
When so many experienced managers are willing to argue in favour of a winter break it really ought to be worthy of consideration. Jose Mourinho has spoken of continental players being in "much better condition to compete" during the second half of the season, while Louis van Gaal went further in describing the English schedule as "evil".
It remains an obvious point of difference between the Premier League and every other major league in Europe. That's particularly ironic, of course, given that it is already the competition that is widely regarded as placing the greatest physical demands on players due to the intensity of the action.
It's more than a decade since Sven Goran Eriksson pushed for the introduction of a break, while Sir Alex Ferguson has been calling for it since his days with Aberdeen. Ferguson argued that it has "handicapped" England's chances due to the implications at the back end of the campaign when fitness issues have frequently arisen.
The appetite for a winter break has only increased in recent seasons due to the performances of English clubs in continental competitions suffering a dip. And so, if the continual grind of the game is impacting Premier League players in the spring, where does that leave the national team come the summer? Fresher players might make for better results.
Against
The search for a solution for the ills of the English game is nothing new. From foreign players to grass-roots coaching, it's a familiar list. Chris Waddle even cited the players' habit of wearing headphones as a factor in their failure. But there's a danger that these perceived marginal gains can be overplayed - particularly when the winter break is so brief.
Barcelona were crowned as world champions in Japan on December 20. They were back in La Liga action 10 days later. Real Madrid had that exact same length of break and went on to win the Champions League in May. Would a 10-day rest really transform the fortunes of a nation? Leicester and Southampton, for example, had longer breaks than that in February.
Of course, without reducing the overall number of fixtures, a winter break only succeeds in increasing the intensity of the demands on players either side of such a break. While England's starting line-up against Iceland started an average of 38 club games spread over the course of last season, Lionel Messi has featured 38 times since January.
It's also worth noting that the winter break might not be a pure rest period for England's best players. In recent seasons, Bayern Munich have used this window of opportunity to whisk the team off to Qatar - playing lucrative friendlies in the process. Expect England's top clubs to regard this a revenue-generating opportunity as much as a period in which to recuperate.
Conclusion
It seems unlikely that a short break would have a major impact on England's fortunes at major tournaments. The reasons for failure are too manifold to be explained away by injuries or energy levels. On the other hand, would it do any harm to try it? One key to success is removing the excuses. Perhaps this is one excuse that English football has hidden behind for too long.
