FOOTBALL'S LACK OF PERSONALITIES
— Herbert Chapman | 10/12/1933 —

Football to-day lacks the personalities of twenty or thirty years ago. This, I think, is true of all games, and the reason for it is a fine psychological study.

The life which we live is so different, the pace, the excitement, and the sensationalism which we crave are new factors which have had a disturbing influence.

They have upset the old balance mentally as well as physically, and they have made football different to play as well as to watch. And they have set up new values.

The change has, in fact, been so violent that I do not think the past, the players and the game, can fairly be compared with the present.

It is sometimes said that if the old players were to come back they would show up the limitations of the men of to-day. But there is no coming back.

TEAMS COME AND GO.

I know how boldly and confidently the old-timers speak of their prowess, and how they are inclined to belittle present-day players. After the match with France I listened to a discussion on the poverty of modern football.

Well, without taking into account the changes which have come about, this may be true. It is, in fact, strongly suggested by the difficulty of the selectors in trying to build up a stable international side.

England teams come and go. From one season to another they can scarcely be recognised. They have, unfortunately, to be altered from match to match. Men good one day fail the next. They do not even play consistently in their club form.

This is one tell-tale piece of evidence of how football has changed. In the old days the right of six or seven men to be picked was not questioned, and they never let the side down. Because of this team selection was a comparatively easy matter.

As an old player myself, I am not prepared to depreciate the men of to-day, being fully conscious of the many matters which have added to their difficulties.

Competition has been heightened enormously, and it is no longer possible for men or teams to play as they like. Thirty years ago men went out with the fullest licence to display their arts and crafts. To-day they have to make their contri- bution to a system. Individuality has had to be subordinated to team work.

Players have to take part in many more matches, and the strain on their physical resources has greatly increased. The strain, too, has been intensified by the demands of the public. This is a point which I am afraid is only slightly appreciated.

It is no longer only necessary for a team to play well. They must get the goals, no matter how, and the points. The measure of their skill is, in fact, judged by their position in the League table, and they have to bend all their efforts to ensure that this is a good one.

Even if the modern game were not harder, it is very much more exacting. This has come about swiftly since the alteration of the off side law.

The object of this was largely to reduce the number of stoppages and to please the onlooker, but I sometimes wonder whether it would have been made if it had been realised how the structure of the game as well as the play was to be changed. Clubs would, I think, have pondered longer over it if it could have been foreseen how managerial difficulties were to be increased.

Having been educated ou different lines, I doubt very much whether the public would to-day be satisfied with the old football, with all its precision and deliberate accuracy.

It does not fit modern tendencies. It would be out of tune with the bustle and excitement of everyday life. Spectators want a fast-moving spectacle, rapier-like attacks that have the spirit of adventure and ever more goals. The heavier the scoring the more appealing is the match.

But I should do an injustice to the old-timers if I did not believe that they would have been able to accommodate themselves to modern requirements. Their natural ability would have ensured this, but they would have had to alter their whole mode of life.

They would find that the game now carries far greater responsibilities than they used to bear, and they would have to tackle it far more thoroughly, and to succeed make many personal and social, sacrifices. They would discover, too, that the play made greater demands on them. 

They would have to keep much fitter, otherwise, instead of being ninety minutes men, they would fade out very quickly.

No one can amble through a game to-day, taking rests when the need is felt, and there may be no abuses of training without the penalty being paid.

The modern pace would kill the old footballer in a month unless he were prepared to adapt himself to the conditions. He would also have to change his methods to suit the systematised style of play.

I have been told that there is too much system, and those of us who are said to have conspired to bring it about have been responsible for driving out the individual touch.

The truth is that the exigencies of the game have left us no alternative. We have been compelled to scheme to produce the results which the public demand.

But in admitting this I do not believe that the game when played well under modern conditions has lost in attractiveness.

The changes which have come about have brought excellent new features. It is true that the dribble has largely disappeared. In its place is the twenty yards pass, which has a faster purpose, and it is probably even more effective.

I think it will be conceded that the clubs are good judges of the type of play which satisfies the public taste. Can it be believed that the Arsenal, in order simply to produce results, would cultivate a style that did not appeal to the crowd? 

In an idle moment I set down this team of old players to amuse myself in comparing them with the chief players:—

Hardy; Crompton, Pennington; Warren, Roberts, Needham; Simpson, Bloomer, Shepherd, Holley, Spiksley.

This is truly a wonderful array of the richest talent, and it goes a long way to convince one that football has lost its personalities.

Some of these men have, in my judgment, never been equalled. The game has produced no goalkeeper so sound and safe as Sam Hardy; I have never known a back with such giant qualities as Bob Crompton, and Jesse Pennington was the ideal partner with his magnificent enthusiasm and speed in recovery.

HUMAN STEAM ENGINE.

Modern half-backs, too, fall in comparison with poor Ben Warren, a human steam engine, who played through ninety minutes with intimidating strength and speed.

Roberts was contemporary with Wedlock, and it was the latter who gained the international honours, but I have always suspected that it was the outspokenness of the Manchester United captain which caused him to be passed over in the selection of England's team. 

I shall always think that Needham was the finest footballer I have ever seen. He was my hero as a boy, and I shall never forget how he seemed to attract the ball as if he were a magnet in much the same way as James to-day.

There have been outside rights who have shown more artistry than Simpson, who played so much of his football in Scotland before joining Blackburn Rovers, but he was unique in many respects. The way in which he got the ball over when he did not appear to have a chance was wonderful, and he was one of the first players to show that men in his position on the wing might play a considerable part in the scoring.

Bloomer was the match winner, but in his case I fear that if he had had to do all the chasing of the modern inside forward he would have been less successful.

Albert Shepherd could have stepped out of the old into the new football with little trouble. Indeed, he practised much the same style of the centre forwards of to-day, waiting for the ball to be put through to him for a chance to go between the backs and shoot.

POISE AND BALANCE.

George Holley was another great inside forward, in the opinion of Charlie Buchan, the most complete one during that pre-war golden era, and Fred Spiksley, in my judgment, was unsurpassed in poise and balance and ability to work the ball with both the inside and outside of the feet — both feet.

I am afraid it inevitably seems that we have now few of these giants, but they would have different values to-day. They would have to be content with less individual greatness and strive for more uniformity than was considered necessary in their time.

And it will perhaps be thought that I have not answered the question — were the old players better than the new? There is no answer. The way in which the game has changed forbids any comparison.