ENGLAND TO COMPLETE FOR EUROPEAN CUP
— Herbert Chapman | 11/12/1932 —

After watching the Austrians, I, and, I imagine, many others, contemplated the future and tried to visualise the game ten years hence. How is it to develop? That is the all-important question. Football is our game. It is over sixty years since we first played it internationally. But it is no longer our monopoly. So much was definitely proved at Stamford Bridge. New forces have arisen to challenge the old, and Jack has become as good as his master.

For three years I have told of the advance of Continental football, and it has been said that I greatly exaggerated the position. After last year's match with Spain I was laughed at as an alarmist. I think it will now be fully realised that I truly foretold the strength and the magnitude of the challenge we should be compelled to accept.

Where is this European advance leading us? As a result of the match at Stamford Bridge the imagination of every football country in Europe has been fired, and I understand that a scheme for a West Europe cup competition on the knock-out principle is to be formulated.

This idea is that the competition should comprise the champion teams of six countries, namely:—

England, Scotland, Germany, France, Belgium, Spain.

The proposal has much to commend it, and it was seriously considered in London during the past week by representatives of some of the countries mentioned. I predict that it will be launched during the next two years, and it will be a big advance on the holiday tours which England and Scotland have undertaken in the past.

LEAVE US BEHIND.

The enthusiasm for the game on the Continent is amazing, and we cannot afford to treat their enterprise with indifference or even lukewarmness, for the result of such an attitude would only be to leave us behind in the development of the game.

It is not too much to say that the spectators at Stamford Bridge were astounded by the excellerce of the Austrian's play. But there were some who knew what they were capable of, especially the Scottish officials who had come from Glasgow to see the match, and they were not in the least surprised that England had such a narrow escape.

I am prepared to put it that way because I think the Austrians were unfortunate to lose. There was a touch of luck about the incidents which led to each of the first three England goals, and it is undeniable that the visitors had more and better scoring chances, all of which were gained by most clever scheming and expert footwork.

The players were most modest. When I went into their dressing-room at the end of the match they had only on question: "Have we played well?" Do you think the English people are pleased with the game we have played? Right up to the time of going on to the field they were hopeful of winning, and I was greatly impressed by their quiet confidence, for they were obviously men who had strong faith in themselves.

But the result to them was not of much importance, so long as they showed that they, too, could play football as we have insisted that it should be played.

From every point of view the match was a credit to the Austrians. They showed the nicest sense of sportsmanship. They are powerful men, well capable of holding their own in a physical sense, but in playing with a boldness which may have been a little surprising they were splendidly fair.

Thirteen countries were represented at the match, and about thirty foreign correspondents were present, while it is estimated that as many as 20,000,000 people listened in to the broadcast. The match was in fact regarded as being of more importance on the Continent than even in this country.

AUSTRIAN'S AIM.

The Austrians have shown themselves to be amazingly apt in copying British and in particular Scottish methods. They frankly admit that this has been their aim. It was at my suggestion that Herr Hugo Meisl went to see the match between Aston Villa and Sheffield Wednesday, and when he visited me at my home on the following day I could see that he was a little perturbed. He said:—

"I am not sure whether we are right or wrong. We have copied the old Scottish style, which pleases our spectators, but after seeing Sheffield Wednesday with their quick diagonal passes and their wonderful positional play it seems that there are other possibilities about the game which we have not yet exploited."

I do now know whether he was still in this state of doubt after the match with England, but, in my opinion, if the Austrians could acquire ten per cent. of our speed and thrust they would be one of the most formidable countries in the world to beat.

At Stamford Bridge they displayed only one weakness. This was in finishing, and this, I think, may be remedied if the players are made to realise that they must shoot quicker. In fact, I think Herr Meisl had made this discovery before the game at Stamford Bridge, and it was reflected in that magnificent shot Nausch, the right half, which crashed against the post.

A GREAT PLAYER.

If I had gone to Stamford Brdige on a scouting expeditio nthere were several of the Austrian players I would have liked to have secured. It is a long time sicne I have seen a centre forward who has impressed me as much as Sindelar, who I understand had to be given exceptional treatment before he was willing to become a professional. He is a truly great player, amazingly clever in his body movements. The way in which he sold the dummy to Blenkinsop was a sheer delight.

I think, too, that every one would be impressed with the play of Hiden, the goalkeeper, and he could not be blamed for any of the shots which beat him. Had he joined Arsenal three years ago as I hoped I think his play would have been sounder to-day, but if he appeared a little showy it should be remembered that at home the whole penalty area belongs to him as a free space in which to operate, and in the circumstances he claims more licence than goalkeepers in this countrys are allowed.

But well as the backs and halves played I imagine that the forwards mainly caught the eye. Gschweidl, the inside right, althought not very fit, reminded me with his slow feints of Charlie Buchan. Schall, the inside left, did not come prominently into the game until the second half, but he then played up to his reputation.

There was not a weak player on the side, and as a team they were finely balanced.

UNSATISFACTORY.

What about England? It was perhaps true that they played as well as they were allowed to do, but the team are far from satisfactory, and it is inevitable that still further changes will have to be made.

I am convinced that before the bes results are achieved the whole system of selection will have to be revised. In suggesting once more that the choice of the side should be entrusted to three officials instead of a committee of twelve seems like whipping a dead horse. The clubs, too, ought to be taken more into the confidence of the authorities in being invited to recommend players for consideration. That, I understand, is the plan adopted in Rugby football.

I discovered an even more elaborate system while I was in Holland. There all the potentional internationals are card indexed and grouped in three classes, A, B, and C. Three selectors go about the country watching these players, who have been nominated by their clubs, and a detailed report is made on their form. C is the lowest class, and if a man in this has two bad reports he is wiped off the list.

I do not suggest that a plan such as this is applicable in this country, where there are so many more players than in Holland, but the selection of the England team ought to be on more systematised lines. The methods of thirty years ago are not good enought to-day. Success in international as well as in club football must be organised.