Take the show on the road

It’s a question that has been floating around for a while now, but it’s never floated quite so prominently as it has since the game against Slovenia on Saturday. Should England go back to playing matches around the country, rather than at Wembley?

The Wembley pitch looked awful after an American Football game was played on it six days before the Slovenia game. It was churned up in the centre of the pitch and the NFL branding was still evident. “Touchdown to England” people joked after each of their three goals. The national team deserves to play on an immaculate pitch. League Two teams play on better pitches than the one England played on. That shouldn't be the case.

The atmosphere in the first half too was typical of an England game at Wembley. A dull murmur echoed around the stadium. It resembled the scene in a classroom when technology fails on a teacher who is planning to play a DVD to his/her class. “Just chat amongst yourselves” they say, while they frantically try to rectify the fault with the DVD player.

The first 45 minutes was as dull a football game as you could wish to see, so it’s perhaps unfair to expect a good atmosphere. Or is it? Is it the role of the fans to stimulate the players to play better, or is it the role of the players to stimulate the fans to sing louder and clap harder? Catch 22 situation you might say.  

Is the poor atmosphere down to the design of the stadium? Afterall, it was created as a multi-purpose venue, rather the one specifically intended to generate a good atmosphere for football fans. You could argue that the fantastic atmospheres for club games (playoff finals), renders that point useless.

Is it that Wembley has become too corporate? A lot has been made of the much maligned Club Wembley tier and the amount of empty seats on show at the start of each half. It looks terrible on tv, and the people who use these seats are generally there for a enjoyable day out, and not to contribute to the atmosphere.

Is it the fact that most of England’s opponents are highly underwhelming? Slovenia, San Marino and Norway have been the last three teams to play under the arch. At any level of football, the atmosphere tends to improve when the opposition is better.

Taking England on the road, as was done at the start of the Millennium, could eliminate a lot of these problems. We all know that it isn’t going to happen any time soon because Wembley simply cost too much money for it not to be used at every possible occasion. But for the next few hundred words let’s just pretend that money is no object and that Wembley was donated to us free of charge by those wonderful folk at FIFA (save that one for a rainy day).

Taking the national team to the North, to the Midlands or to the South West would have a number of benefits. Assume England’s qualifier against Lithuania in March were to be played at Molineux, for example. Would the people of the West Midlands be bothered that it’s just “little old Lithuania”? Of course not. The prospect of seeing the top 11 English players close to home would be enough to sell out the ground and generate a fantastic, joyous atmosphere. It would create England fans for the future.

WWE (professional wrestling) visits the UK for one week every six months. They do the live TV shows at different cities each time: London, Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham. It is noticeable how much better the atmosphere and crowd reaction is for these shows compared to the ones in the United States. That’s because it’s a new experience for the English fan and they’re determined to make the most of the rare occasion. Variety is the spice to life apparently. Let’s try it out with football, hey?

England played Mexico at Pride Park in 2001. I didn’t go, but because it was close to home I will always remember the occasion. There was a massive buzz around the area. We even have a road sign in our house somewhere with “England v Mexico” and an arrow pointing in the rough direction to the stadium (I would just like to go on record to say that commandeering road signs is neither big or clever).

I remember England also playing at the Stadium of Light in Sunderland, and Villa Park in Birmingham. Why do I remember it? Because it was different, it was unique. If Bristol get a stadium capable of hosting the Three Lions, it would be an ideal city to host an international match. I’d love to see England play at Hillsborough in Sheffield, or at the Riverside in Middlesbrough; i’ve always wondered what the Riverside would look like if it was more than half full.

It would also be a clever move by the FA get people properly interested in England again, or to give something back to the fans. After years of disappointment on the international stage, would that be too much to ask? Frankly, it’s now boring watching England play at Wembley every game. By all means, if there was ever a massive qualifying match with everything riding on it, play it at Wembley; it’s the only stadium that can accommodate 90,000 people.

How do other international teams compare? Do they stick to one stadium? Some do, but lots don’t. Let’s look at the last two World Cup winners, starting with Germany. Their 2016 qualifiers so far have been played in Dortmund, Gelsenkirchen, and Nuremburg. Next up? Frankfurt and Leipzig. No games at the Olympic Stadium in Berlin – the nation’s capital.

What about Spain? So far they’ve played in Valencia and Huelva. In their qualifying for the 2014 World Cup they played in Palma, Albecete, Gijon and Madrid. Obviously there are geographical differences between Spain, Germany and England. We’re a lot smaller so it is perhaps more feasible to expect supporters to travel to one stadium every game, even if it is on a school night with San Marino as the prize at the end of the motorway.

It’s not really fair or possible to expect this in Germany and Spain. However, in our quest to be the best footballing nation on earth, we’re constantly looking at these two nations and trying to adopt their best practice, so why not follow their lead on taking the show on the road?