One club men are hard to find – George Cohen, England ’66 and West Germany

GEORGE COHEN’s passing is another reminder that time is getting on, leaving us with just Geoff Hurst and Bobby Charlton from the triumphant 11 and five from the England squad of 22 from that glorious summer of 1966.

Cohen’s football career is well documented, his cheery disposition very notable in all media discussions about England’s World Cup victory. Fulham was his only club, Cohen may have been one of the less celebrated figures at the time of England’s success, but at Craven Cottage, he remained a club icon. Full backs are rarely in the spotlight, but his name rolled off the tongue in every attempt to name the “boys of 66”- Banks, Cohen, Wilson… and so on.

Cohen was a one club man, not unusual in 1966, but nevertheless, a stable, reliable and determined footballer. In that 1966 squad, there were other similarly loyal figures: Bobby and Jack Charlton, Roger Hunt, Ian Callaghan, Terry Paine, Bobby Moore, Nobby Stiles, Norman Hunter, Ron Flowers and Peter Bonetti. Not all were one-club men by the time their playing days ended, but most spent peak career with a single employer. Sadly, his later career was plagued with injury and he had to retire before he was 30. The only medal was the World Cup winners’ medal of 1966. At club level, he won nothing. He was not alone in the England squad – Ron Springett, Jimmy Armfield and Terry Paine all ended their careers without a medal from domestic football, but only Cohen played in the final.

The most decorated player in Sir Alf Ramsey’s squad of 1966 didn’t line-up in the final against West Germany. Ian Callaghan of Liverpool won 11 major prizes, including five league titles and four European trophies. Between them, the winning side of 1966 won 28 top prizes with their clubs, but because some played for relatively unfashionable clubs, their trophy haul was modest. This underlines how football has changed in the years since 1966 – top players are supposed to win prizes, as evidenced by the medal cabinets of the likes of Lionel Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo, among others.

Only five of the England team that lifted the Jules Rimet trophy won the Football League title: Nobby Stiles, Jack Charlton, Bobby Charlton, Alan Ball and Roger Hunt. Legendary players like Bobby Moore, Alan Ball, Gordon Banks and Geoff Hurst won surprisingly little in their club careers. Furthermore, few members of the 22-man squad – Jack Charlton, Jimmy Armfield and Alan Ball – made a mark in management.

In recent years, time has caught up with the boys of 1966 and 10 have died in four years. Their opponents at Wembley in July 1966 have fared much better. While there are five members of the squad still with us, there are 14 West Germans still enjoying their autumn years, including seven of the starting 11. Perhaps this is due to lifestyle or the difference in social conditions in Germany. Possibly it has something to do with the way elder statesmen are treated after their playing time is over. According to some professionals from the 1960s and 1970s, they were kept playing by dozens of pain-killing injections and as a result, they become riddled with arthritis or rheumatism in old age. Was that any different in West Germany? Perhaps they simply lead healthier lives? Cohen battled illness after his career finished, eventually being given the all-clear on bowel cancer in 1990.

He remains one of only 11 Englishmen to play in the World Cup final, a feat that has eluded countless groups of England hopefuls. He was also an outstanding footballer, rated England’s finest right back with an attacking style that proved to be very influential. His name will live on. He may have won just one medal, but what a medal that was.

Qatar’s World Cup – an inflection point in the modern game

HOW ironic the World Cup final will be contested by Argentina and France, two nations whose star players just happen to play for Paris Saint-Germain. PSG, as we are all aware, are owned by Qatar, so the presence of Lionel Messi and Kylian Mbappé fits nicely into the host nation’s agenda. From their perspective, 2022 could not have been more successful.

That is assuming Qatar doesn’t really care about what people are saying about their society, their treatment of women, human rights and homosexuality. The 32 nations who travelled to Qatar didn’t seem to “use their platform” to make a stand about these issues as they promised, but we wait for the return of the fans to hear about the way they were treated. Qatar’s only setback was the performance of their team, arguably the weakest host in the competition’s history.

The 2022 World Cup, pre-final, drew an average of almost 53,000 per game (at least, that’s the official figure), the third highest ever and better than traditional football countries such as Germany, France, Italy and Spain, not to mention England in 1966. The tournament’s goals-per-game ratio, before the finale, was 2.63 which is almost identical to the last two World Cups.[1]

There has been no shortage of drama, or even fairytales, but there was a lack of genuine quality and an absence of a truly outstanding team. The media have been urging Lionel Messi to make the final, devoting almost entire commentaries and panel discussions to the Argentinian skipper. They also wanted Cristiano Ronaldo to join him on the podium, but it was difficult to justify when he sat on the bench for so long. Neymar, too, was in focus, but like Ronaldo, he departed unfulfilled and in floods of tears.

Rarely has a World Cup appeared to be the end of the road for so many players and teams. We are coming to the closure of a unique, golden era in which some truly remarkable footballers are about to disappear from the international (and domestic) stage.

Messi, Ronaldo and Neymar will probably never appear again in the World Cup, leaving a big gap to fill for Argentina, Portugal and Brazil. While the likes of Pelé, Maradona and the original Ronaldo all finished their careers with a World Cup winners’ medal, only Messi of this trio can do likewise. Cristiano Ronaldo, while possessing magnificent statistics[2], will never be looked upon in the same way as dear old Eusébio. It is clearly hard for these players to realise they could end their celebrated playing days without the greatest prize, but none are short of rewards. In the case of Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo, their careers seem to have dragged on for ever, so it will be equally hard for their fans to deal with their retirement from the scene.

There are others who will be coming to terms with reaching the end of their World Cup lives; Luka Modrić, Harry Kane, Olivier Giroud, Robert Lewandowski, Christian Eriksen, Thomas Müller, Sergio Busquets, Kevin De Bruyne, Eden Hazard, Karim Benzema and Virgil van Dijk may all be be waving goodbye.

As well as individuals, the 2022 World Cup may also signal the end of a natural cycle for some national teams. Belgium, for example, were a golden generation that failed to deliver on its huge potential. Packed with stand-out players at club level, Belgium, who finished third in 2018, had clearly passed their best by the time they rolled into Qatar. Almost half their squad was over 30, including De Bruyne and Hazard, Alex Witsel, Dries Mertens and Jan Vertonghen.  

The same could be said of the England squad to some extent, who seem to be divided almost equally between the future and the past. While they have some outstanding talent that will surely form the heart of their team in the years ahead – Foden, Bellingham and Saka – they may also have seen the best of Raheem Sterling, Kane, Harry Maguire, Jordan Henderson and Kyle Walker. England reached the quarter-finals but as in the past, capitulated when facing a decent side.

The usual “what ifs” dominated the post-match narrative, but England are effectively not a lot different from where they were at the start of the 21st century[3]. They have now happily returned to last eight status after a period in which they struggled to get beyond group stages. England left Qatar in better shape than some of their peers; Germany, Spain and Portugal, for instance, all fell short. One of the problems for some countries is the longevity of some careers, which can prevent new blood from emerging and make “untouchables” out of long-serving squad members.

Of course, Argentina rely heavily on one of their stalwarts and should he depart the international arena, their team will be badly affected. Although they reached the final, they are workmanlike in composition and deeds. France, on paper, may be the strongest team, but they do not have an orchestrator like Messi.

Many have proclaimed that 2022 is a turning point for Africa, but in reality, it is a turning point for Morocco, although the jury should remain out on whether this is a journey to sunny uplands for the entire continent. Certainly, more games were won by Africans than ever before (seven, eight if you include penalty shoot-outs), but four of the eight were by Morocco. The gap may have closed between CAF representatives and Europe, but given consistency has always been one of the stumbling blocks, 2026 will be an important World Cup for Africa.

Qatar is an inflection point because it also leaves FIFA nursing a battered reputation, although they seem to have ignored the damage done to their image by merely announcing even more tournaments and 48-team World Cup in 2026. After handing the competition to Russia and Qatar, FIFA has to be investigated further around its values and political motives. As the sport’s governing body, it also needs to be regulated more stringently[4]. In the aftermath of a fairly decent World Cup on the pitch, FIFA cannot be allowed to make decisions that harm the game and its reputation. The football world should be saying right now, “enough is enough” and that should include an overhaul of FIFA’s management.

[1] World Cup 2018 goals per game 2.64, World Cup 2014 goals per game 2.67

[2] Ronaldo has scored 701 goals in 951 games, including 118 in 196 games for Portugal

[3] 2002 World Cup QF, 2004 Euros QF, 2006 World Cup QF.

[4] In 2018, FIFA revised its code of ethics to remove corruption as one of the enumerated bases of ethical violations. It retained bribery, misappropriation of funds and manipulation of competitions as offences, but added a statute of limitation clause that those offences could not be pursued after a 10-year period.