Gary Neville and his Man Utd DNA nonsense belong in the bin

We hear a lot about “the DNA of the club”; Gary Neville was waffling about Manchester United’s recently. And people rarely question what is actually a complete fallacy.

There’s talk of Spurs’ DNA being in opposition to Thomas Frank’s style of play and it will soon get him the sack . West Ham’s DNA is forever being let down or ignored by managers and owners and Liverpool seem to believe it is a unique characteristic that the club embodies. In fact, is there any club that doesn’t have DNA? Does Exeter City have a footballing double helix? Is former Celtic defender Gary Caldwell carrying on the traditions of the Third Division South Cup winners in 1933/34? Is he boll*cks.

But people believe in it. What does it mean? Or perhaps more specifically, what do people think it means? It’s a bit nebulous and doesn’t surrender to serious thought and a bit like the EU laws that people claimed as reasons for their Brexit vote but could never name, I don’t believe anyone could tell you what DNA means in football and for it to make an ounce of sense.

Take Manchester United . What was Neville referring to? When does this DNA thing come into being? When was it birthed? As far as it is possible to tell, he seems to think that basically it coincided with his playing career. It certainly didn’t seem to reach further back when United were a bit rubbish. Apparently DNA, the stuff of life, is only established when successful. So very much Andrei Kanchelskis and not Mike Duxbury. But can you select when your DNA begins and ends.

DNA suggests something intrinsic and permanent, not just a few years in the mid 90s or indeed anything so subjective. In other words, talk of DNA is 100% rubbish. Your DNA cannot be defined as anything other than a ‘period when we were good’ or ‘the period when we played attractive football.’ You cannot choose your DNA; if your parents and grandparents are all ginger-haired, you can’t choose not to be ginger.

Have you noticed that no club’s DNA is referred to as tedious, boring and defensive. “Yeah we’ve always played five at the back and tried to nick a goal.” Yet surely there have been many clubs that would describe well.

There are things that define every club, of course. Positive or negative. For example, when I hear of Bolton, I always think of Kevin Davies’ buttocks and Kevin Nolan standing on a vibrating plate. But that’s just memories, not DNA. I’m sure Bolton fans don’t say “he doesn’t understand the club’s DNA” just because of the diminutive size of the centre forward’s arse, or whether the midfielder vibrates enough.

Referring to this concept as a reason for sacking a manager is unfair and ridiculous and more often than not just really refers to losing a lot. Frank won’t be sacked for any other reason. If they were top playing boring and tedious football, their fans wouldn’t mind, just like Arsenal fans don’t. In fact, Tottenham’s habit of being rubbish but occasionally really good means they are carrying on the club’s greatest traditions. So if anything, Frank does know the club and its DNA. It’s surely better that Spurs get a manager who doesn’t understand the club DNA because inconsistency has been its hallmark for 60 years.

There is no West Ham, Spurs , Chelsea or Arsenal ‘way’. The nearest thing to it is Manchester United always having a youth team player in the match-day squad. At least that is consistent, lasting 88 years since Saturday, October 30, 1937, over 4,300 consecutive games and more than 15 different managers.

Endlessly talking about ‘someone who understands the DNA of the club’ is to aggrandise the club into a timeless entity that is objectively different to any other. It doesn’t happen outside of the biggest clubs, who do tend to have the most pretentious self-aggrandising fans. The nearest we get at Middlesbrough is the concept of ‘typical Boro’ which more describes the ability to mess things up at the last minute. People were saying it 55 years ago if we lost to a late goal. If you’d mentioned it being in the club’s DNA, you’d have been laughed out of the Holgate.

If you’ve invented a standard to measure the current failing team against, then just say so, instead of claiming not playing with two wingers, is going against the club’s DNA. You don’t know how, why or what it means and you’ve just made it up. And that includes you, Gary.