Britain and our place in world football

[Albumen]

I'm sorry but that's really bollocks. Uruguay was our only proper "poor" performance and even then we came close to getting a result. We lost by ONE goal, one moment in each of those 2 games, it was very fine margins. We played far better football than in 2012 or 2010.

Unlucky once? Unlucky twice? Unlucky 3 times not to win? How many more times do you need to feel unlucky before really asking questions?

 

[drew]

http://www.espnfc.com/team/england/...-have-always-failed-in-international-football

Great piece from Nick Hornby.

Outside of England, we've only ever won FIVE World Cup knockout matches...

They're not great stats but some context needs to be added. It should be remembered that, up until 1982, the only knockout games were only the semis and final. So you could spin it that, since 1986 England have won 5 knockout games which equates to the 7 tournaments they have competed in. Still not great though.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Unlucky once? Unlucky twice? Unlucky 3 times not to win? How many more times do you need to feel unlucky before really asking questions?

This.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

They're not great stats but some context needs to be added. It should be remembered that, up until 1982, the only knockout games were only the semis and final. So you could spin it that, since 1986 England have won 5 knockout games which equates to the 7 tournaments they have competed in.

I would like to see a list of the other nations which have won 5 knock-out games to put this in some context.

 

[Simster]

http://www.espnfc.com/team/england/...-have-always-failed-in-international-football

Great piece from Nick Hornby.

Outside of England, we've only ever won FIVE World Cup knockout matches...

No it isn't, it's a terrible, lazy article.

He's talking like nobody has ever considered that we've never been good. Well it has been considered and it's not true. The fact is, we have been good, and we ARE one of only 8 nations ever to have won it. How many knockout matches have we ever LOST without the need for penalty shootouts? And I'm sure you could make those figures even better by ignoring knockout matches played in Mexico. Why not? It seems fair enough for Hornby to exclude the wins in England.

It also ignored the fact that when we failed to qualify twice in the 1970s, only 16 teams played and it was MUCH harder for European teams to even get there. The 1974 Dutch runners up nearly failed to make it themselves, squeaking past Belgium in the qualifiers. Nowadays, most second tier European nations qualify.

The simple fact is that as the game has become more global, the second and third tier nations have bunched up, just behind the elite 5 or 6 - an elite that is fluid but NEVER seems to include England. The question we need to be asking is whether it is possible for a nation like ours to take its place in the elite. I'd say the Netherlands show that it is, but fundamental changes need to take place from grass roots upwards. Better coaching, better facilities, reduce the influence of bawling parents from the sidelines, and ensure that the infrastructure is there such that the better players can continue to improve at academies without forgetting their school studies, and finally a top flight that is not stuffed with foreigners to the extent that our best players don't get to play in it.

 

[drew]

I would like to see a list of the other nations which have won 5 knock-out games to put this in some context.

Fair point. However, taking another pot shot at the Hornby piece, he argues that why did people think we would go out in the quarter finals when we had never beaten Italy or Uruguay at a world cup before! That is a very weak point because we had only played Uruguay once before at the finals and in fact the same can be said for Italy if you exclude the meaningless 3rd/4th place play-off in 1990.

 

[keaton]

Elite sport often is

Doesn't that support what he's saying about us only being poor against Uruguay?

 

[drew]

Doesn't that support what he's saying about us only being poor against Uruguay?

Were we? We had more possession, more shots on target, gave away less fouls, had one less corner than them. The difference was Suarez was clinical and Sturridge wasn't. Dont' get me wrong, I'm not saying we were great but if we were poor then so were Uruguay!

 

[Brovion]

When was the last time you saw an England player really out on their feet, someone who has given every ounce for the cause, body on the line etc? Those USA players last night ran themselves into the ground, as did the Algerians vs. Germany and the Greeks vs. Costa Rica.

I wouldn't say England players don't try but I get the distinct impression that - to a man - there's still quite of bit of gas left in the tank at full-time. It's almost as if they don't want to wear themselves out too much in case they get injured and miss pre-season with their Prem clubs. Where are the lung-bursting runs, the last-ditch tackles? Other than our sweeping goal against Italy there's really not much good stuff to remember about our last 2 World Cup campaigns.

The USA and Algeria games were after extra time, so I'd expect their players to be more tired than ours were after say, Costa Rica. (With the added factor that that they were playing in games that mattered as opposed to a dead rubber).

So yes, I feel our players put as much effort into playing for the national side as they do for their clubs. As I said before, I really don't think lack of effort is our problem, it's the one area where we AREN'T second-tier. ALL IMO of course.

 

[Iggle Piggle]

No it isn't, it's a terrible, lazy article.

He's talking like nobody has ever considered that we've never been good. Well it has been considered and it's not true. The fact is, we have been good, and we ARE one of only 8 nations ever to have won it. How many knockout matches have we ever LOST without the need for penalty shootouts? And I'm sure you could make those figures even better by ignoring knockout matches played in Mexico. Why not? It seems fair enough for Hornby to exclude the wins in England.

It also ignored the fact that when we failed to qualify twice in the 1970s, only 16 teams played and it was MUCH harder for European teams to even get there. The 1974 Dutch runners up nearly failed to make it themselves, squeaking past Belgium in the qualifiers. Nowadays, most second tier European nations qualify.

The simple fact is that as the game has become more global, the second and third tier nations have bunched up, just behind the elite 5 or 6 - an elite that is fluid but NEVER seems to include England. The question we need to be asking is whether it is possible for a nation like ours to take its place in the elite. I'd say the Netherlands show that it is, but fundamental changes need to take place from grass roots upwards. Better coaching, better facilities, reduce the influence of bawling parents from the sidelines, and ensure that the infrastructure is there such that the better players can continue to improve at academies without forgetting their school studies, and finally a top flight that is not stuffed with foreigners to the extent that our best players don't get to play in it.

I agree with a lot of what you say but some of this most be coming to fruition already. The under 17's won the European Championship this year and clearly have talent and surely can't have got there if they are being coached by the equivalent of an under 17 Steve Cotterill. What doesn't happen is these kids kicking on. Whether it is because they get too much too young, not enough game time or just don't develop for whatever reason is what needs to be answered. In 2009 the under 21's got to the final of the European championship (and got stuffed by the Germans, natch). Check out the 2 teams, the Germans being littered with players now in the senior team and England with, er, Lee Catermole.

GERMANY:

GK 1 Manuel Neuer
RB 2 Andreas Beck
CB 4 Benedikt Höwedes
CB 5 Jérôme Boateng
LB 3 Sebastian Boenisch
DM 15 Mats Hummels
RM 14 Fabian Johnson
CM 20 Gonzalo Castro
CM 8 Sami Khedira (c)
LM 10 Mesut Özil
CF 13 Sandro Wagner

ENGLAND

GK 22 Scott Loach
RB 2 Martin Cranie
CB 17 Micah Richards
CB 6 Nedum Onuoha
LB 19 Kieran Gibbs
DM 12 Fabrice Muamba
CM 4 Lee Cattermole
CM 10 Mark Noble (c)
RW 7 James Milner
LW 11 Adam Johnson
CF 14 Theo Walcott

 

[keaton]

I agree with a lot of what you say but some of this most be coming to fruition already. The under 17's won the European Championship this year and clearly have talent and surely can't have got there if they are being coached by the equivalent of an under 17 Steve Cotterill. What doesn't happen is these kids kicking on. Whether it is because they get too much too young, not enough game time or just don't develop for whatever reason is what needs to be answered. In 2009 the under 21's got to the final of the European championship (and got stuffed by the Germans, natch). Check out the 2 teams, the Germans being littered with players now in the senior team and England with, er, Lee Catermole.

GERMANY:

GK 1 Manuel Neuer
RB 2 Andreas Beck
CB 4 Benedikt Höwedes
CB 5 Jérôme Boateng
LB 3 Sebastian Boenisch
DM 15 Mats Hummels
RM 14 Fabian Johnson
CM 20 Gonzalo Castro
CM 8 Sami Khedira (c)
LM 10 Mesut Özil
CF 13 Sandro Wagner

ENGLAND

GK 22 Scott Loach
RB 2 Martin Cranie
CB 17 Micah Richards
CB 6 Nedum Onuoha
LB 19 Kieran Gibbs
DM 12 Fabrice Muamba
CM 4 Lee Cattermole
CM 10 Mark Noble (c)
RW 7 James Milner
LW 11 Adam Johnson
CF 14 Theo Walcott

There's 5 Germans in that team that are in the current squad as far as I can see.

Hart was suspended for the final so we had two, but Walcott would have gone if he'd been fit.

 

[Hotchilidog]

Do you honestly believe that any of those you've named are any more talented that their equivalents of 30-odd years ago? Chris Waddle at the same age is far better than Adam Lallana is now, ditto John Barnes better than Sterling. Oxlade-Chamberlain is not a million miles from Tony Daley (who turned out to be shite). Even go back 10-15 years - Joe Cole was a better, more consistent player than Wilshere, Rooney had more impact than Barkley, Ian Wright no worse than Sturridge.

I really believe our current young crop are nothing special when compared with the young emerging players of 10, 20 or 30 years ago. In fact, I'd go as so far as to say they are a fairly mediocre bunch, not a patch on the crop that emerged in the late 90s to threaten in 2002/04, or those that emerged in the late 80s to peak at Italia 90.

I do not think they are world beaters either, but I think your assessment is a little on the harsh side. What they are is positive attacking players who at least look to take people on, in contrast to the dull, dirgey crap we have had to put up with over the last decade. I'd say that this England team is still on the bottom rung of its developmental ladder, but at least they have bothered to get the damn thing out of the shed.

 

[Simster]

I agree with a lot of what you say but some of this most be coming to fruition already. The under 17's won the European Championship this year and clearly have talent and surely can't have got there if they are being coached by the equivalent of an under 17 Steve Cotterill. What doesn't happen is these kids kicking on. Whether it is because they get too much too young, not enough game time or just don't develop for whatever reason is what needs to be answered. In 2009 the under 21's got to the final of the European championship (and got stuffed by the Germans, natch). Check out the 2 teams, the Germans being littered with players now in the senior team and England with, er, Lee Catermole.

GERMANY:

GK 1 Manuel Neuer
RB 2 Andreas Beck
CB 4 Benedikt Höwedes
CB 5 Jérôme Boateng
LB 3 Sebastian Boenisch
DM 15 Mats Hummels
RM 14 Fabian Johnson
CM 20 Gonzalo Castro
CM 8 Sami Khedira (c)
LM 10 Mesut Özil
CF 13 Sandro Wagner

ENGLAND

GK 22 Scott Loach
RB 2 Martin Cranie
CB 17 Micah Richards
CB 6 Nedum Onuoha
LB 19 Kieran Gibbs
DM 12 Fabrice Muamba
CM 4 Lee Cattermole
CM 10 Mark Noble (c)
RW 7 James Milner
LW 11 Adam Johnson
CF 14 Theo Walcott

Given that some boys are not fully grown up at U17, I'm afraid it doesn't mean an awful lot. Why, I hear you ask? Well because if our coaching methods are such that physical strength is prized over skill and technique at 16 years old, then any talented but less developed kids have already fallen off the radar by then. So we might beat others at U17 level, but it doesn't do us much good if other countries have more skilful but less physically developed kids still coming through while our set up has effectively already ditched our similar kids.

If you don't believe me, why not Google the date of births from the U17 team? I'll bet you they're nearly all born September to March - the earlier part of the academic year and therefore more likely to be physically developed for their age. It's certainly the case when you get to full international level that they are at least 75% September - March birthdays I'm afraid.

 

[Monsieur Le Plonk]

There's 5 Germans in that team that are in the current squad as far as I can see.

Hart was suspended for the final so we had two, but Walcott would have gone if he'd been fit.

You are scraping the barrel there matey.
Just look at those two teams. Of the recognised players stick them up against each other and see which country you would rather they played for. Look at the comparable quality, experience and market value.
I'll suggest that Walcott might just possibly be there or thereabouts but would any other English player get a sniff of getting in that German team?

 

[Iggle Piggle]

There's 5 Germans in that team that are in the current squad as far as I can see.

Hart was suspended for the final so we had two, but Walcott would have gone if he'd been fit.

I think we broadly agree. Ozil, Neuer, Boateng and Khedira are all top draw, Howedes less so but got in the team / squad. Fabian Johnson plays for the Yanks. Hart and Walcott play for 'elite' English clubs but other than Milner the rest are no better than average Premier League players at best.

I know all of them can't make it to the top but the general point seems to be that a lot of these players don't kick on. Also, this isn't a one off, there was an article where it highlights that this happens consistently between our respective nations (I can't find it). There must be an underlying reason for this.

 

[keaton]

I think we broadly agree. Ozil, Neuer, Boateng and Khedira are all top draw, Howedes less so but got in the team / squad. Fabian Johnson plays for the Yanks. Hart and Walcott play for 'elite' English clubs but other than Milner the rest are no better than average Premier League players at best.

I know all of them can't make it to the top but the general point seems to be that a lot of these players don't kick on. Also, this isn't a one off, there was an article where it highlights that this happens consistently between our respective nations (I can't find it). There must be an underlying reason for this.

There's a lot more qualified coaches in Germany, Spain and Italy than there are in England. To me it's that simple

 

[Iggle Piggle]

Given that some boys are not fully grown up at U17, I'm afraid it doesn't mean an awful lot. Why, I hear you ask? Well because if our coaching methods are such that physical strength is prized over skill and technique at 16 years old, then any talented but less developed kids have already fallen off the radar by then. So we might beat others at U17 level, but it doesn't do us much good if other countries have more skilful but less physically developed kids still coming through while our set up has effectively already ditched our similar kids.

If you don't believe me, why not Google the date of births from the U17 team? I'll bet you they're nearly all born September to March - the earlier part of the academic year and therefore more likely to be physically developed for their age. It's certainly the case when you get to full international level that they are at least 75% September - March birthdays I'm afraid.

I've got better things to do than google birthdays (well, work to do at any rate) but I can well believe it. I'm not by any means saying our coaching or youth is perfect but U21 level teams of various descriptions seem to do OK. It's the national team that is bobbins, especially since Portugal 2004.

I'm not that pessimistic that we are that far behind - If we could either stop players dissapearing up thier own rectum, get them more game time (and ideally not at a team like Stoke or any other team who kick people up in the air) or unearthered a few more coaches like whoever produced Bale, the Ox, Walcott and Shaw at Soton there's no reason why we can't find ourselves with a chance (and if I knew how to do that I wouldn't be working in IT). Even then though, we are still long odds against to win anything. If we started a World cup as 4-1 Favourite that's only a 25% chance of winning the thing.

 

[Pavilionaire]

The USA and Algeria games were after extra time, so I'd expect their players to be more tired than ours were after say, Costa Rica. (With the added factor that that they were playing in games that mattered as opposed to a dead rubber).

So yes, I feel our players put as much effort into playing for the national side as they do for their clubs. As I said before, I really don't think lack of effort is our problem, it's the one area where we AREN'T second-tier. ALL IMO of course.

I disagree, I think some of these 'lesser' nations like the USA put in more physical and mental effort precisely because they are not as naturally skilful as their opposition. Look at how well the USA defended in the first 90 minutes vs Belgium, the focus they maintained, the concentration from Tim Howard to make those 15 saves.

Contrast that with how England switched off for Suarez's winner, or for Italy's first goal from the corner, or their second where failure to close down the Italians allowing them to play the ball out from their penalty area to Balotelli's head relatively unchallenged. Go back 4 years and we have the Klose goal where he leaves Upson for dead from a long punt from the keeper. Our concentration level is habitually third rate, and this IS about effort.

 

[keaton]

I disagree, I think some of these 'lesser' nations like the USA put in more physical and mental effort precisely because they are not as naturally skilful as their opposition. Look at how well the USA defended in the first 90 minutes vs Belgium, the focus they maintained, the concentration from Tim Howard to make those 15 saves.

Contrast that with how England switched off for Suarez's winner, or for Italy's first goal from the corner, or their second where failure to close down the Italians allowing them to play the ball out from their penalty area to Balotelli's head relatively unchallenged. Go back 4 years and we have the Klose goal where he leaves Upson for dead from a long punt from the keeper. Our concentration level is habitually third rate, and this IS about effort.

I'm not sure concentration or reading the game is explicitly linked with effort. More a mixture of intelligence, coaching and happening to have good concentration levels.

 

[Pavilionaire]

I'm not sure concentration or reading the game is explicitly linked with effort. More a mixture of intelligence, coaching and happening to have good concentration levels.

Oxford Dictionary definition of effort: "A vigorous or determined attempt; strenuous physical or mental exertion."

Prior to 2010 look how we were eliminated from the tournament: 2006 penalties, 202 wonder goal from Ronaldinho, 1998 penalties, 1990 penalties, 1986 wonder goal and Hand Of God from Maradona, 1982 inability to score vs Germany and Spain.

Now look at 2010 and 2014: Rob Green switches off and palms the ball in the net vs USA, English defence switch off and concede 4 vs Germany, England defence switches off at corner and give Italy free shot, English defence outnumber Uruguay 6 vs 2 yet concede, English defence switches off in final minutes to let Suarez through for winner.