Britain and our place in world football

[Pavilionaire]

Fair enough, you've clearly got more knowledge than me about the youth side of things. I'll write the next 10 years off, then come back and see whether any of these kids are actually getting a game anywhere in the best league in the world.

 

[Iggle Piggle]

But this is the default view ("We're really good, we were just unlucky") which, rightly, he is challenging...

We were pretty good and unlucky in 82,86 and 90. Looking back at the team in 2006 it could and should have done better.

We stunk the place out in 2010 and 14

98 and 2002 were about where we were.

We didn't even make it in 74,78 or 94 (I'm surprised given Hornby's penchant for the negative we didn't whine that we hadn't got through a qualifying group for 20 years given we hosted in 66, qualified as holders in 70 and didn't get through qualifiers until 82)

It's too simplisitc to say we have been crap for ever. We haven't. As also mentioned earlier in the thread even if we came in as favourites there will still be a 75% chance we wouldn't win the thing.

For the future? This group seems to have a better attitude than the last lot and has the nucleas of a good attacking team. Sort the defence out and there is no reason why it can't be at least a last 8 team at the Euro's in 2 years time. I'm going to go. I'll leave Hornby to think of his next depressing article in his Islington coffee shop, listening to some obscure Joy division B side whilst slitting his wrists.

 

[gordonchas]

Since I've been following football in 1982, I can think of: Germany in the Euros in the 90s, Argentina in 2002, Holland in 1996, France 1982

Just the FOUR then.

But how many times have we been beaten by top 8 sides in major tournaments in matches in 120 mins in that time (excluding PKs)?
Argentina 86 and 98, Brazil 02, Germany 10 and Holland 88

SO just the FIVE then.

You've included England's group wins but not their group defeats against France (2004) and Italy (2014) so that's 4 wins and 7 defeats. IMV Portugal should be included in this as well so that's another defeat (1986). So that would be 4 wins, 8 defeats + all those draws. And 0 wins in knock-outs when it really matters.

We sold our top league for the filthy lucre and now the chickens are coming home to roost. Unless we do something at both grass roots level to train our youngsters properly and something to more to ensure our talent is playing in our top leagues then we'll continue to flounder.

Nothing will change though. The World Cup will finish and the 'EPL' (said with an American twang) will start up its engines again in August - all other football will be forgotten by the media in this country and the juggernaut of greed will continue on. Players will cash in on massive salaries; prices will rise; the average supporter will get stung and the quality of English footballers will get no better. But hey, that's what you get for having 'the best league in the world'.

This seems to be a popular opinion. In what way is the Premier League responsible for the overall quality of English players? They're all overpriced so clubs go abroad and pay over-the-odds there instead, but are you suggesting there is a large pool of talent floundering in the Championship and beyond, because if so I'd like to know who we're talking about? I don't see how having a larger number of mediocre players to choose from is going to produce a different result.

And having the Best League In the World (an unofficial title that's still contested) hasn't stopped Spain dominating international football between 2008-2013, and probably won't stop them having a major influence in the very next tournament.

England's problem is cultural, and an inability to teach young children how to play - not just basic skills, but how to think and adapt during a game.

 

[Hamilton]

You've included England's group wins but not their group defeats against France (2004) and Italy (2014) so that's 4 wins and 7 defeats. IMV Portugal should be included in this as well so that's another defeat (1986). So that would be 4 wins, 8 defeats + all those draws. And 0 wins in knock-outs when it really matters.




This seems to be a popular opinion. In what way is the Premier League responsible for the overall quality of English players? They're all overpriced so clubs go abroad and pay over-the-odds there instead, but are you suggesting there is a large pool of talent floundering in the Championship and beyond, because if so I'd like to know who we're talking about? I don't see how having a larger number of mediocre players to choose from is going to produce a different result.

And having the Best League In the World (an unofficial title that's still contested) hasn't stopped Spain dominating international football between 2008-2013, and probably won't stop them having a major influence in the very next tournament.

England's problem is cultural, and an inability to teach young children how to play - not just basic skills, but how to think and adapt during a game.

I agree with your point that we need to radically review the way in which we train our young people. This requires significant investment. Investment that is not there because the money flows to the top of football in this country, not the bottom.

Of course, once trained you then need exposure to top flight football - first through academies, then through playing with the best quality players in reserve teams and then by fighting for a place in the first team. Unfortunately access to these opportunities is scarce as the top teams in our countries are filling themselves up with foreign talent.

The market is way over-priced you're right. Somehow addressing that would be a smart move. I have no idea what the answer to that is, but perhaps it's this. Let the top teams negotiate their own TV deals like they do in Spain. Then the money would wash further into Man U, Chelsea, Man City, Arsenal and leave 70% of top flight clubs looking less attractive and poorer. Less money to spend would rebalance the market.

However, we'd also have to restructure the leagues. League 1 and 2 would go bust and become semi professional. They couldn't survive in a system that saw less cash in it. Would we put up with this? Or is a 92 club system/heritage still more important to us.

I really don't know if this is the right idea, it's just a thought. But we do have to think differently to get ourselves out of this rut.

 

[mikeyjh]

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...

That's just a collection of lazy cliches, and then there's this line - "The truly remarkable thing about England's two defeats to Italy and Uruguay is that they took the nation by surprise" Classic journalist living in bubble type line. I don't know anyone who was 'surprised' and he give his rubbish article some sort of punch by describing that non surprise as 'truly remarkable'. In fact it's full of reflections of made up public opinion, it's rubbish.

 

[Wozza]

You've included England's group wins but not their group defeats against France (2004) and Italy (2014) so that's 4 wins and 7 defeats. IMV Portugal should be included in this as well so that's another defeat (1986). So that would be 4 wins, 8 defeats + all those draws. And 0 wins in knock-outs when it really matters.




This seems to be a popular opinion. In what way is the Premier League responsible for the overall quality of English players? They're all overpriced so clubs go abroad and pay over-the-odds there instead, but are you suggesting there is a large pool of talent floundering in the Championship and beyond, because if so I'd like to know who we're talking about? I don't see how having a larger number of mediocre players to choose from is going to produce a different result.

And having the Best League In the World (an unofficial title that's still contested) hasn't stopped Spain dominating international football between 2008-2013, and probably won't stop them having a major influence in the very next tournament.

England's problem is cultural, and an inability to teach young children how to play - not just basic skills, but how to think and adapt during a game.

Agree with the latter.

But re: Spain, I think their home-grown players get more opportunities there (even in B teams of the big clubs, they're getting trained the right way), and some go abroad.

In England, it's hard for English players to break through, so you get players like Bridcutt being thrown away by Chelsea.

 

[Wozza]

That's just a collection of lazy cliches, and then there's this line - "The truly remarkable thing about England's two defeats to Italy and Uruguay is that they took the nation by surprise" Classic journalist living in bubble type line. I don't know anyone who was 'surprised' and he give his rubbish article some sort of punch by describing that non surprise as 'truly remarkable'. In fact it's full of reflections of made up public opinion, it's rubbish.

Huh? I think there's a general feeling of being shocked at England exiting the tournament so early. (The earliest ever, in fact)

Most would have expected a draw in one of the matches.

He's saying we shouldn't be surprised. So if you weren't, you're in agreement...

 

[drew]

Fair enough, you've clearly got more knowledge than me about the youth side of things. I'll write the next 10 years off, then come back and see whether any of these kids are actually getting a game anywhere in the best league in the world.

Regrettably it may well take that long but there are so many people bleating about making changes but do they honestly think they will make a difference overnight!

I agree with your point that we need to radically review the way in which we train our young people. This requires significant investment. Investment that is not there because the money flows to the top of football in this country, not the bottom.

Of course, once trained you then need exposure to top flight football - first through academies, then through playing with the best quality players in reserve teams and then by fighting for a place in the first team. Unfortunately access to these opportunities is scarce as the top teams in our countries are filling themselves up with foreign talent.

The market is way over-priced you're right. Somehow addressing that would be a smart move. I have no idea what the answer to that is, but perhaps it's this. Let the top teams negotiate their own TV deals like they do in Spain. Then the money would wash further into Man U, Chelsea, Man City, Arsenal and leave 70% of top flight clubs looking less attractive and poorer. Less money to spend would rebalance the market.

However, we'd also have to restructure the leagues. League 1 and 2 would go bust and become semi professional. They couldn't survive in a system that saw less cash in it. Would we put up with this? Or is a 92 club system/heritage still more important to us.

I really don't know if this is the right idea, it's just a thought. But we do have to think differently to get ourselves out of this rut.

What are you views on the FA Youth review that is now being implemented?

 

[Hamilton]

Regrettably it may well take that long but there are so many people bleating about making changes but do they honestly think they will make a difference overnight!



What are you views on the FA Youth review that is now being implemented?

Much needed and not before time. I admit my knowledge on it is not good, but anything that enables our youngsters to learn technique before throwing them onto near full size pitches has got to be good.

If anything, I'd like to see the review extended right up to under 15 level.

 

[gordonchas]

I agree with your point that we need to radically review the way in which we train our young people. This requires significant investment. Investment that is not there because the money flows to the top of football in this country, not the bottom.

Money is not the issue. Apart from the two obvious clubs, Spanish football doesn't have a lot of money, and neither do all the other nations who are still in the World Cup - and whose players look more comfortable with what to do with a ball.

Technique is not necessarily the problem, either. In general it would be better to have a lot more professionally trained coaches teaching younger children - and better training and screening of those doing the training - but those English players playing in the Premier League are not behind those of other countries in terms purely of skills. Let's take Colombia. That team has been great to watch and (apart from 1 or 2) their players are by some way inferior to England's. It's something else that's making them into a formidable team and those teams that are succeeding just seem so much more fluid. The home nations never seem to have much rhythm; play is fractured, staccato, and dictated by training drills. I'm over-simplifying of course, but I just think it's a basic truth. The players are, generally, un-thinking.

 

[Hamilton]

Money is not the issue. Apart from the two obvious clubs, Spanish football doesn't have a lot of money, and neither do all the other nations who are still in the World Cup - and whose players look more comfortable with what to do with a ball.

Technique is not necessarily the problem, either. In general it would be better to have a lot more professionally trained coaches teaching younger children - and better training and screening of those doing the training - but those English players playing in the Premier League are not behind those of other countries in terms purely of skills. Let's take Colombia. That team has been great to watch and (apart from 1 or 2) their players are by some way inferior to England's. It's something else that's making them into a formidable team and those teams that are succeeding just seem so much more fluid. The home nations never seem to have much rhythm; play is fractured, staccato, and dictated by training drills. I'm over-simplifying of course, but I just think it's a basic truth. The players are, generally, un-thinking.

I think there is something in what you are saying. It's inexplicable how bad we are when we turn up as a nation. I think it's a combination of factors, and do believe that the football that English players play - i.e. the level they get to, does suffer as a result of how our game is run and managed. But back to your point, it's hard to describe why we are so poor. Is it the immense pressure that the players feel? Is it cultural and we just need to either grow in confidence or stop playing like we've got a carrot inserted up our backsides? (interesting choice of words)

There's something in the national unity that other nations show that can bring them together and somehow we are lacking here. That said, Cameroon didn't exactly cover themselves in glory with all the match fixing allegations.