Some thoughts on England

[Stato]

It seems to me that there are a number of factors hampering England's competitiveness and they all seem to add up to root and branch change neeeded if international success is to be a priority. Rugby and cricket both did it. I fear that the governance of the English game does not allow the change needed as, unlike rugby and cricket, the money is in the club game not internationals. There is nothing new amongst this lot, but there are some interesting links and stats, which may inform any of us suffering from the biennial knee jerk 'Something Must Be Done!' impulse which follows another failure:

1) Lack of qualified coaches.

This article is from 4 years ago: http://www.theguardian.com/football/2010/jun/01/football-coach-shortage-england

It says that there is a statistical link between qualified coaching and international success and that England lag way behind.

In 22 seasons no English manager has won the Premier League.

2) Unwillingness to make the national team a priority.

This explains how English Cricket acted to address the problem. It seems obvious that our clubs would not agree to any kind of step in this direction:

http://www.shu.ac.uk/research/sirc/news/research-shows-central-contracts-leave-opponents-stumped

I would guess that few fans would support anything like extended breaks, which, whilst good for the national team, could impact upon their enjoyment of club football. I must admit to being among them. Brighton first, England during a tournament.

3) A lack of willingness to accept ideas which go against accepted paradigms.

Our coaches and ex players consistently tell us that you don't understand unless you have played. A lot of cliches are accepted because of unchallenged received wisdom. E.g. It is pointless coaching penalty taking. However, Germany do it and Rugby world Cup winner Clive Woodward sees things differently. He thinks everything can be coached:

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/may/19/clive-woodward-england-penalties-brazil-world-cup

If you have half an hour to spare, Matthew Syed is excellent on the subject:




'Moneyball' was written 10 years ago and its revelations about the failure of subjective knowledge when measured against sabermetric evaluation has not got through to English football. We still pick the 11 best players and try to mould a system around them. Alf Ramsey didn't do this. He picked a system and, despite crticism, chose players to fit the system.

In the last Secret Footballer book Dave Kitson explains that there are loads of advanced technologies available at FA HQ and most of it is standing idle because senior coaches and players will not acknowledge that improvements may be available from sources who haven't played the game at the top level. Ignoring the fact that the likes of Mourhinio and Wenger didn't.

4) (Possibly because of 1-3) Our players are not good enough.

Since the Premier League began 68% of winners of PFA player of the Year, 68% of the season's top scorer and 75% of FA Player of the Year have not been English. The PFA Team of the Year was dominated by English Players in the nineties, but hasn't had a majority of English Players against non-English since 2006. Since 2000 only 43.5% of players selected for the team have been English compared with 63.6% before 2000.

Given all this, at least we qualify for most tournaments. Perhaps we should just accept that the nature of the game in England means that we will not compete in the later stages of tournaments very often, but that what we are losing at international level, we are gaining from the healthy state of club football across four divisions; something which no other nation enjoys.

 

[Pavilionaire]

Good post. I like your point about "Moneyball". I've read that book and I am a fan of the Oakland Athletics that implemented it. You can see that statistics are key in that sport and that other sports have managed to identify key statistics that have a direct impact on performance, i.e. golf, cricket, rugby union, basketball.

However, football's use of statistics - at least in the mainstream - is puzzling. After the scoreline the next most used stat is possession but, as we know - this is meaningless to the outcome. Similarly, corners. A team that works hard on corners in training is more likely to score from one corner than a side that doesn't prioritise in that area that gets 2 corners.

We need better stats about players and teams in terms of where they are strong and weak in order to understand why they succeed or fail. Even if these stats are available to coaches I expect the bulk of traditional English coaches wouldn't use them, because "it's just numbers. Have you played the game, son?" etc etc.

 

[Simster]

In the last Secret Footballer book Dave Kitson explains that there are loads of advanced technologies available at FA HQ and most of it is standing idle because senior coaches and players will not acknowledge that improvements may be available from sources who haven't played the game at the top level. Ignoring the fact that the likes of Mourhinio and Wenger didn't.

Sadly this is VERY believable.

 

[Machiavelli]

Good post.
I posted on another thread something relating to point 1, which isn't so much the low number of coaches, and more to do with how the young are developed here against on the continent. On the European mainland, it's all about developing technical ability, whereas here, they're thrown straight in to playing games (and games on larger pitches, etc). The English approach is the traditional one. It's also one favoured by kids themselves, as my seven-year-old illustrates to me constantly. I want him to practice, by kicking a ball against a wall (control, hit; one-touch; left foot; right foot, and so on), whereas he just wants to play. Playing is more fun, but technical ability will make playing more enjoyable -- because they'll be more proficient -- in the longer term. It's about future investment. And it's here that the number of coaches also comes in.

 

[Mellotron]

All correct, but all irrelevant as long as the Premier League is run as a business completely separate from The FA.

 

[Pavilionaire]

My son is 8 and he's just played his first "league" season. We played on small Under-7 pitches, huge Under-9 pitches, pitches that were long but narrow, pitches that were short and wide. And throughout we played some weeks 5-a-side, some 6-a-side, some 7-a-side - it was down to whoever was the home team.

Paradoxically, the 5-a-side was played on the biggest pitch of the lot, so getting a corner was actually a DISADVANTAGE.

What this meant is that one week the kids would be hoofing it and running around like crazy the next week they'd barely touch it and it would go over the dead ball line. Some standardisation from the league might have helped.

 

[Not Andy Naylor]

It seems to me that there are a number of factors hampering England's competitiveness and they all seem to add up to root and branch change neeeded if international success is to be a priority. Rugby and cricket both did it. I fear that the governance of the English game does not allow the change needed as, unlike rugby and cricket, the money is in the club game not internationals. There is nothing new amongst this lot, but there are some interesting links and stats, which may inform any of us suffering from the biennial knee jerk 'Something Must Be Done!' impulse which follows another failure:

1) Lack of qualified coaches.

This article is from 4 years ago: http://www.theguardian.com/football/2010/jun/01/football-coach-shortage-england

It says that there is a statistical link between qualified coaching and international success and that England lag way behind.

In 22 seasons no English manager has won the Premier League.

2) Unwillingness to make the national team a priority.

This explains how English Cricket acted to address the problem. It seems obvious that our clubs would not agree to any kind of step in this direction:

http://www.shu.ac.uk/research/sirc/news/research-shows-central-contracts-leave-opponents-stumped

I would guess that few fans would support anything like extended breaks, which, whilst good for the national team, could impact upon their enjoyment of club football. I must admit to being among them. Brighton first, England during a tournament.

3) A lack of willingness to accept ideas which go against accepted paradigms.

Our coaches and ex players consistently tell us that you don't understand unless you have played. A lot of cliches are accepted because of unchallenged received wisdom. E.g. It is pointless coaching penalty taking. However, Germany do it and Rugby world Cup winner Clive Woodward sees things differently. He thinks everything can be coached:

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/may/19/clive-woodward-england-penalties-brazil-world-cup

If you have half an hour to spare, Matthew Syed is excellent on the subject:




'Moneyball' was written 10 years ago and its revelations about the failure of subjective knowledge when measured against sabermetric evaluation has not got through to English football. We still pick the 11 best players and try to mould a system around them. Alf Ramsey didn't do this. He picked a system and, despite crticism, chose players to fit the system.

In the last Secret Footballer book Dave Kitson explains that there are loads of advanced technologies available at FA HQ and most of it is standing idle because senior coaches and players will not acknowledge that improvements may be available from sources who haven't played the game at the top level. Ignoring the fact that the likes of Mourhinio and Wenger didn't.

4) (Possibly because of 1-3) Our players are not good enough.

Since the Premier League began 68% of winners of PFA player of the Year, 68% of the season's top scorer and 75% of FA Player of the Year have not been English. The PFA Team of the Year was dominated by English Players in the nineties, but hasn't had a majority of English Players against non-English since 2006. Since 2000 only 43.5% of players selected for the team have been English compared with 63.6% before 2000.

Given all this, at least we qualify for most tournaments. Perhaps we should just accept that the nature of the game in England means that we will not compete in the later stages of tournaments very often, but that what we are losing at international level, we are gaining from the healthy state of club football across four divisions; something which no other nation enjoys.

You undermine your entire post with just four words: "Matthew Syed is excellent". I know him and I beg to differ.

 

[kevo]

You undermine your entire post with just four words: "Matthew Syed is excellent". I know him and I beg to differ.

Surely you're not dissing your old colleague, Nick?!

 

[maresfield seagull]

Good post.
I posted on another thread something relating to point 1, which isn't so much the low number of coaches, and more to do with how the young are developed here against on the continent. On the European mainland, it's all about developing technical ability, whereas here, they're thrown straight in to playing games (and games on larger pitches, etc). The English approach is the traditional one. It's also one favoured by kids themselves, as my seven-year-old illustrates to me constantly. I want him to practice, by kicking a ball against a wall (control, hit; one-touch; left foot; right foot, and so on), whereas he just wants to play. Playing is more fun, but technical ability will make playing more enjoyable -- because they'll be more proficient -- in the longer term. It's about future investment. And it's here that the number of coaches also comes in.

Have you not enlightened junior to the joys of wall ball full size or tennis ball versions
And other such ball / wall based games

 

[El Presidente]

You undermine your entire post with just four words: "Matthew Syed is excellent". I know him and I beg to differ.

You should read what the brilliant Manchester United fanzine Red Issue have to say about him!

 

[Stat Brother]

He picked a system and, despite crticism, chose players to fit the system.

In the last Secret Footballer book Dave Kitson explains that there are loads of advanced technologies available at FA HQ and most of it is standing idle because senior coaches and players will not acknowledge that improvements may be available from sources who haven't played the game at the top level. Ignoring the fact that the likes of Mourhinio and Wenger didn't.

Listening to The Guardian's - James Richardson podcast, breakdown of last night, one of the contributors mentions 'marginal gains'.
For those that don't know, pull up a chair and I'm going to tell you a story!!

Marginal gains is from professional road race cycling.
To be more precise it's from Dave Brailsford the UK's cycling head honcho.

Basically marginal gains is very simple:-

To compete you need to improve.
A 'block' of 10% improvement is almost impossible to achieve.
But a 1% improvement over 10 separate disciplines, that encompasses the whole, gives you 10% improvement.

This approach is applied to everything that is British cycling.
Bikes, food, socks, helmets, mattresses, snacks, components, high tech, low tech, training, work outs, rest time, recovery, warm up.
It is not possible to name something within cycling that hasn't been marginally gained.
Even the gain of the discipline is measured against the gain of not doing it, if it's not compatible with the rider.


The team showed signs of ability in both matches, a 10% improvement gained by using EVERYTHING available to the national side may well have resulted in 2 victories.

 

[El Presidente]

Listening to The Guardian's - James Richardson podcast

Can't believe communists though........

Arsene Wenger said something similar when he joined Arsenal. Success is measured in tenths of inches not feet. That's why he took an interest in diet and alcohol consumption for players. He also made the players realise that if you are 1% better than your opponent, someone will pay you 30% more than them at the elite level of sport.

 

[Stat Brother]

Can't believe communists though........

Arsene Wenger said something similar when he joined Arsenal. Success is measured in tenths of inches not feet. That's why he took an interest in diet and alcohol consumption for players. He also made the players realise that if you are 1% better than your opponent, someone will pay you 30% more than them at the elite level of sport.

No you can't because the bloke talking about it, didn't quite understand what he was saying, or didn't put the point across correctly.

Tony Adams used to give Arsene warts'n'all accounts of 'The Tuesday Club'.
Arsene genuinely couldn't believe these men were able to play football.
He'd lap up the stories in total disbelief, and promptly stopped them from ever happening again.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

Also i'd add the money in the Premier League and the TV rights / prize money meaning that sides arn't prepared to bring through youngsters because it could potentially cost them millions. Look at Palace, they got £130m+ last season, why would a club not shop around, especially abroad for new players seeking those who have already reached a certain level and have a certain amount of experience rather than take a massive gamble on unproven (English) youngsters.

Any talented English youngsters are snapped up by top flight clubs but how many actually make it?

I'd love to see a breakdown of English players by age and compare how young they are when they make their debuts in the top flight and also how many games where played by English 16yo, 17yo, 18yo, 19yo, 20yo, 21yo, 22yo and 23 yo's now and over the last 30 or so years as i expect this to so an increase in the ages at which they start and fewer youngsters playing compared to before.

 

[Machiavelli]

Have you not enlightened junior to the joys of wall ball full size or tennis ball versions
And other such ball / wall based games

I have. And he does it sometimes. Just not regularly enough.

 

[Freddie Goodwin.]

I just hope the players watched the games today and did they wonder 'hey, why can't we play like that?'

 

[Not Andy Naylor]

Good post. I like your point about "Moneyball". I've read that book and I am a fan of the Oakland Athletics that implemented it. You can see that statistics are key in that sport and that other sports have managed to identify key statistics that have a direct impact on performance, i.e. golf, cricket, rugby union, basketball.

However, football's use of statistics - at least in the mainstream - is puzzling. After the scoreline the next most used stat is possession but, as we know - this is meaningless to the outcome. Similarly, corners. A team that works hard on corners in training is more likely to score from one corner than a side that doesn't prioritise in that area that gets 2 corners.

We need better stats about players and teams in terms of where they are strong and weak in order to understand why they succeed or fail. Even if these stats are available to coaches I expect the bulk of traditional English coaches wouldn't use them, because "it's just numbers. Have you played the game, son?" etc etc.

Very true. Not just stats, but the right stats. One point about Moneyball that is often ignored (by people who haven't read it) is that it was not simply about stats - every baseball fan, player and executive already knew plenty of stats - but about the way a poor team went about using stats to compete with richer rivals by identifying something that would help them win but which was undervalued by the big-money teams.

The problem is that baseball is a sport where almost everything is quantifiable - not just hits, runs, strikes and the obvious things, but highly abstruse areas such as what a player's batting average would be if fielders never made errors. I remember a conversation I had with a football club chairman at Euro 2004, not too long after the book had come out, about how Moneyball principles could be applied to football, and I'm not sure people are much closer - because it's so hard to decide what to count.

The possession example above is a good one. What's better? Forward passes? Passes in the final third? Assists? Tackles won? Interceptions? Is a brilliant defensive header under pressure that sends the ball out of the penalty area but back to the winger who crossed it an interception or a loss of possession?

I agree about corners. I did see one set of stats that showed that a corner taken long was 15 times more likely to result in a goal within the next three touches than a short corner. The most likely restart after a short corner was a throw-in. But does that show that a short corner is a waste of time, or that teams don't practise them enough?

The "You've never played the game" people like Hoddle are most infuriating when they talk about penalties - that load of cack about there being 'no point in practising penalties because you can't reproduce the pressure.' So why practise anything? At least a coach could point out that, since penalty shootouts were introduced in European Championship and World cup finals knock-out stages, 98 percent of kicks into the top half of the goal have succeeded (ie the keepers haven't saved them if on-target). Now that's a stat.

It's a shame England never faced a penalty shoot-out when Graham Taylor was manager, because I think we'd have dome okay. He won one with Watford against Birmingham in a play-off semi-final at St Andrews after telling the team at training who would take the first five kicks, in which order, where they should put the ball and even who would step in if any of the first five had been subbed. He took as many of the variables and uncertainties out of the situation (and the players' heads) as possible. None of this "Who fancies it on the night" nonsense. One player had his kick saved, but he'd put it where Taylor told him. And against Swindon under Mark McGhee we even practised the walk from the half-way line.

 

[Not Andy Naylor]

Surely you're not dissing your old colleague, Nick?!

Daniel (now, incredibly, 'Lord') Finkelstein and Michael Gove were also contemporaries of mine at the Thunderer. That old problem of a gun with two bullets ... Daniel, could you just stand in front of Michael and Matthew, please...?

The two most annoying things about Syed are his ignorance and his pomposity, but they have also led to beautiful moments. First when he wrote a long piece wondering why nobody had ever suggested Harry Redknapp should be England manager (even though they had) which appeared on the very day H was arrested by City of London police working on the bungs enquiry. Proof of the existence of God, I've always believed. Then there was the entire page devoted to the former ping-pong Olympian by Private Eye, quoting all his intros, dropping the names of philosophers ad nauseam. Not so much Pseud's Corner as the entire pitch - truly the Joey Barton of sports writing.

But that's just my opinion. Plenty of other people REALLY dislike him ...

 

[Stato]

I don't have the inside knowledge and a personal opinion of Syed, but watched the link after really enjoying this:



The look in her eyes when she realises he's gone rogue is priceless.

 

[Machiavelli]

... Gove: the gift that keeps on giving.