Why do England underperform at international football?
- KeithPratt
- Arsehole all Erect
- Posts: 23901
- Joined: 28 Jul 2003, 23:13
- Contact:
Why do England underperform at international football?
The suggestion is that given the size of population, the fact that football as a modern game was quantified and codified by us in the Victorian era, how popular it is here and the relative success of domestic clubs in European competition means that we should be performing a lot better than the perennial quarter-final loss on penalties that we endure so regularly.
Why? I would suggest that the sheer breakneck speed at which our game is played and the intensity that accompanies it would be the biggest reason why we essentially conk out at summer tournaments. It is important to note that we are hard to beat (apart from the 4-1 mauling by Germany in 2010 and even then that game could have swung our way had Lampard’s goal gone in) at tournaments, and apart from that game, we have only been knocked out in normal time in three tournaments since 1992, being the 2002 loss to Brazil, the Romania defeat in 2000 and the aforementioned loss to the Germans in 2010. Essentially, we’re knackered and perennially at least one or two of our more talented players are injured. We very rarely don’t qualify for tournaments (the Dutch seem to miss just as many as us) and it is usually one team that beats us (see Croatia). The foreign players that succeed in the Premiership by adapting to the game’s speed are essentially quality ones to start with – Zola, Bergkamp, Vieira, Henry, Ronaldo et.
Lack of tactical nous seems to be the other key ingredient. English footballers on the whole seem to have one mode – attack – and it is that almost primal instinct that blunts our ability to understand how a game might pan out. How many times have we seen England punt the ball needlessly up the pitch when they could just keep possession?
Why? I would suggest that the sheer breakneck speed at which our game is played and the intensity that accompanies it would be the biggest reason why we essentially conk out at summer tournaments. It is important to note that we are hard to beat (apart from the 4-1 mauling by Germany in 2010 and even then that game could have swung our way had Lampard’s goal gone in) at tournaments, and apart from that game, we have only been knocked out in normal time in three tournaments since 1992, being the 2002 loss to Brazil, the Romania defeat in 2000 and the aforementioned loss to the Germans in 2010. Essentially, we’re knackered and perennially at least one or two of our more talented players are injured. We very rarely don’t qualify for tournaments (the Dutch seem to miss just as many as us) and it is usually one team that beats us (see Croatia). The foreign players that succeed in the Premiership by adapting to the game’s speed are essentially quality ones to start with – Zola, Bergkamp, Vieira, Henry, Ronaldo et.
Lack of tactical nous seems to be the other key ingredient. English footballers on the whole seem to have one mode – attack – and it is that almost primal instinct that blunts our ability to understand how a game might pan out. How many times have we seen England punt the ball needlessly up the pitch when they could just keep possession?
- funky_nomad
- paranoid
- Posts: 11626
- Joined: 14 Aug 2003, 11:31
- Location: Doomsville
Re: Why do England underperform at international football?
Copied from elsewhere:
There's an argument to be made that England have over-achieved down the years given the actual quality (in depth) of players at their disposal.
Just because the League has been over-hyped as the best in the world for the last 20 years or so shouldn't mean the players getting the same treatment, but it appears to have done, and the general public appear to have bought it.
There's an argument to be made that England have over-achieved down the years given the actual quality (in depth) of players at their disposal.
Just because the League has been over-hyped as the best in the world for the last 20 years or so shouldn't mean the players getting the same treatment, but it appears to have done, and the general public appear to have bought it.
Just a penitent man
-
- Poptastic
- Posts: 15394
- Joined: 05 Jul 2004, 22:01
Re: Why do England underperform at international football?
The players and the manager play in an almost permanent state of fear.
I kept thinking "swim as far as you can, swim as far as you can".
- jimboo
- Posts: 7316
- Joined: 29 Dec 2005, 17:43
- Location: taking a foxy kind of stand
Re: Why do England underperform at international football?
Hang on, up until the last 6 years or so Spain only had one major trophy to their name. England ,had they been able to take penalties would be the equal at least to Spain's current haul. Italy are brilliant in the world cup but only the one European championship which is surprising and then there is the Dutch.
Portugal are also technically very sound. I must admit that being Scottish I find the average England's fan view of their team always rather harsh.
Portugal are also technically very sound. I must admit that being Scottish I find the average England's fan view of their team always rather harsh.
If I jerk- the handle jerk- the handle you'll thrill me and thrill me
Re: Why do England underperform at international football?
Toby I think you've given some reasons in your post for the underachievement, rather than dispute the idea that there has been an underachievement. In other words if we didn't do some of the things you mention, we may not underachieve.
I think the reasons are complex and have a long history. There are no simple answers.
I think the biggest problem within the game, historically, has been a certain myopia within the game which meant we have not kept up with changes and innovations within the European and world game.
As a nation we have always underinvested in research and development, and so It's perhaps no surprise that this has been a flaw in football too.
I would say our adherence to playing a direct style of football that relied on percentages had a really adverse effect. This is especially true as a whole generation of coaches were brought up under the tutelage of Charles Hughes and that tradition runs deep in the British game. It is no coincidence that our most successful periods, post-Ramsey, have come with coaches who were from a different, more progressive way of thinking (Venables, Robson and Hoddle).
In short English players need to have greater technical ability on the ball and greater tactical awareness. This can only come from radical improvements in how we train and coach our players at a young age, which in turn means we have to vastly increase the number of coaches at grassroots level (and get them singing from the same hymn book).
I'm aware that there are other factors too, but it's the kind of thing you could write a book on (and indeed some have) and I'll probably chip in when other points are raised. Basically we need long term planning.
I think the reasons are complex and have a long history. There are no simple answers.
I think the biggest problem within the game, historically, has been a certain myopia within the game which meant we have not kept up with changes and innovations within the European and world game.
As a nation we have always underinvested in research and development, and so It's perhaps no surprise that this has been a flaw in football too.
I would say our adherence to playing a direct style of football that relied on percentages had a really adverse effect. This is especially true as a whole generation of coaches were brought up under the tutelage of Charles Hughes and that tradition runs deep in the British game. It is no coincidence that our most successful periods, post-Ramsey, have come with coaches who were from a different, more progressive way of thinking (Venables, Robson and Hoddle).
In short English players need to have greater technical ability on the ball and greater tactical awareness. This can only come from radical improvements in how we train and coach our players at a young age, which in turn means we have to vastly increase the number of coaches at grassroots level (and get them singing from the same hymn book).
I'm aware that there are other factors too, but it's the kind of thing you could write a book on (and indeed some have) and I'll probably chip in when other points are raised. Basically we need long term planning.
- Thesiger
- Posts: 20156
- Joined: 08 Aug 2003, 17:12
- Location: Old Meadow
Re: Why do England underperform at international football?
The usual reasons -
- Too many matches each season
- Clubs too dominant (club v country)
- Lack of pride in the shirt
- Technical weaknesses
- Overconfidence/Arrogance
- Short termism
- Failure to integrate Youth/U-21/Senior structures
- Too many overseas players in Premier League
- Shadow of 1966
- Too much money in the game
- Too many matches each season
- Clubs too dominant (club v country)
- Lack of pride in the shirt
- Technical weaknesses
- Overconfidence/Arrogance
- Short termism
- Failure to integrate Youth/U-21/Senior structures
- Too many overseas players in Premier League
- Shadow of 1966
- Too much money in the game
BCB Cup - R.U. 2010: W 2012
- Jimbly
- Posts: 21959
- Joined: 21 Jul 2003, 23:17
- Location: ????
Re: Why do England underperform at international football?
also add in fear of playing technical players, and building the team around them, how many caps did Hoddle get?
So Long Kid, Take A Bow.
- KeithPratt
- Arsehole all Erect
- Posts: 23901
- Joined: 28 Jul 2003, 23:13
- Contact:
Re: Why do England underperform at international football?
I would argue that winning the 1966 World Cup was the worst thing to ever happen to English football.
In 1953 we were murdered by the Hungarians at Wembley and prior to that, we were defeated by the USA at the Brazil World Cup - this after we had essentially, for 50 years, said "well we invented the game so we're obviously the best and don't need to participate in this stupid World Cup, which after all was invented by a frog". That moment should have been a watershed moment for English football and it was in many respects, but the problem was that within 13 years we had won the World Cup (albeit in what is considered by anyone outside of England to be one of the worst tournaments of all time) and after that it was felt, again that as we were at the summit of the game, there was no need to change. We did have 3 world-class players in that tournament so there was a convergence of talent that probably didn't occur again (apart from '70) until 1990, which in fairness we were unlucky not to reach the final of.
In 1953 we were murdered by the Hungarians at Wembley and prior to that, we were defeated by the USA at the Brazil World Cup - this after we had essentially, for 50 years, said "well we invented the game so we're obviously the best and don't need to participate in this stupid World Cup, which after all was invented by a frog". That moment should have been a watershed moment for English football and it was in many respects, but the problem was that within 13 years we had won the World Cup (albeit in what is considered by anyone outside of England to be one of the worst tournaments of all time) and after that it was felt, again that as we were at the summit of the game, there was no need to change. We did have 3 world-class players in that tournament so there was a convergence of talent that probably didn't occur again (apart from '70) until 1990, which in fairness we were unlucky not to reach the final of.
- funky_nomad
- paranoid
- Posts: 11626
- Joined: 14 Aug 2003, 11:31
- Location: Doomsville
Re: Why do England underperform at international football?
Bleep wrote:there was a convergence of talent that probably didn't occur again (apart from '70) until 1990, which in fairness we were unlucky not to reach the final of.
An alternative view of 1990 is that England were lucky to get anywhere near the final, scraping through as they did against both Belguim and Cameroon after extra time...
Just a penitent man
Re: Why do England underperform at international football?
Jeemo wrote:also add in fear of playing technical players, and building the team around them, how many caps did Hoddle get?
Yes, see my earlier post about percentage football.
I agree also the 66 world cup success encouraged our insularity and complacency.
Re: Why do England underperform at international football?
funky_nomad wrote:Bleep wrote:there was a convergence of talent that probably didn't occur again (apart from '70) until 1990, which in fairness we were unlucky not to reach the final of.
An alternative view of 1990 is that England were lucky to get anywhere near the final, scraping through as they did against both Belguim and Cameroon after extra time...
Oh for sure..but it was still a tournament that England could realistically have won. It's not as if the eventual winners West Germany were that superior to England.
- funky_nomad
- paranoid
- Posts: 11626
- Joined: 14 Aug 2003, 11:31
- Location: Doomsville
Re: Why do England underperform at international football?
The G Experience! wrote:funky_nomad wrote:Bleep wrote:there was a convergence of talent that probably didn't occur again (apart from '70) until 1990, which in fairness we were unlucky not to reach the final of.
An alternative view of 1990 is that England were lucky to get anywhere near the final, scraping through as they did against both Belguim and Cameroon after extra time...
Oh for sure..but it was still a tournament that England could realistically have won. It's not as if the eventual winners West Germany were that superior to England.
It was definitely an open tournament - Brazil were shocking, Argentina rough-housed their way through to the final, and flair was a very rare commodity.
Just a penitent man
Re: Why do England underperform at international football?
It seems incredible in retrospect to imagine an England squad containing the flair of Gascoigne, Beardsley, Barnes and Waddle. We just haven't produced that kind of player since.
- Goat Boy
- Bogarting the joint
- Posts: 32974
- Joined: 20 Mar 2007, 12:11
- Location: In the perfumed garden
Re: Why do England underperform at international football?
I guess there's two ways of looking at it. For a nation of Englands size with its footballing history etc they have underachieved but then considering the problems listed above they have probably overachieved.
With the exception of a few years 40 years ago England have always been outside the top tier of international football. Technically and tactically adrift.
With the exception of a few years 40 years ago England have always been outside the top tier of international football. Technically and tactically adrift.
Griff wrote:The notion that Jeremy Corbyn, a lifelong vocal proponent of antisemitism, would stand in front of an antisemitic mural and commend it is utterly preposterous.
Copehead wrote:a right wing cretin like Berger....bleating about racism
- Dr Markus
- Posts: 17670
- Joined: 07 Jan 2012, 18:16
Re: Why do England underperform at international football?
I reckon the English FA need to stop being so stubborn and actually reach out to other countries for help. I always get the impression (rightly/wrongly) that when someone in the FA says we need a system like the Spanish or Germans and everyone agrees, they try to copy them the way they think the Spanish and Germans do it. Instead of actually going over and seeing how it's done. I can't imagine these FA's telling the English to fuck off and sort it out yourself. If the English FA are already doing this, then fair play and youse will have to wait 10-15 years to see true results. Also i think this would make the biggest difference, stop clubs buying foreign youth players under the age of 19/20 and raise (somehow) the percentage of English players allowed on a prem team to about 60% or 70%. I can't see the this happening but i think it would be of great help in building young English talent.
Drama Queenie wrote:You are a chauvinist of the quaintest kind. About as threatening as Jack Duckworth, you are a harmless relic of that cherished era when things were 'different'. Now get back to drawing a moustache on that page three model
- Goat Boy
- Bogarting the joint
- Posts: 32974
- Joined: 20 Mar 2007, 12:11
- Location: In the perfumed garden
Re: Why do England underperform at international football?
Bleep wrote:The suggestion is that given the size of population, the fact that football as a modern game was quantified and codified by us in the Victorian era, how popular it is here and the relative success of domestic clubs in European competition means that we should be performing a lot better than the perennial quarter-final loss on penalties that we endure so regularly.
Why? I would suggest that the sheer breakneck speed at which our game is played and the intensity that accompanies it would be the biggest reason why we essentially conk out at summer tournaments. It is important to note that we are hard to beat (apart from the 4-1 mauling by Germany in 2010 and even then that game could have swung our way had Lampard’s goal gone in) at tournaments, and apart from that game, we have only been knocked out in normal time in three tournaments since 1992, being the 2002 loss to Brazil, the Romania defeat in 2000 and the aforementioned loss to the Germans in 2010. Essentially, we’re knackered and perennially at least one or two of our more talented players are injured. We very rarely don’t qualify for tournaments (the Dutch seem to miss just as many as us) and it is usually one team that beats us (see Croatia). The foreign players that succeed in the Premiership by adapting to the game’s speed are essentially quality ones to start with – Zola, Bergkamp, Vieira, Henry, Ronaldo et.
Lack of tactical nous seems to be the other key ingredient. English footballers on the whole seem to have one mode – attack – and it is that almost primal instinct that blunts our ability to understand how a game might pan out. How many times have we seen England punt the ball needlessly up the pitch when they could just keep possession?
You're clearly forgetting an obvious lack of technical ability and flair. It's a combination of that with their lack of tactical ability that is the key reason they have continually failed. Don't other nations have injured players? The Dutch miss tournaments due to the fact their production line is a lot more cyclical due to their size.
Griff wrote:The notion that Jeremy Corbyn, a lifelong vocal proponent of antisemitism, would stand in front of an antisemitic mural and commend it is utterly preposterous.
Copehead wrote:a right wing cretin like Berger....bleating about racism
- Goat Boy
- Bogarting the joint
- Posts: 32974
- Joined: 20 Mar 2007, 12:11
- Location: In the perfumed garden
Re: Why do England underperform at international football?
funky_nomad wrote:It was definitely an open tournament - Brazil were shocking, Argentina rough-housed their way through to the final, and flair was a very rare commodity.
It was a poor tournament overall. West Germany were the best team by a reasonable distance I thought despite England running them close. Argentina were a disgrace. Anti-football really.
Griff wrote:The notion that Jeremy Corbyn, a lifelong vocal proponent of antisemitism, would stand in front of an antisemitic mural and commend it is utterly preposterous.
Copehead wrote:a right wing cretin like Berger....bleating about racism
- Geezee
- Posts: 12800
- Joined: 24 Jul 2003, 10:14
- Location: Where joy divides into vision
Re: Why do England underperform at international football?
The G Experience! wrote:funky_nomad wrote:Bleep wrote:there was a convergence of talent that probably didn't occur again (apart from '70) until 1990, which in fairness we were unlucky not to reach the final of.
An alternative view of 1990 is that England were lucky to get anywhere near the final, scraping through as they did against both Belguim and Cameroon after extra time...
Oh for sure..but it was still a tournament that England could realistically have won. It's not as if the eventual winners West Germany were that superior to England.
I don't think they were lucky at all - both Belgium and Cameroon had excellent teams at the time. That said, West Germany were awesome, and regardless of the fact that the semi ended on penalties I think they had a great tournament. It's a shame that wasn't the final.
Last edited by Geezee on 15 Aug 2013, 12:55, edited 1 time in total.
Smilies are ON
Flash is OFF
Url is ON
Flash is OFF
Url is ON
- Geezee
- Posts: 12800
- Joined: 24 Jul 2003, 10:14
- Location: Where joy divides into vision
Re: Why do England underperform at international football?
Goat Boy wrote:funky_nomad wrote:It was definitely an open tournament - Brazil were shocking, Argentina rough-housed their way through to the final, and flair was a very rare commodity.
It was a poor tournament overall. West Germany were the best team by a reasonable distance I thought despite England running them close. Argentina were a disgrace. Anti-football really.
Yep - and as much as I despised the backpass rule when it was adopted (as a goalkeeper), it was adopted in reaction to that tournament, and really had a positive impact (even if the '94 tournament was arguably even worse than '90).
Smilies are ON
Flash is OFF
Url is ON
Flash is OFF
Url is ON
- Goat Boy
- Bogarting the joint
- Posts: 32974
- Joined: 20 Mar 2007, 12:11
- Location: In the perfumed garden
Re: Why do England underperform at international football?
Geezee wrote:
I don't think they were lucky at all - both Belgium and Cameroon had excellent teams at the time. That said, West Germany were awesome, and regardless of the fact that the semi ended on penalties I think they were much superior. It's a shame that wasn't the final.
Linekar was a cheating, diving cunt and he proved this against Cameroon. If it wasn't for that Cameroon would probably have beaten England. I don't recall either being 'excellent' to be honest. Belgium were a decent side but definitely not as good as they during their peak in the mid 80s.
The most pulsating game of the tournament from a neutrals perspective was the Holland, West germany one that was unfortunately marred by the whole Rijkaard/Voller incident.
Griff wrote:The notion that Jeremy Corbyn, a lifelong vocal proponent of antisemitism, would stand in front of an antisemitic mural and commend it is utterly preposterous.
Copehead wrote:a right wing cretin like Berger....bleating about racism