Why do England underperform at international football?

Fitba' crazy, fitba' mad. But mostly mad. And angry
User avatar
Diamond Dog
"Self Quoter" Extraordinaire.
Posts: 69577
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 21:04
Location: High On Poachers Hill

Re: Why do England underperform at international football?

Postby Diamond Dog » 11 Oct 2013, 12:21

I don't want to go on...but I will.

This was posted on August 15th :

Diamond Dog wrote:
andymacandy wrote:I actually disagree with Pete about basic control- I think they have it, I just think they have forgotten how to play football for themselves.


Andy, I can see why you'd say this but - evidentially- it is untrue. The reason they have 'forgotten how to play for themselves' is because they - technically- aren't good enough to do so. The great players are differentiated by a simple basic tenet - that , when they receive the ball, their head is up and they are seeing the game around them. Because of that, they have already made their minds up as to their next move, even before they have the ball. That's why they appear unhurried - because they don't have to think about receiving and controlling the ball. It's a given. The 'thinking for themselves' bit is done before they get the ball - this is why Wilshire stands out like a beacon in the English team - he has that ability. In fact, he is the only English player I know who does possess it.

That simple ability gives you that all important word - time. The best players are the guys who have 'time' - it's an old cliche, but it really is true. Having time means you make decisions earlier - and making decisions earlier means you are unhurried in your execution of them. The great players have it - with the possible exception of Wilshire, not one of the present crop of the international team does. Contrast that with Spain - every single player has it. Yep even the centre backs do. They think earlier, so their control is uncluttered by thoughts about what to do with the ball. And vice versa.

It sounds incredibly simple but is truly is the defining skill at the top level. And, sadly, England are almost entirely bereft of it. Everything else flows from that. If you cannot control the ball, you cannot play football at the very top level. It's why so very few English players are exported - they cannot play the game at that level because they get embarrassed when put under pressure, because they are still thinking about what to do with the ball, because they haven't yet controlled it.



It's still as true then as it is now. It's as simple as that.

The one player who has shown recently - in only the handful of games he's played so far- that he also has 'it', it's Ross Barkley. Already you can see he is potentially head and shoulders above the other English midfield players (besides Wilshere). Just look at him before he receives the ball - it's entirely different to how Gerrard/Lampard/Milner etc do.
Last edited by Diamond Dog on 13 Oct 2013, 14:29, edited 1 time in total.
Nicotine, valium, vicadin, marijuana, ecstasy, and alcohol -
Cocaine

User avatar
Diamond Dog
"Self Quoter" Extraordinaire.
Posts: 69577
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 21:04
Location: High On Poachers Hill

Re: Why do England underperform at international football?

Postby Diamond Dog » 11 Oct 2013, 12:36

The thing about movement is that it's not just about the physical side of that - it's appreciating space. As Matt Le Tissier said recently (to another, more 'robust' ex English player) "Sometimes the wisest thing to do on a football pitch is stand still". Ain't that the truth.
Nicotine, valium, vicadin, marijuana, ecstasy, and alcohol -
Cocaine

The Modernist

Re: Why do England underperform at international football?

Postby The Modernist » 11 Oct 2013, 12:39

Bleep wrote:When Theo Walcott went to Arsenal, I thought “ well, if there’s one manager that could mould this talent into something worthwhile, then it’s Arsene Wenger”. 7 years on, Walcott is undeniably a good player, 20 goals last season to show for it. But is he a great player? No, I’m sure any Arsenal regular would say that.

I’m afraid to say that I see it in Wilshire too – I think he believes himself to be a great player but he isn’t yet. He has considerable potential and is still young, but there’s something about that I don’t think will move onto greatness – perhaps it’s the arrogance, but probably deep down it’s something in his mental makeup – that English comment of “we tackle hard” etc . Barkley might be different, but I’ll have to wait and see. I don’t see tactical nuance that I see in European players of similar quality.


I think there's some truth in what you say, but it's not the whole picture.
I would only take the Wilshere/Walcott comparison so far because the difference between Walcott and Wilshere is Wilshere has always had great technique, but Walcott always had mediocre technique. Theo has essentially made the best of what was a limited skillset.
I do think Wilshere has genuine top class ability. When I saw him not only hold his own, but actually get the better of Barcelona's midfield at just 18, I knew there was a special talent there and I think we should be very wary of writing him off, particularly as he's returned from a very long injury.

I do think you're right in saying he needs to improve his decision-making and reading of the game if he is to really fulfill his potential, but I think we need to give him longer to debelop before we pinpoint that as a permanent weakness in his game.

The Modernist

Re: Why do England underperform at international football?

Postby The Modernist » 11 Oct 2013, 12:53

Bleep wrote:Ozil's short period of time at Arsenal has already shown us why he is a great player - because he finds the space and time to do what he does. It's a mixture of anticipation, positional sense and his exceptional first touch.

And only one english player in probably 40 years has shown that level of quality - Gascoigne.


For about a two year period he did, though I wouldn't say he was better than Wilshere at 21, which we must remember is how old Wilshere is now.

User avatar
Dr Markus
Posts: 17670
Joined: 07 Jan 2012, 18:16

Re: Why do England underperform at international football?

Postby Dr Markus » 11 Oct 2013, 12:54

Personally i don't think England has the patience to wait for the results of a total overhaul to help create and bring up world class players. Could supporters really sit by and watch their country and possibly their club do crap for a few years (Ten i'd guess on the international front anyway) while the new talent gets time to develop?

Genuine question. Would you be ok for England not to/barely qualify for the Europeans and the world cup and not get far for ten or more years?
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

The Modernist

Re: Why do England underperform at international football?

Postby The Modernist » 11 Oct 2013, 13:06

Dr Markus wrote:Personally i don't think England has the patience to wait for the results of a total overhaul to help create and bring up world class players. Could supporters really sit by and watch their country and possibly their club do crap for a few years (Ten i'd guess on the international front anyway) while the new talent gets time to develop?

Genuine question. Would you be ok for England not to/barely qualify for the Europeans and the world cup and not get far for ten or more years?


I hear the argument 'we should just forget about the next three championship and concentrate on * insert some random year into the future*' all the time, but it's simplistic. The truth is football is a short term game in many ways, a player's international career will only last ten years or so if they're lucky.

I actually think you do both and I don't see why they should be incompatible: you try and bring young players through for the long term, while making sure the team still has some experience and can compete in the short and medium term.

User avatar
Dr Markus
Posts: 17670
Joined: 07 Jan 2012, 18:16

Re: Why do England underperform at international football?

Postby Dr Markus » 11 Oct 2013, 13:09

fueryhk(redux) wrote:
I was being somewhat ironic there, DM, old boy...

My bad yo!
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

...
Posts: 8751
Joined: 04 May 2011, 02:57

Re: Why do England underperform at international football?

Postby ... » 11 Oct 2013, 13:12

Dr Markus wrote:
fueryhk(redux) wrote:
I was being somewhat ironic there, DM, old boy...

My bad yo!


No worries. Bet the boys from Aviva Park wish they had some of JC or MM's magic when they go into tonight's away game in Germany. They were wonderful against Sweden until they conceded the first goal and then the wheels came off big time. Not surprised Trappatoni got the hessian bag...

User avatar
Dr Markus
Posts: 17670
Joined: 07 Jan 2012, 18:16

Re: Why do England underperform at international football?

Postby Dr Markus » 11 Oct 2013, 13:13

The G Experience! wrote:I hear the argument 'we should just forget about the next three championship and concentrate on * insert some random year into the future*' all the time, but it's simplistic. The truth is football is a short term game in many ways, a player's international career will only last ten years or so if they're lucky.

I actually think you do both and I don't see why they should be incompatible: you try and bring young players through for the long term, while making sure the team still has some experience and can compete in the short and medium term.

I think that's nearly impossible G, if you don't have the right manager who can make the balance then the young players are going to suffer. Fergie is the only manager off the top of my head who has managed it. The argument i put forward will not be easy on some players, some will have to suffer on their international careers because they might be world class but they are surrounded by ok players because the FA are working towards the future. It's just circumstance for some players, that can't be helped and not their fault. If England want a better calibre of player in the future then clubs/country have to do a bit of suffering now. There is simply no way around it.
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

User avatar
Diamond Dog
"Self Quoter" Extraordinaire.
Posts: 69577
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 21:04
Location: High On Poachers Hill

Re: Why do England underperform at international football?

Postby Diamond Dog » 11 Oct 2013, 13:17

The Premier League has absolutely no interest in supporting a successful international side - hence their refusal to sit on Dykes' committe of crap, or to get involved with the technical side of the game. They simply couldn't give a shit - why should we expect American owners (for instance) to care about England qualifying for the World Cup?
Nicotine, valium, vicadin, marijuana, ecstasy, and alcohol -
Cocaine

User avatar
Dr Markus
Posts: 17670
Joined: 07 Jan 2012, 18:16

Re: Why do England underperform at international football?

Postby Dr Markus » 11 Oct 2013, 13:20

fueryhk(redux) wrote:
No worries. Bet the boys from Aviva Park wish they had some of JC or MM's magic when they go into tonight's away game in Germany. They were wonderful against Sweden until they conceded the first goal and then the wheels came off big time. Not surprised Trappatoni got the hessian bag...

Ireland are going to get fucked tonight and not in the good way. Maybe not a 5 nil drumming like last time but still 2 or 3 nil. I hope i'm eating my words at the end of the night but..................

Trappatoni for all his experience and talking didn't put all his efforts in to this job, plus the culture shock of how Irish players weren't afraid to talk back to him must have been a confusing to him. I remember reading somewhere that when Capelo was in charge of England, Terry the captain, had to ask him can the team leave the table after the team dinner. You know, outta respect. If Capelo is like trap i can't imagine for a second any Irish player saying, "here boss can i head, i downloaded love/hate, wanna watch it".
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

The Modernist

Re: Why do England underperform at international football?

Postby The Modernist » 11 Oct 2013, 13:23

Diamond Dog wrote:The Premier League has absolutely no interest in supporting a successful international side - hence their refusal to sit on Dykes' committe of crap, or to get involved with the technical side of the game. They simply couldn't give a shit - why should we expect American owners (for instance) to care about England qualifying for the World Cup?


I absolutely agree. The only way the premiership will change is if serious political pressure is applied on them to do so -it has to come from higher up, and that invariably means outside the game. Dyke has enough influence and political acumen to try and network to achieve this, but I can't see the current lot wanting to get involved. Politicians are wary of aligning themselves too closely to this debate because the odds of failure are too high.
In other words Dyke will have a hell of a job to achieve anything..

User avatar
Dr Markus
Posts: 17670
Joined: 07 Jan 2012, 18:16

Re: Why do England underperform at international football?

Postby Dr Markus » 11 Oct 2013, 14:18

The G Experience! wrote:
I absolutely agree. The only way the premiership will change is if serious political pressure is applied on them to do so -it has to come from higher up, and that invariably means outside the game. Dyke has enough influence and political acumen to try and network to achieve this, but I can't see the current lot wanting to get involved. Politicians are wary of aligning themselves too closely to this debate because the odds of failure are too high.
In other words Dyke will have a hell of a job to achieve anything..


I think the new measures to do with finance and a certain ratio of your 1st team players have to english will help the cause. Solely to make and save money some teams, like Liverpool and Man City (proposed anyway), are investing heavily in youth. The by product of this will be more players for the English team at a higher standard than maybe there is now. It makes economical sense, to try and get the best 11 year olds in to your club to train them for 5 or so years instead of going out to buy players. At the end of the day if you get a "lifer" (very very rare these days i know) all you've spend on them was for training them up and wages. If they become too good for your team you can sell them for a serious profit, if they don't quite make the grade you can still sell them and make money. All of this is good for the English team if not done solely for it.
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

The Modernist

Re: Why do England underperform at international football?

Postby The Modernist » 11 Oct 2013, 14:23

The ratio is to do with the first team squad isn't it? And as you can count foreign players as homegrown if they arrived before 21 I'm not sure it'll make all that much difference, but time will tell.

User avatar
Dr Markus
Posts: 17670
Joined: 07 Jan 2012, 18:16

Re: Why do England underperform at international football?

Postby Dr Markus » 11 Oct 2013, 14:26

The G Experience! wrote:The ratio is to do with the first team squad isn't it? And as you can count foreign players as homegrown if they arrived before 21 I'm not sure it'll make all that much difference, but time will tell.



Yeah, that's what i said, for the first team. Owners will sooner or later will have cop on that the kids around their area are the ones they should be investing in.
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

The Modernist

Re: Why do England underperform at international football?

Postby The Modernist » 11 Oct 2013, 14:29

The squad rules are complex:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/eng_prem/8858634.stm

But the upshot of it is it is still possible to have a large squad with few English players.

The Modernist

Re: Why do England underperform at international football?

Postby The Modernist » 11 Oct 2013, 14:32

Dr Markus wrote:
The G Experience! wrote:The ratio is to do with the first team squad isn't it? And as you can count foreign players as homegrown if they arrived before 21 I'm not sure it'll make all that much difference, but time will tell.



Yeah, that's what i said, for the first team. Owners will sooner or later will have cop on that the kids around their area are the ones they should be investing in.


Investment in youth is nothing new Markus, some clubs have been doing it for decades. But many owners are only interested in the short term and specifically making money over that short term. I'm afraid it's down to the individual owner, some do have a long term vision and emotional investment in the club, many do not.

User avatar
Dr Markus
Posts: 17670
Joined: 07 Jan 2012, 18:16

Re: Why do England underperform at international football?

Postby Dr Markus » 11 Oct 2013, 14:47

I know youth investment isn't new but not many clubs did it and did it well, only a handful. The rest of the your post i've said before.
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

The Modernist

Re: Why do England underperform at international football?

Postby The Modernist » 11 Oct 2013, 14:54

Dr Markus wrote:I know youth investment isn't new but not many clubs did it and did it well,


I don't know about that. Growing up watching Arsenal I saw countless players come through the ranks, we didn't think it was anything unusual, you just took it for granted. Look at any Arsenal side from any given weekend from the 70s through to the early 90s and I can guarantee a good half would be guys that came through the youth side, and I think most teams were like that then

User avatar
KeithPratt
Arsehole all Erect
Posts: 23901
Joined: 28 Jul 2003, 23:13
Contact:

Re: Why do England underperform at international football?

Postby KeithPratt » 11 Oct 2013, 14:57

It’s very easy to say “oh clubs should have better youth policies” or whatever. It depends entirely on the club set up and it can be very difficult to initiate these things.

If you have a business model that doesn’t have high margins, to have someone come along and say “well, you should invest in youth”, this means a huge amount of resource and expense for very little yield early on. It is a bold move that most clubs are not willing to take a risk on.

Plus, it is increasingly the case that the big clubs will have snared all the best players at a very early age – often as young as 6 or 7. Small clubs from, I would say, League One down simply will never have access to these players. There’s a young 16 old at Liverpool who’s been drafted into the Senior Wales squad and he joined from Wrexham at the age of 8.


Return to “Sporting Life”