Discussion in 'football' started by DRINK?, Jul 21, 2012.
Barca U11 v Arsenal U11
Not if you're a paedo it's not!
The most depressing thing about that video was whichever English tosser it was who manages the Arsenal U11s shouting and ranting at those children all the way through the game. Basic shit coaching. Like anything he says is going to improve their performance rather than just make him feel a bit better because he is being publically exposed as a massively inferior coach. Pathetic.
Just in case you think English players can't btw; here are some 7 and 8 year olds I helped coach.
That's not barca u11
In the OP, I mean.
It's a nonsense video to post to be honest. I mean it's edited, and only shows the American team in possession for a start. You've no idea of the history of either group of kids and how much of the coaching system they've been through or whatever.
Just another episode in the massive inferiority complex the English seem to have developed about their football in the last decade, and their ability to produce good footballers.
Yes, the full national side has been mediocre for the last decade. But, players mainly trained in English youth systems have been the mainstays of champions league winning teams several time during their period. English youth teams are noticeably more competitive than the full side is, and if the English no longer produce "technically adept" players it was evidently something that happened in the 1990s, because as late as 1998 we could turn out a midfield good enough to play across Europe (ie. McMananaman, Ince, Beckham and Scholes).
about not checking the video.
But...there's no doubting the inability of an England team to hold the ball is there? The fact that a country with 60 million people occasionally throws out a few naturally gifted players at one time doesn't really change that (although did Macmanaman, Ince, Beckham and Scholes ever play together?). Macanaman only ever really had one good tournament for England and that was in Euro 96 - that was a midfield but mainly because of Gascoigne and Ince - Anderton and Macmanaman were just pace on the flanks really.
There's no doubt that this is england team isn't very good at keeping the ball, and it's been like that as long as this group of players has been together (although arguably it reached even more absurd levels in polkraine). The previous generation of england players, regardless of how good they were as a team where all individually good enough to play in more "technical" leagues and with the exception of scholes all did. That team had teddy sheringham in it as well.
English football has a lot of systemic waffle swirling around the shitness of the national team which seems to have very little basis in reality and a big dollop of inferiority complex in it. Before we were going on about la masia, we were obsessed with the French national academy. We're less interested now that they too are mediocre. Which rather demonstrates the truth of these things. Whatever the system you're lucky if it throws out the odd genius (say zidane or xavi) and another excellent 10 footballers for them to make great
At least there wasn't any penalties
Both teams are American.
I'm not sure the problem doesn't lie with us, the fans, as much as anyone. Too often the crowd get impatient when their team are playing good possession football trying to shift a stubborn defence around to create some real openings. Whereas if they simply hoof the ball into the box and give possession away they get cheered.
I'd really disagree about previous generations being technically better - maybe I'm older than you and I remember watching them play...there are incredibly few English/British players of any generation that have been wanted by technically superior leagues like Italy and Spain and those that have gone have often failed quite spectacularly - I haven't done any kind of numbers on this but I can think of very few who have been real successes abroad - for every Des Walker there were a good deal more Luther Blissets and Mark Hateleys. By contrast the Premiership has the highest ration of foreigners to domestic players of any league in Europe.
Personally I think the "inferiority complex" you talk about is more like a superiority complex - for some reason the English think they are good at football when the evidence makes it pretty clear they're not. But are you really saying that it's just luck that produces good players? Or that a system of play that is so clearly developed and learnt as the one that Spain play is just a fluke?
It's a massive problem and exactly the same pressure exists at child football level where parents respond in exactly the same way ime - get rid of it, don't let yourself become a scapegoat seems to be the primary motivation.
I don't think previous generations were technically better either, and I am (just) old enough to remember these players as a teenager. I don't think you could say that the likes of Ince, Platt, Gascoigne, McManaman and Beckham "failed abroad" by any stretch of the imagination, and those were all midfielders (ie. the part of the pitch where your close control and short passing matters most) who apparently England were capable of producing 15 years ago. That's not including Paul Scholes, of whom Xavi Hernandez said...
In the same interview he also mentions his admiration for Chris Waddle, John Barnes and Matt Le Tissier.
The irony of course is that now, it is THIS that is the real cliche. To say that England's national team is mediocre because we can't pass the ball or keep possession and that's it down to our youth system/youth coaching is now just mouthing the press orthodoxy. Even the likes of Ian Wright are turning this stuff out.
Except it's nonsense. Yes, the way Spain play is part of their footballing culture and is trained into kids at various different levels. But there's a degree to which all nations have ups and downs that are related to specific players. Spain have always played some variety of that kind of football, and had achieved nothing with it, until they developed 2 once-in-a-generation geniuses who have utterly dominated almost every football match they've played in for the last 5 years or so. France now look utterly mediocre, but apparently their national academy was the way forward when they were winning stuff (coincidentally having the best player of his generation in their ranks).
It's not luck, but there is a degree of contingency about developing players like that. English footballers are not incapable of passing footballs and controlling the ball. We happen to have spent the last 10 years obsessing around a group of players who made a intermittently decentish, intermittently rotten, national team. It's not a damning indictment of everything around the English game, just as the shit German team from 2000-2004 didn't make their national game worthless.
Let's just take, for example, the 1999 Manchester United midfield: Ryan Giggs - Paul Scholes - Roy Keane - David Beckham.
Now, for me, that's a midfield that is as strong technically as almost any you will find in international football. I think any team lining up that midfield (at that age) at Euro 2012 would be one of the favourites, and I reckon their run to the '99 champions league final proves that. They were all developed 100% at English football clubs. So evidently at one point, the English youth system wasn't so "broken". If it broke, it must have been after that, surely?
England have more different club winners of UEFA competitions than any other country, I think the problem for some reason is at international rather than club level.
@ lo siento
I haven't really got time to do a point by point back at you but you're really fighting a hard battle here - it almost doesn't matter how you slice it English players aren't as good. If you take the richest leagues in Europe - England, Italy Spain and Germany there are no English players playing outside of England that I can think of - none in the top division and I can only off-hand think of Joe Cole last heard of playing for Lille and he won't be more than a sub there - but that's in France which is a clear notch down the ladder. The total percentage of ALL foreigners playing in those leagues is Serie A 48%, Spain Primera 34%, Bundesliga 47%, English Premiership 62%. These are leagues who can get whoever they want.
Take the richest ten clubs in Europe and obviously there are no English players apart from at the English clubs but there are 17 French players in those squads (from a country you dismiss as mediocre) and there are representatives of just about every country in the world scattered across them. Not including home players there are 4 Italians,9 Spaniards and 5 Germans in the squads of the richest 10 clubs - but no English outside of England. There are also 6 Belgians, 5 Ghanaians, 22 Brazilians, 11 Argentinans, 7 Dutch, 9 Portugese, hell there are 3 Japanese and 3 Rumanians - and plenty of others of course. And when was it ever otherwise? OK Ince, Platt, Gazza - but that was our absolute historical high point. Also what has changed since then I think is that European clubs have adopted a more pressing English dimension to their game whereas the English haven't added the equivalent skill to theirs.
Btw I'd totally agree about that Man U midfield (only half English of course but I guess I accept your point) but none of them played abroad apart from Beckham and that was a bit of a swan song. The loss of Scholes was a tragedy for England IMO, and the fact that we swapped him for fat Frank just adds insult to injury really.
But the point remains that even if it's a cliche, there's ample evidence that it's true; English players aren't as good.
The problem at international level has been a variety of things
- one particular generation of players that rarely looked a cohesive unit or knew how to play for each other and the team
- inappropriate coaches with bad plans
- unrealistic expectations in terms of style, quality and achievement
- the effects of the premier league on fitness levels at major tournaments
- as of the last tournament a massive inferiority complex leading to massively unambitious tactics.
Firstly, that stat for foreigners drops to 44% if you exclude the Welsh, Scottish and Irish players, most of whom are coached either within the English system or in ones that are broadly similar.
Secondly, the stat about the number of English players playing abroad only proves that English players don't move abroad, and could be for a variety of reasons, unrelated to their technical skills or abilities.
Thirdly, the point about Ince, Platt, Gazza, McManaman, Beckham (who incidentally pretty much dragged a floundering Real Madrid side to a La Liga title, if not single-handedly, certainly near as damnit, and was recognised as doing so over there during his "swansong") was simply that we were apparently capable of producing a whole team worth of technically adept midfielders way back when.
Are we really arguing that coaches in England have subsequently got less aware of the need to teach close control and intelligent passing?! Is it not more likely that international football is simply hard to be successful at, and dependent on a load of contingent things (like particular players, coaches, groups that function as a unit) that come and go?
If, by chance, the promise that Jack Wilshere evidently has now, develops into something more unique and he transforms how England play (not likely, but not impossible), would that be a vindication of English coaching? Or just one of those things?
I think the big problem with England since about 2004 has been that everyone knew the starting 11 a year before the games. There always seemed to be players who had to be picked and it made the team look really brittle. The worst case being Lampard and Gerrard who just never worked well together in midfield because they were too similar but neither of them could be dropped
At the Euros in summer Rooney was first choice even though he had ruled himself out of the opening with a red card. Then he started and England played worse but he kept getting picked and he did literally nothing except that one header from 1 yard out. Carroll would have disrupted the defence at least. I wonder if the coach even has a choice in the matter....
I also think there is a big problem for the players developing that they can't leave England. I think only the biggest clubs in Europe could afford England 'stars' and most of them aren't good enough to play in those clubs. If you think that the likes of Peter Crouch and Joey Barton are on massive salaries it discourages them from playing abroad. I think that Spain and France owe some of their successes to having players playing in the Premier League and understanding that kind of football better, likewise England players would do well from playing in Italy or Spain and getting used to that kind of football
I'm not really sure what any of this proves. The Premier League is the richest league in the world and therefore, on average, pays the highest wages. Is it that surprising then that many English playes don't play overseas?
Whilst one or two of the Italian clubs can pay very large wages for a very few number of players, the only clubs who can really match the wages in England are Barcelona and Real Madrid, so there arent really many places the top English players can go. Barca's team is largely Spanish at the moment. Real's squad is much more cosmopolitan. I don't think the fact that neither has an English player in their squad tells us anything about the quality of English players as a whole.
Which is, like I said, more particular to these group of players and the way they've been set up internationally, rather than being anything systemic. The assumption of course is that every team in the world that is currently better at international level than England must have a youth development system far more logical, far better planned than what exists here. I think it'd be difficult to argue the case for that in terms of say Argentina.
Only playing in Spain hasn't done 90% of the Spanish national side any harm. (Or the Italian team that schooled us in the Q/F and had two players who had played outside Italy)
Most of the German team play in Germany and most of the Italian team play in Italy as well and they both did ok at Euro 2012.
Fair point and one I've had pointed out to me before so . But the top clubs are massively disproportionately foreign compared to the rest, ie the more choice a club has, the more foreigners they play (e.g. Arsenal 6 English out of 27 man squad, Chelsea 9 out of 28, Man City 7 out of 30 etc) - and these are not clubs full up with Welsh/Scots/Irish etc. It's only when you get to the Norwichs and Swanseas that you find majorities of English/British players.
Come on, there will always be other factors but the main one is the offers aren't being made.
The only two of these who played together were Gazza and Ince. England has always had the occasional great player who has also proved themself abroad I'm not denying that - Lineker or Cunningham for example but it's been pretty sporadic and I don't think your 4 mentioned above really prove owt tbh.
I wouldn't argue that English coaches are less aware of the need for close control etc but I certainly would argue that there's clear evidence that they don't know how to get what they want. Having been through the lower end of the English FAs coaching system myself I think it is amazingly bad. Actually that was what got me ranting on this thread - that bloody coach on the clip in the OP yelling away full of hot air shouting at 9 and 10 year olds who are trying to play a game, the man obviously hasn't got a clue. But his manner was really typical of what I see and hear in coaching in England (and he was obviously English).
There is one coaching grade - the Level One - for child-level. That in itself is stupidly neglectful imo - there should be a proper graded system of coaching for young people. But also the actual level one itself is pathetically bad and contains recommended exercises that to my eyes will actually make young players worse players.
The numbers are similar for Real Madrid and Spanish players though. Barcelona being the exception.
There isn't generally a whole lot of upward transfer movement from the top British clubs in general. Over the past decade you've had, what? Xabi Alonso, Cristiano Ronaldo and Thierry Henry?
Four of them played together in '96, and four of them at WC '98. They don't prove that English coaches in the mid/late '90s were producing midfield players capable of winning trophies in Spain, Italy and continentally?
Again, we're living in a fantasy land of inferiority where every English coach is a bell-end shouting "can we not knock it", and no shit coaches are employed anyone else across the football big nations...
Well done you've found one major club that has a similar situation to the top English clubs. What do you think that proves? I could just as easily argue that in terms of the top two Spanish clubs Barcelona are the rule and Madrid are the exception.
When did they all play together in 96? Not in the Euros and we didn't have to qualify. I can't be arsed to search this one but Platt was out of the squad by 98 and Beckham wasn't in in 96. Whatever. You can remember when England - for a period of a few months (out of forever) - had 3 players who made it in Europe at the same time. If that's your great evidence it makes my point for me.
Silly boy, as you know I've not said this and you're just repeating unargued statements you've already made. If you can't engage with debate best leave it eh?
Torres, Alonso, Mata, Silva and Fabregas all play or played in England
I think two issues are getting mixed up here, the success or not of any given national team and the general success of players from one country. You can have a great national team and not have many of them play abroad or vice versa. The point is there are Spaniards and Italians playing for all the top clubs in Europe, there are no English, except in England and even there, the richest clubs ALL have minorities of English players, even clubs like Man U and Liverpool which have traditionally been less foreign-oriented. As I posted above there are also 17 French, 6 Belgians, 5 Germans* etc etc playing for the 10 richest clubs in Europe. Pretty much every other country in Europe is on the list and plenty of Africans and South Americans too.
* excluding the 15 in the Bayern squad.
I'm not sure if that is down to skill level though. Pretty much anyone on the England team is good enough to be at the big clubs in the other Euro countries, but it's only the elite that can afford them and they are really overpriced. Newcastle got Cabaye last summer for 5m, I wouldn't say that he's a better player than any midfielders in England (despite being a regular in the French team) but no way could Newcastle have afforded his English equivalent. Cabaye came in to replace Joey Barton who left because of contract negotiations and managed to get a ridiculous salary at QPR...if Barton signed for the Spanish or Italian equivalent of QPR he'd be good enough to play and score a few goals and so on like he does in England, the problem is that no way can/would they pay him 50'000 pounds a week
There are quite a lot of players who are good enough to play in the other top leagues, they just aren't worth the stupid salaries and fees, specially since English players have a record of struggling to adapt to the culture
Same with the top players, most of the England team could play for top clubs on the continent, but no way would they earn the same amounts
Hmm. Of the top ten highest paid footballers only four are in the Premiership (only one of them is English) - http://www.therichest.org/sports/highest-paid-football-players/ and 6 play in Europe* (only one of them is English - Beckham, but he's basically on a slice of the replica shirt action rather than a footballer).
So the EPL doesn't pay over the European odds for really top talent. It's just that the top talent ain't English.
There may be a point about pay in the EPL being higher for more average players - I don't know about that - but then the EPL has only been better paid for the last 10 years or so and there was never a golden age of English players playing all over Europe before that when the money was better in Italy and Spain.
Platt was not a great success in Italy - relegated with Bari, failed to make a regular first team place at Juve, 2 decent seasons at a Sampdoria team that won nothing major. Ince had two seasons at Inter and was obviously well -liked but was no great shakes, Walker struggled at Sampdoria. Then there were the real flops, from Ian Rush to Luther Blissett. Practically the only real success story I can think of from that era was Lineker at Barca (and more recently Beckham at Real as Lo Siento has pointed out). Even Gazza at Lazio was pretty hit and miss.
*eta of course Beckham is in the USA not Europe
Separate names with a comma.