English national football, where do we go from here?

[wpdavid]

But even 5 years ago England played like this. Come on, what's changed? Pretty much nothing. Even when these same players were younger, more in form, etc, ...same story. Although club football and internationals are different, they're not the difference between indoor and outdoor football. There is a bigger problem. Saying "the players aren't good enough" doesn't even scratch the surface IMO. How does a player who scored 34 goals just last year - 26 of them in the toughest league around - not net one or look even half the player?

wrt Rooney, I'd have to take his performances since the Munich injury into account. I just wonder of he's really fit. As you say, there's enough evidence elsewhere that he's a good player, albeit not as good as some would have you believe.

And yes, England weren't great five years ago. But they were better in 2004 and 2006 than this time, especially the former. Although the inability of the midfield to impose themselves on decent opposition was always there, which is why I've been banging on about the limitations of Gerrard & Lampard ever since that tournament.

I think there's been slightly different factors at different times. In 2004, we were crying out for a left-sided player, and for some reason Scholes was the fall guy. No wonder he called time on international football, and our midfield has been less fluent ever since.

In 2006, depite a couple of free kicks, Beckham was a passenger and Rooney was coming back from injury. And tbh I thought we were a bit unlucky against Portugal in both tournaments. Whereas this time we were simply poor.

 

[wpdavid]

The foreigner argument is logically flawed on so many levels though. Why does an influx of high-quality foreigners adversely affect the quality of the English players? If they're not good enough, they'll all move down to Championship sides, and Championship sides will thereafter become as good as Premiership sides were previously. Furthermore, why were England even worse when there were hardly any foreigners in the league? And why is the footballing trade strictly one-way?

I just don't think it makes any sense.

In no particular order ...

Not convinced that the Championship sides will match the Prem sides in some sort of trickle down process.

Surely the process is one way because of the money available in the EPL. That and the poor quality and insularity of the players we produce. Joey Barton playing in France anyone?

Fair point about the times when we struggled to produce players regardless of the foreigners - I'm sure you & I both remember the Taylor years - but we did seem to have moved beyond them when one or two sides started to bring a few through. Nowadays I suppose it's just easier to bring in a ready made player from wherever so the EPL clubs just don't bother. The fact is that standards beyond a small handful are rock bottom. Ditto Scotland, who've made the same mistake, whereas in my younger days they had a number of WC players.

And if Beckenbauer reckons it's a problem, that's good enough for me.

 

[RichterFan]

The foreigner argument is logically flawed on so many levels though. Why does an influx of high-quality foreigners adversely affect the quality of the English players? If they're not good enough, they'll all move down to Championship sides, and Championship sides will thereafter become as good as Premiership sides were previously. Furthermore, why were England even worse when there were hardly any foreigners in the league? And why is the footballing trade strictly one-way?

I just don't think it makes any sense.

I think the argument is that when teams look for players they tend to look in the market rather than the academy.

 

[Furball]

The foreigners thing is a red herring. English teams simply aren't developing players who are good enough.

 

[Uppercut]

But even 5 years ago England played like this. Come on, what's changed? Pretty much nothing. Even when these same players were younger, more in form, etc, ...same story. Although club football and internationals are different, they're not the difference between indoor and outdoor football. There is a bigger problem. Saying "the players aren't good enough" doesn't even scratch the surface IMO. How does a player who scored 34 goals just last year - 26 of them in the toughest league around - not net one or look even half the player?

5 years ago Eriksson was in charge, and he was a pretty good manager. Three consecutive quarter finals, two lost on penalties and one to a freak goal against the eventual champions, is a good performance for a team of England's quality- indeed, it made him statistically their best manager of all time, and in reality he outperformed all but one. The way Eriksson was cast out and labelled a failure was a damning indictment of the English media.

I agree that there are problems throughout the system, though. For example, we play U10 11-a-side, whereas the rest of Europe plays only five-a-side until the players are much older. The resulting gap in technical difficulties is there for all to see. "Coaches" are typically the dad of one of the more crap players who think the way to get the best out of kids is to yell at them until they win. There are all kinds of little endemic problems within the English system that would increase the national team's chance of success if they were fixed.

I certainly don't think the manager is the problem. He might have made "mistakes"- although no one can really know, since his are the only methods that are put to the test. I certainly wouldn't have played Emile Heskey or Shaun Wright-Philips, but in truth it probably wouldn't have made the slightest bit of difference if he hadn't. When a coach has had so, so much success everywhere he's gone then struggles with England, I'm not inclined to conclude that he's the fault link.

 

[wpdavid]

The foreigners thing is a red herring. English teams simply aren't developing players who are good enough.

wadr that ignores how players actually develop. Part of the process is getting enough games in the first team, which simply won't happen because it's easier and safer to throw in a mature talent from elsewhere. You're effectively saying that the problem is that our 20year olds aren't as good as 25 year olds from elsewhere.

 

[wpdavid]

5 years ago Eriksson was in charge, and he was a pretty good manager. Three consecutive quarter finals, two lost on penalties and one to a freak goal against the eventual champions, is a good performance for a team of England's quality- indeed, it made him statistically their best manager of all time, and in reality he outperformed all but one. The way Eriksson was cast out and labelled a failure was a damning indictment of the English media.

I agree that there are problems throughout the system, though. For example, we play U10 11-a-side, whereas the rest of Europe plays only five-a-side until the players are much older. The resulting gap in technical difficulties is there for all to see. "Coaches" are typically the dad of one of the more crap players who think the way to get the best out of kids is to yell at them until they win. There are all kinds of little endemic problems within the English system that would increase the national team's chance of success if they were fixed.

I certainly don't think the manager is the problem. He might have made "mistakes"- although no one can really know, since his are the only methods that are put to the test. I certainly wouldn't have played Emile Heskey or Shaun Wright-Philips, but in truth it probably wouldn't have made the slightest bit of difference if he hadn't. When a coach has had so, so much success everywhere he's gone then struggles with England, I'm not inclined to conclude that he's the fault link.

Agreed about the managers.

And maybe about kids' football, although I'll have e better idea over the next few years as my son starts playing little league games. I suspect the bit a bout dads is a bit unfair and that the coaches are simply doing a job that they don't really have the skills to do as wel as we'd like. I can sympathise with that having ended up manging an Under 8's cricket team this summer. But there's no denying we don't develop basic skills as well as we should.

 

[Furball]

wadr that ignores how players actually develop. Part of the process is getting enough games in the first team, which simply won't happen because it's easier and safer to throw in a mature talent from elsewhere. You're effectively saying that the problem is that our 20year olds aren't as good as 25 year olds from elsewhere.

It's easier and safer, but at the same time if your young talent is good enough, they'll get games. Look at Man Utd's golden generation from the 90s, Steven Gerrard, Wayne Rooney.

The fact that players of Rooney's quality are the exception rather than the rule when it comes to English players in the last 10 years shows where the problems lie. The problem isn't that managers are afraid of giving all these "new Rooneys" game time - the problem is that there's no new Rooneys emerging. That's not just down to too many foreigners or cautious managers (although it certainly doesn't help things) - it points to a deeper problem within the English game.

 

[Jarquis]

Didn't we just win the U17 Euros or something? Obviously a long way to go there.. but it's some talent at least.
Benik Afobe FTW

 

[wpdavid]

It's easier and safer, but at the same time if your young talent is good enough, they'll get games. Look at Man Utd's golden generation from the 90s, Steven Gerrard, Wayne Rooney.

The fact that players of Rooney's quality are the exception rather than the rule when it comes to English players in the last 10 years shows where the problems lie. The problem isn't that managers are afraid of giving all these "new Rooneys" game time - the problem is that there's no new Rooneys emerging. That's not just down to too many foreigners or cautious managers (although it certainly doesn't help things) - it points to a deeper problem within the English game.

I think you have to look at the situation when MU's great youth team were coming through in the mid1990s. The trend to import ready made players from elsewhere wasn't nearly so pronounced, so the Beckham generation all got a run in the side. Would that happen now? I suspect not. Similar pattern at Liverpool, if yous see Gerrard as the last in a 1990's line going back through Owen, Fowler, Mcmanaman etc.
The question isn't about comparing these guys at their peak against the foreign players. It's about wondering whether they'd have got a look in as 20 year olds, and I reckon not.

Now that doesn't mean that there isn't a problem with the quality of players coming through, but I don't see that the foreigners are an irrelevance. I'd like to hear an alternative reason why standards have dropped over the last 10 years. All the stuff about kids football etc have always been there.

 

[Scaly piscine]

5 years ago Eriksson was in charge, and he was a pretty good manager. Three consecutive quarter finals, two lost on penalties and one to a freak goal against the eventual champions, is a good performance for a team of England's quality- indeed, it made him statistically their best manager of all time, and in reality he outperformed all but one. The way Eriksson was cast out and labelled a failure was a damning indictment of the English media.

I agree that there are problems throughout the system, though. For example, we play U10 11-a-side, whereas the rest of Europe plays only five-a-side until the players are much older. The resulting gap in technical difficulties is there for all to see. "Coaches" are typically the dad of one of the more crap players who think the way to get the best out of kids is to yell at them until they win. There are all kinds of little endemic problems within the English system that would increase the national team's chance of success if they were fixed.

I certainly don't think the manager is the problem. He might have made "mistakes"- although no one can really know, since his are the only methods that are put to the test. I certainly wouldn't have played Emile Heskey or Shaun Wright-Philips, but in truth it probably wouldn't have made the slightest bit of difference if he hadn't. When a coach has had so, so much success everywhere he's gone then struggles with England, I'm not inclined to conclude that he's the fault link.

The vegetable was a failure because he lost to a piss poor pathetic Portugal side TWICE because of his incredibly negative tactics. We all know England are ****e on penalties, it's just ridiculous to let a team like that get to penalties without having a go at them.

Do you think Germany would allow an inferior side to draw 0-0 or just all-out defend for 70 minutes when 1-0 up?

 

[R_D]

Hmm, oddly that's why I think it is fun, John Terry is **** BTW.

Anyway, forget all your points CDM, we need to start coaching kids right at youth level, and I'm talking under 10s, we need to concentrate on keeping the ball, and being organised. Not on being physical and scoring by bullying. Brooking has been talking about it for years. British football is great to watch but it is based on direct football which doesn't work, when you get to any kind of decent level.

people will say that the likes of Lampard, Gerrard and rooney work in Champions League, yet clever managers work their explosiveness and individuality behind foreign guys that can keep the ball and compliment them. Gerrard is nothing without Alonso, Lampard needs an Essien or Ballack..

Agree with this..these guys aren't getting the training needed to develop technical skills at younger age.....
Its really sad to see England team play football like this...... they don't know how to retain possession or make a decent pass... Just don't have the technical abilities of some of other top teams.

 

[marc71178]

I'm not surprised that answers to the original question have been thin on the ground. Although entirely predictable to anyone who'd watched England's games leading up to the Germany match, this performance has only gone to highlight how our supposedly world class palyers actually aren't and that the rest shouldn't even be near the side.

All well and good saying that, but who would you put in in place of them?

 

[Furball]

I think you have to look at the situation when MU's great youth team were coming through in the mid1990s. The trend to import ready made players from elsewhere wasn't nearly so pronounced, so the Beckham generation all got a run in the side. Would that happen now? I suspect not. Similar pattern at Liverpool, if yous see Gerrard as the last in a 1990's line going back through Owen, Fowler, Mcmanaman etc.
The question isn't about comparing these guys at their peak against the foreign players. It's about wondering whether they'd have got a look in as 20 year olds, and I reckon not.

Now that doesn't mean that there isn't a problem with the quality of players coming through, but I don't see that the foreigners are an irrelevance. I'd like to hear an alternative reason why standards have dropped over the last 10 years. All the stuff about kids football etc have always been there.

The trend to import foreigners wasn't there to the same extent, but a look at the Man Utd side c. 1992-95 sees Schmeichel and Kanchelskis signed from abroad, a then British record buy in Roy Keane, Gary Pallister (who iirc held the British record fee for a defender for quite a while), Steve Bruce, Paul Parker, Paul Ince, Denis Irwin, Bryan Robson and Brian McLair who were all signed from elsewhere, some like Robson and Ince who were signed for relatively big fees.

The Beckham generation got a run in the side because Ferguson had spotted their potential in the Champions League in 1994 and actively sold players like Ince, Hughes and Kanchelskis in order to free up room in the side for Beckham, Neville, Scholes etc.

 

[GIMH]

5 years ago Eriksson was in charge, and he was a pretty good manager. Three consecutive quarter finals, two lost on penalties and one to a freak goal against the eventual champions, is a good performance for a team of England's quality- indeed, it made him statistically their best manager of all time, and in reality he outperformed all but one. The way Eriksson was cast out and labelled a failure was a damning indictment of the English media.

I agree that there are problems throughout the system, though. For example, we play U10 11-a-side, whereas the rest of Europe plays only five-a-side until the players are much older. The resulting gap in technical difficulties is there for all to see. "Coaches" are typically the dad of one of the more crap players who think the way to get the best out of kids is to yell at them until they win. There are all kinds of little endemic problems within the English system that would increase the national team's chance of success if they were fixed.

I certainly don't think the manager is the problem. He might have made "mistakes"- although no one can really know, since his are the only methods that are put to the test. I certainly wouldn't have played Emile Heskey or Shaun Wright-Philips, but in truth it probably wouldn't have made the slightest bit of difference if he hadn't. When a coach has had so, so much success everywhere he's gone then struggles with England, I'm not inclined to conclude that he's the fault link.

In reality Bobby Robson was clearly better. Don't give me that 'they beat crap teams in 1990' crap, because we only beat one team of note under Sven when it mattered.

GF, will cease to argue with you, suffice to say I completely disagree but whatever

 

[Pothas]

We never beat good teams at the world cup anyway, aside from Argentina in 2002 I can't remember the last time we beat a previous winner or even finalist for that matter in a world cup.

 

[paganpete101]

As always we will blame the manager instead of the 11 useless, overpaid, lazy ego's on the pitch!

We should stick to Rugby and Cricket - at least we have a chance with those!

 

[Pothas]

The overpaid lazy really thing bugs, there is no doubt they were trying, is just as an easy excuse as blaming the manager.

 

[grecian]

The overpaid lazy really thing bugs, there is no doubt they were trying, is just as an easy excuse as blaming the manager.

I blame Charlie MacDonald, I find that the easiest thing to do

Oh and has anyone seen the positive side here, my old Schoolmate may get in the Final. Now.

Mike Mullarkey FTW, I reckon.

 

[wpdavid]

All well and good saying that, but who would you put in in place of them?

As I said earlier, that's the even more depressing thing.

To clarify, when I said they shouldn't be near the side, I meant they weren't remotely good enough at this level. Doesn't mean Capello was at fault for picking most of them simply due to the lack of alternatives.