What is the problem with our national team?

[macphisto]

For me the problem is more deep down. I was reading Gianluca Vialli's book comparing our game to Italian football and one of the main problems identified with the British game is the emphasis on "passion" with out looking at the more technical aspects of the game. A case in point would be the appointment of Pearce at under 21 level who is basically only there because of his perceived "passion", what are our younger players going to learn from him?

 

Similar problem with Newcastle, when we get beat you mostly hear people saying the players don't care and lack passion. Complete rubbish, most of the time it is because they are not good enough. For example I'd have a player like Robert who many thought lacked passion but produced the goods going forward to someone like Lee Clark who was pretty limited as a footballer.

 

I also think our game is far too inward looking, hardly any managers or players go abroad and when they do look at what happened to Coleman this week. Also look at the resentment that there is against the coaching badges, we should be embracing things like this to help people become better at their job.

[ElDiablo]

CBB to read the thread but for me we get sucked in to playing how the opposition plays and don't play to our strengths like playing quick fast paced stuff like all our players are used to. The manager leaves a lot to be desired as well.

[Ally]

Blaming the foreign players is just lazy, theres plenty of good English players in the league we're just incapable of finding a manager to turn them into a good side.

 

If there was some sort of foreign quota we'd see less and less good players in the league imo as they'd all go and play in Spain/Italy instead.

[Scottish Mag]

Blaming the foreign players is just lazy, theres plenty of good English players in the league we're just incapable of finding a manager to turn them into a good side.

 

 

Whilst I am in agreement that Mike Baldwin is hopeless at some point you have to take a look at some of the players.  Time after time the managers are being hounded out as being the problem but often the players are far from good enough also.

[Howaythelads]

Blaming the foreign players is just lazy, theres plenty of good English players in the league we're just incapable of finding a manager to turn them into a good side.

 

If there was some sort of foreign quota we'd see less and less good players in the league imo as they'd all go and play in Spain/Italy instead.

 

Don't agree mate.

 

If you look at previous decades at short periods when the England team has been decent there has been a spine of genuine class players. We don't have that right now. If I can be bothered I may look up some team selections during periods when we weren't bad, but just looking at '66 through to '70 I'm talking players of the calibre of Banks, Moore, Charlton etc. We just don't have that level of comparative quality these days.

[NE5]

Blaming the foreign players is just lazy, theres plenty of good English players in the league we're just incapable of finding a manager to turn them into a good side.

 

If there was some sort of foreign quota we'd see less and less good players in the league imo as they'd all go and play in Spain/Italy instead.

 

Don't agree mate.

 

If you look at previous decades at short periods when the England team has been decent there has been a spine of genuine class players. We don't have that right now. If I can be bothered I may look up some team selections during periods when we weren't bad, but just looking at '66 through to '70 I'm talking players of the calibre of Banks, Moore, Charlton etc. We just don't have that level of comparative quality these days.

 

Even going back to 1990, the team then had players like Beardsley, Waddle, Lineker, Pearce, Shilton, Gazza, Walker, Platt.....all of which would be in the England team now, yes I'd put Beardsley and Lineker before Rooney and Owen. [although I wouldn't dispute that Rooney is worthy to step into Beardo's shoes, I'm talking more of a partnership). Only Gary Neville and John Terry of the current team would get into that England team IMO.

 

It's an absolute and total myth that foreign players have improved English players. The top class ones have given glamour to and enhanced the premiership ie Zola, Henry etc, but overall they have stunted their growth.

 

Topical - watching the under 21's now, and Theo Walcott looks every inch the player Keyring Dire dreamed of being, but never will be in a million years. He's finished. His crap attitude has cost him his career, he's wasted it.

 

James Milner has just scored a penalty after Walcott was brought down.

 

It's well recognised that Banks, Charlton and Moore were Englands top 3, true World Class players. I would add Ray Wilson to that list too. Where England really scored was that the players all played to their best, in their most comfortable positions, and the overall balance and shape of the team suited everybody. Some people also say we won because we were at home. This was a big factor, but I think England could have won that cup anywhere in Europe. We were certainly the 2nd best team in the world 4 years later, by which time the Brazilians had found themselves again and had the best international team that has ever won that competition in my lifetime anyway.

 

 

 

[Howaythelads]

Blaming the foreign players is just lazy, theres plenty of good English players in the league we're just incapable of finding a manager to turn them into a good side.

 

If there was some sort of foreign quota we'd see less and less good players in the league imo as they'd all go and play in Spain/Italy instead.

 

Don't agree mate.

 

If you look at previous decades at short periods when the England team has been decent there has been a spine of genuine class players. We don't have that right now. If I can be bothered I may look up some team selections during periods when we weren't bad, but just looking at '66 through to '70 I'm talking players of the calibre of Banks, Moore, Charlton etc. We just don't have that level of comparative quality these days.

 

Even going back to 1990, the team then had players like Beardsley, Waddle, Lineker, Pearce, Shilton, Gazza, Walker, Platt.....all of which would be in the England team now, yes I'd put Beardsley and Lineker before Rooney and Owen. [although I wouldn't dispute that Rooney is worthy to step into Beardo's shoes, I'm talking more of a partnership). Only Gary Neville and John Terry of the current team would get into that England team IMO.

 

It's an absolute and total myth that foreign players have improved English players. The top class ones have given glamour to and enhanced the premiership ie Zola, Henry etc, but overall they have stunted their growth.

 

Topical - watching the under 21's now, and Theo Walcott looks every inch the player Keyring Dire dreamed of being, but never will be in a million years. He's finished. His crap attitude has cost him his career, he's wasted it.

 

James Milner has just scored a penalty after Walcott was brought down.

 

It's well recognised that Banks, Charlton and Moore were Englands top 3, true World Class players. I would add Ray Wilson to that list too. Where England really scored was that the players all played to their best, in their most comfortable positions, and the overall balance and shape of the team suited everybody. Some people also say we won because we were at home. This was a big factor, but I think England could have won that cup anywhere in Europe. We were certainly the 2nd best team in the world 4 years later, by which time the Brazilians had found themselves again and had the best international team that has ever won that competition in my lifetime anyway.

 

 

 

 

I think the biggest football travesty of all time is that the Dutch team from 1973 to 1978 won nowt, they were the best team for that period and how they didn't win the World Cup in '74 and again in '78 tells the story that the best team doesn't always win. That Dutch team against the Brazil team of 1970 would have been a spectacle to behold and England would have been in the mix at that time.

 

In 1970 England weren't far behind Brazil both individually and collectively, it would have been a very competitive final in 1970 had it been England versus Brazil and we may have won, the teams were that close. Overall, for a number of years we were a benchmark for the rest even though we only won it in 1966.

 

While I'm comparing players of today against players of the past I'm doing it in the context of comparing the current players against those of other nations right now and it's clear that we just don't get close individually. We could always fluke something, of course. Like Greece.

[macphisto]

Blaming the foreign players is just lazy, theres plenty of good English players in the league we're just incapable of finding a manager to turn them into a good side.

 

If there was some sort of foreign quota we'd see less and less good players in the league imo as they'd all go and play in Spain/Italy instead.

 

Don't agree mate.

 

If you look at previous decades at short periods when the England team has been decent there has been a spine of genuine class players. We don't have that right now. If I can be bothered I may look up some team selections during periods when we weren't bad, but just looking at '66 through to '70 I'm talking players of the calibre of Banks, Moore, Charlton etc. We just don't have that level of comparative quality these days.

 

Even going back to 1990, the team then had players like Beardsley, Waddle, Lineker, Pearce, Shilton, Gazza, Walker, Platt.....all of which would be in the England team now, yes I'd put Beardsley and Lineker before Rooney and Owen. [although I wouldn't dispute that Rooney is worthy to step into Beardo's shoes, I'm talking more of a partnership). Only Gary Neville and John Terry of the current team would get into that England team IMO.

 

It's an absolute and total myth that foreign players have improved English players. The top class ones have given glamour to and enhanced the premiership ie Zola, Henry etc, but overall they have stunted their growth.

 

Topical - watching the under 21's now, and Theo Walcott looks every inch the player Keyring Dire dreamed of being, but never will be in a million years. He's finished. His crap attitude has cost him his career, he's wasted it.

 

James Milner has just scored a penalty after Walcott was brought down.

 

It's well recognised that Banks, Charlton and Moore were Englands top 3, true World Class players. I would add Ray Wilson to that list too. Where England really scored was that the players all played to their best, in their most comfortable positions, and the overall balance and shape of the team suited everybody. Some people also say we won because we were at home. This was a big factor, but I think England could have won that cup anywhere in Europe. We were certainly the 2nd best team in the world 4 years later, by which time the Brazilians had found themselves again and had the best international team that has ever won that competition in my lifetime anyway.

 

 

 

 

I think the biggest football travesty of all time is that the Dutch team from 1973 to 1978 won nowt, they were the best team for that period and how they didn't win the World Cup in '74 and again in '78 tells the story that the best team doesn't always win. That Dutch team against the Brazil team of 1970 would have been a spectacle to behold and England would have been in the mix at that time.

 

In 1970 England weren't far behind Brazil both individually and collectively, it would have been a very competitive final in 1970 had it been England versus Brazil and we may have won, the teams were that close. Overall, for a number of years we were a benchmark for the rest even though we only won it in 1966.

 

While I'm comparing players of today against players of the past I'm doing it in the context of comparing the current players against those of other nations right now and it's clear that we just don't get close individually. We could always fluke something, of course. Like Greece.

 

Not an expert on the 1966 world cup squad and football at the time, but there's no way I could see an England manager being strong enough to leave out an individual like Greaves (for example Rooney in the present team) for the benefit of the team. Recent managers just seem to be too blinded by individuals and not thinking about the pattern of the team.

[Jamie]

Not that i really give a shit, but who have England really got to play upfront against Croatia ?

Crouch ? Doesn't do it for me, not against croatia anyway ( our biggest game of the year )

Defoe ? Not really played much

Bent ? Same can be said

Heskey Injured

Owen Injured

Rooney Injured

Walcott ? Unfair to throw him in the deep end in a massive match

 

Shola ?  Or not

[Fugazi]

Re: What is the problem with our national team?

 

i think the problem is we are playing too defensive, the defence does need time to settle though.

Another problem is layers are playing out of postion, which doesn't help towards the settling of the team and i believe Martins should be playing every game. Allardyce also needs time.

 

+10 Soopafan points

[Howaythelads]

Blaming the foreign players is just lazy, theres plenty of good English players in the league we're just incapable of finding a manager to turn them into a good side.

 

If there was some sort of foreign quota we'd see less and less good players in the league imo as they'd all go and play in Spain/Italy instead.

 

Don't agree mate.

 

If you look at previous decades at short periods when the England team has been decent there has been a spine of genuine class players. We don't have that right now. If I can be bothered I may look up some team selections during periods when we weren't bad, but just looking at '66 through to '70 I'm talking players of the calibre of Banks, Moore, Charlton etc. We just don't have that level of comparative quality these days.

 

Even going back to 1990, the team then had players like Beardsley, Waddle, Lineker, Pearce, Shilton, Gazza, Walker, Platt.....all of which would be in the England team now, yes I'd put Beardsley and Lineker before Rooney and Owen. [although I wouldn't dispute that Rooney is worthy to step into Beardo's shoes, I'm talking more of a partnership). Only Gary Neville and John Terry of the current team would get into that England team IMO.

 

It's an absolute and total myth that foreign players have improved English players. The top class ones have given glamour to and enhanced the premiership ie Zola, Henry etc, but overall they have stunted their growth.

 

Topical - watching the under 21's now, and Theo Walcott looks every inch the player Keyring Dire dreamed of being, but never will be in a million years. He's finished. His crap attitude has cost him his career, he's wasted it.

 

James Milner has just scored a penalty after Walcott was brought down.

 

It's well recognised that Banks, Charlton and Moore were Englands top 3, true World Class players. I would add Ray Wilson to that list too. Where England really scored was that the players all played to their best, in their most comfortable positions, and the overall balance and shape of the team suited everybody. Some people also say we won because we were at home. This was a big factor, but I think England could have won that cup anywhere in Europe. We were certainly the 2nd best team in the world 4 years later, by which time the Brazilians had found themselves again and had the best international team that has ever won that competition in my lifetime anyway.

 

 

 

 

I think the biggest football travesty of all time is that the Dutch team from 1973 to 1978 won nowt, they were the best team for that period and how they didn't win the World Cup in '74 and again in '78 tells the story that the best team doesn't always win. That Dutch team against the Brazil team of 1970 would have been a spectacle to behold and England would have been in the mix at that time.

 

In 1970 England weren't far behind Brazil both individually and collectively, it would have been a very competitive final in 1970 had it been England versus Brazil and we may have won, the teams were that close. Overall, for a number of years we were a benchmark for the rest even though we only won it in 1966.

 

While I'm comparing players of today against players of the past I'm doing it in the context of comparing the current players against those of other nations right now and it's clear that we just don't get close individually. We could always fluke something, of course. Like Greece.

 

Not an expert on the 1966 world cup squad and football at the time, but there's no way I could see an England manager being strong enough to leave out an individual like Greaves (for example Rooney in the present team) for the benefit of the team. Recent managers just seem to be too blinded by individuals and not thinking about the pattern of the team.

 

That's 'cos of the media hype of the PL I'm on about.

[tmonkey]

A big problem with respect to domestic players' development in this country is also down to the fact that their club will try to take an arm and a leg for them if someone bigger comes sniffing.

 

In Italy and Spain, talented domestic youngsters are normally snapped up from smaller clubs at fair prices, which aids their development when playing with better players in better teams, whereas in this country the hype starts early and you then have young domestic players like Walcott, Bale and Curtis Davies (who Spurs were quoted £8m for and instead went for Kaboul) not being sold for several seasons and certainly not for anything less than an extortionate price.

[Howaythelads]

A big problem with respect to domestic players' development in this country is also down to the fact that their club will try to take an arm and a leg for them if someone bigger comes sniffing.

In Italy and Spain, talented domestic youngsters are normally snapped up from smaller clubs at fair prices, which aids their development when playing with better players in better teams, whereas in this country the hype starts early and you then have young domestic players like Walcott, Bale and Curtis Davies (who Spurs were quoted £8m for and instead went for Kaboul) not being sold for several seasons and certainly not for anything less than an extortionate price.

 

Tbh I don't have the foggiest idea if the bit in bold is true or not. I've never had any interest in how much an Italian or Spanish club pays to sign up young players nor would I know where to look for that kind of information. Even if I did, I wouldn't bother looking.

 

It is true though that our own young players are over-hyped and do move on for daft fees, so I agree with that bit.

 

[Geordie Boot Boy]

Martin Samuel wrote an interesting article in today's Times.  His theory is that our youth aren't developing technically because we force them to play on adult size pitches too early, which causes the emphasis to be on hoofing the ball up the pitch and gives an obvious advantage to size over ability.

 

It's an interesting idea that could hold water but my only question is do other countries actually do it differently? 

 

Here is the link and article: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/columnists/martin_samuel/article2910642.ece

 

This morning I would like to challenge Sir Trevor Brooking, and everybody involved in the organisation of youth football in this country, to a game. One condition: new rules.

 

The goal will be 3.057 metres high, which equates to more than 10ft, roughly one and two thirds the size of Paul Robinson, making it physically impossible to touch the bar from a standing jump. (When the Australian security forces erected a fence to protect the world leaders attending the APEC conference in Sydney this year, it was three metres high.)

 

The goalline will be 9.174 metres long (about 30ft) or almost five Scott Carsons laying head to toe. A goalkeeper standing in the middle would have to dive almost five metres to get his body behind the ball and adequately protect inside his posts; the present width of the whole goal is 7.32 metres.

 

The length of the pitch will be 150.4 metres (165 yards), placing the halfway line at 75 metres. Using these dimensions, for a goalkeeper to get the ball out of his half from a grounded goal kick, he would have to clear, without bouncing, to the midway point of the opposition half with pitch measurements as they are now. The edge of the penalty area will be extended to 20.68 metres (23 yards), almost a third again on the present space, and the width of the pitch will be 112.80 metres (124 yards), which is a greater expanse than the length of most present pitches. Everything else will be the same, including the number of players and the duration of the match.

 

And when this travesty of a game is finished, when everybody is exhausted and fed up and utterly frustrated with demands that are at odds with the strength of the human body and the fundamental skill-based nature of the sport, then, and only then, will we comprehend what it is like to play football as a ten-year-old in England.

 

At this point we may begin to realise why Blame Steve McClaren or unmotivated players for England’s shambolic path to Euro 2008 if you like, but the reason standards in English football are in decline stems directly from what we see on our parks and school fields every weekend: ten-year-old boys on a full-size pitch.

 

That is the problem. Not John Terry’s £135,000 a week or McClaren’s 3-5-2. You want to talk numbers, I’ve got some crackers right here: the average height of a ten-year-old boy is 4ft 7in and the height of Petr Cech, the Chelsea goalkeeper, is 6ft 5in and they are required to guard the same target and kick the same distance. And we wonder why we can’t play like the Brazilians.

 

The pitch dimensions for my challenge match with Brooking were not plucked out of the air. They were expanded, by ratio, so that adults could enjoy the same competitive experience as children. The idea came from a friend of mine, Ray Lee, who has worked in youth football all his life. His suggestion was to take an average ten-year-old, place him on a full-size pitch and then expand that space in proportion, to equate to the size of the average man. The playing surface filled an area of 16,800 metres. What do they say about a good midfield player covering every blade of grass? A good polo pony would struggle with that space.

 

In most counties, seven-a-side mini-soccer ends in the final year of junior school, at which point the under11 age group converts to football as it is played by grown-ups. Team numbers are the same and, most importantly, so are pitch measurements. As in discount clothing stores, one size fits all. The reason English football has a tradition of brick outhouse central defenders who cannot pass and perpetual motion machines in midfield without an ounce of the class of Cesc Fàbregas is because our youth football is geared to little else.

 

If you are big you go at the back because you can kick it a long way and on an adult pitch, unless someone can hoof it to safety, a team can get boxed in defending their penalty area with no end in sight until the inevitable goal is scored. The ability to cover a ludicrously vast distance, box to box, is obviously essential for a midfield player, so the game favours long-legged cross-country runners, not tidy little ball players.

 

And then every two years, when the national team exit a tournament after losing to the first good technical team they play, we go into anguished inquests about our lack of skill and talk about quotas of foreign players and pride and passion, and all of those other red herrings, and never once think that the answer is under our noses and it is 4ft tall standing in an 8ft goal.

 

I watched an under11 district game on Saturday that was everything that is wrong with youth football in England. Brent versus Redbridge in the cup. There were some lovely players on both teams. Good, skilful boys with good, basic technique and some bright ideas about passing and movement, too. At half-time the score was 1-0 to Brent and Redbridge had been slightly the better team, but as the game wore on conditions took their toll.

 

When youth football is warped by its adult setting, over time it favours the strongest physical players and Brent had some very athletic boys. Tall, physically imposing and nice footballers. Redbridge could not get it out of their half. At this age, a goal kick is an advantage to the opposition; better than a corner, really, because all the defenders have their back to the play, all the attackers are facing it and the goalkeeper cannot clear the 30-metre distance to safety.

 

The game becomes a siege (and this is before the really wet weather hits, when it becomes as much fun as the retreat from Moscow). And as the goals go in, which they will do because anything high or near a post is impossible to save, which is why Michael Owen scored 79 goals in one season at the age of 11, so one side become more dispirited. Final score: Brent 6 Redbridge 0. And it started off a close game. Brent would probably have shaded it, whatever the location, but why such a huge difference by the end? The size of the task. It wears them down. It saps the strength, it strangles their skill. My lad can’t make it this week. He has an 11-plus examination. I’m hoping he’ll get more enjoyment from it.

 

I have another lad playing under12 football. This season a new team joined his competition. Massive kids, lots of attitude. I had them marked down as the league winners before a ball was kicked and after seven games they are two points clear. It is a power game for the preteens. And then, later in life, when everybody can wallop the ball a long way and chase it down, the sport becomes skill-based once more, except by that time we are lagging behind as a nation because we have focused all our efforts on the art of a panic-stricken clearance into touch to release the pressure.

 

Bring in the pitch boundaries, make the goals smaller and compulsorily cut the number of players in each team to nine until the age of 14. Games of this nature produce more scoring chances, more passes, more goals, better dribbling and more opportunities one on one. Better skill all round, in fact.

 

When youth coaches at Ajax first assess groups of young players, they make them dribble a ball around a square. Gradually the perimeter of the area is reduced until they can see who really knows how to control it. Then they make their selection and begin to look at other attributes. At our district trials, 75 youngsters played a series of games on a full-size pitch.

 

The FA is awash with money, we are told, so let it spearhead this revolution. It can be done. It is argued that schools and parks do not have the space to construct separate nine-a-side venues, but that is a weak, lazy excuse. They do not need more land. Paint the markings of the children’s pitch inside the adult pitch in a different colour (red would stand out in all seasons). No confusion there. Children and adults regularly play on ball courts and in indoor gyms that contain the field boundaries for several sports (basketball, netball, hockey, tennis), without becoming disoriented.

 

Brooking, the FA’s director of football development, continues to talk a good game, but where is the action? Skills programmes with supermarket sponsors do not even scratch the surface. It is the match that is the problem, not the training. There was plenty of raw talent in that district game, plenty of tricks and flicks and eye-of-the-needle passes. English children are not born with less skill than those in Spain or France. It is battered out of them by the circumstances in which they are forced to play.

 

If you want to know why we are a nation on tenterhooks about tonight’s match against Croatia, go to the park with a few mates, mark out an area the size of a modern hypermarket, including service and delivery space, with a bungalow at each end to act as the goals and away you go. Then you will see football through the eyes of a ten-year-old. And you may rather want to spend the weekend in front of Nickelodeon, too.

 

 

[Guest nufc_geordie]

I agree 100 % with Martin Samuels!

[Guest Novocastrian]

 

True, the main problem is small boys on heavy, full size pitches kicking full size balls into huge goals. Everyone else in the world can see that, kids play on smaller pitches with a small ball, quick passing and ball control is encouraged, kids are allowed to express themselves. Kids in the UK don't "play" football on the streets or on any old patch of grass anymore. They are driven by their parents to organised games where they are "coached" from the age of 5 or 6.

 

That's a long term problem that will, in reality, never be sorted out.

 

The main problem at the moment is too many foreigners. Don't believe me? How many English goalkeepers are there in the Prem? The pool of player to choose from has progressively shrunk so that the present England manager (buffoon) is picking from a core of 35-45 players. That's why Mclaren's England team is more or less exactly the same as Sven's team and the next England manager's team will be almost identical and if I picked a team or anyone on here picked a team, being realistic, it would be made up of at least 75% of the same players because we don't have any strength in depth.

 

In the past we could have taken two squads to a world cup and many good players on the periphery had to miss out. Look at some of the journeymen who are continually named in England squads now. I'm not saying we couldn't freshen the present squad up because there is some good young players breaking through but not in as many numbers as previously.

 

If they're good enough they'll break through, that's what I keep hearing. Yes for the super talented like Gazza, Scholes etc but not all players develop at the same rate and the amount of foreign players does block the progress of English players who could go on to develop. There's even foreign schoolboys in some of the academies for god's sake!!!!! I'm not for capping foreign players, well not explicitly, but what I would like to see is a minimum of say four English players in each matchday squad (impossible due to draconian EU employment laws are some other bollocks).  That way our best young players would be guaranteed to be involved and maybe they would be improved by exposure to the foreign players. The foreign players can hardly improve our youngsters if there is no English players in the team.

[Cronky]

Martin Samuel's point is a good point, but not an original one. The tendency of kids to be herded into 11 a side games on full size pitches too early has long been a bone of contention.

 

Our players are not as technically gifted as their foreign counterparts, although I think the gap is narrowing. The influence of foreign players in the Premiership is helping us here. But at the moment, as before, we can usually manage to get to the final eight or so, but fall short when it comes to reaching for the very best.

 

The second major problem is the pressure that is put on the England manager. I've seen so many good people struggle and then crumble in that job. Although they start off with firm, confident ideas, the barrage of criticism from the media eventually leads to them losing faith in their judgement, and being too conservative, or picking the players that everyone wants them to pick. It's no coincidence that our only successful manager, Alf Ramsey, didn't give a flying one what anyone thought, and picked the players and the style that he believed in. The press hated him for it, of course. Winning the World Cup only brought about a temporary reprieve.

 

Eriksson was strong for a long while, but it got to him in the end as well. He really stumbled along at the last World Cup due to some bad selections. McClaren seems to have succumbed very early.

[Guest nufc_geordie]

[The main problem at the moment is too many foreigners.  Don't believe me? How many English goalkeepers are there in the Prem? The pool of player to choose from has progressively shrunk so that the present England manager (buffoon) is picking from a core of 35-45 players. That's why Mclaren's England team is more or less exactly the same as Sven's team and the next England manager's team will be almost identical and if I picked a team or anyone on here picked a team, being realistic, it would be made up of at least 75% of the same players because we don't have any strength in depth.

/quote]

 

Why don't we try it then? INternational competitions allow a squad of 22 to be selected, i'll go first. Selections based on the present:

 

Goalkeepers

 

S.Carson

D.James

R.Green

 

Defenders

 

M.Richards

G.Johnson

A.Cole

N.Shorey

J.Terry

R.Ferdinaind

J.Lescott

 

Midfielders

 

D.Bentley

S.Wright-Phillips

J.Cole

S.Downing

S.Gerrard

F.Lampard

G.Barry

O.Hargreaves

 

Forwards

 

W.Rooney

G.Agbonlahor

D.Bent

P.Crouch

 

To be honest picking that squad the easiest was the defence, plenty of options but suprisingly lacking in midfield and up tops for quality.

[James]

Arsene Wenger reckons that England have got their U17's sorted, and that he'd have the majority of the U17's at his academy if he could.

 

Martin Samuel's article is a little behind the times, as Simon Fuller has got the kids off the big pitches. Initially he only got a handful to work with, two of whom were Micah Richards and Theodore Walcott, but the U17's are the first bunch of kids he spent a good deal of time with, so this looks promising.

 

Incidentally, Allardyce once offerred Fuller a job, and although turned down, Fuller has always been one to advise any club that asks for help. No doubt Allardyce will have swapped some notes with him regarding our academy.

[Guest Novocastrian]

[The main problem at the moment is too many foreigners.  Don't believe me? How many English goalkeepers are there in the Prem? The pool of player to choose from has progressively shrunk so that the present England manager (buffoon) is picking from a core of 35-45 players. That's why Mclaren's England team is more or less exactly the same as Sven's team and the next England manager's team will be almost identical and if I picked a team or anyone on here picked a team, being realistic, it would be made up of at least 75% of the same players because we don't have any strength in depth.

/quote]

 

Why don't we try it then? INternational competitions allow a squad of 22 to be selected, i'll go first. Selections based on the present:

 

Goalkeepers

 

S.Carson

D.James

R.Green

 

Defenders

 

M.Richards

G.Johnson

A.Cole

N.Shorey

J.Terry

R.Ferdinaind

J.Lescott

 

Midfielders

 

D.Bentley

S.Wright-Phillips

J.Cole

S.Downing

S.Gerrard

F.Lampard

G.Barry

O.Hargreaves

 

Forwards

 

W.Rooney

G.Agbonlahor

D.Bent

P.Crouch

 

To be honest picking that squad the easiest was the defence, plenty of options but suprisingly lacking in midfield and up tops for quality.

 

 

So in your first squad after taking over as England manager you would have one uncapped player!

FWIW I would also like to see Agbonlahor get a run out.

[johnnypd]

Arsene Wenger reckons that England have got their U17's sorted, and that he'd have the majority of the U17's at his academy if he could.

 

Martin Samuel's article is a little behind the times, as Simon Fuller has got the kids off the big pitches. Initially he only got a handful to work with, two of whom were Micah Richards and Theodore Walcott, but the U17's are the first bunch of kids he spent a good deal of time with, so this looks promising.

 

Incidentally, Allardyce once offerred Fuller a job, and although turned down, Fuller has always been one to advise any club that asks for help. No doubt Allardyce will have swapped some notes with him regarding our academy.

 

he must've been too busy managing the spice girls. think you mean simon clifford! he introduced futbal de salao to the uk, originally in middlesbrough after talking with juninho iirc.

[NG32]

We are desperate for an inteligent forward at the minute, someone like Teddy Sheringham.

 

But the whole England issue harks back to the coaching of the kids for me.

 

Its very rare that this country produces a Gascoigne.

 

 

[ohmelads]

Martin Samuel wrote an interesting article in today's Times.  His theory is that our youth aren't developing technically because we force them to play on adult size pitches too early, which causes the emphasis to be on hoofing the ball up the pitch and gives an obvious advantage to size over ability.

 

It's an interesting idea that could hold water but my only question is do other countries actually do it differently? 

 

Here is the link and article: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/columnists/martin_samuel/article2910642.ece

 

Some of the points in that article are valid, but I think a lot of it is overstated.

 

You have to remember that Brazilian kids growing up in the favelas often play on poor quality pitches and often without shoes and they don't play competitive games in competitive leagues until much later than English kids. Football is an expressive sport and kids are allowed to play their own way. It's a different ethos, but it isn't necessarily the "winning formula". There is more to the English long-ball game than big pitches for small kids, though I admit it's probably not ideal and the article makes some good points. The fact that it rains here most of the year makes a short passing game very difficult. Anybody who has tried playing quick one-twos on a boggy pitch knows it's very difficult, long balls work because a wet pitch doesn't bounce as much. Many foreign players from hot climates don't appreciate this until they come here and you see them struggling. Similarly, in hot countries playing long balls and closing down all the time is very tiring. I played quite a lot living in Spain and it's exhausting in that heat, there is a reason why you play one-twos and work your way up the pitch, and a reason why people aren't closing each other down at 100mph. End to end football in those conditions doesn't work, shorter passes and making the opposition do the running are quite important. In many parks in Spain there are no grass pitches because of the lack of rain, only mud/sand pitches, and that encourages the way they play the game from day to day. There are many factors which result in why players and teams play the way they do, but that article overstates one factor IMO.

[James]

Arsene Wenger reckons that England have got their U17's sorted, and that he'd have the majority of the U17's at his academy if he could.

 

Martin Samuel's article is a little behind the times, as Simon Fuller has got the kids off the big pitches. Initially he only got a handful to work with, two of whom were Micah Richards and Theodore Walcott, but the U17's are the first bunch of kids he spent a good deal of time with, so this looks promising.

 

Incidentally, Allardyce once offerred Fuller a job, and although turned down, Fuller has always been one to advise any club that asks for help. No doubt Allardyce will have swapped some notes with him regarding our academy.

 

he must've been too busy managing the spice girls. think you mean simon clifford! he introduced futbal de salao to the uk, originally in middlesbrough after talking with juninho iirc.

 

 

Thats who I mean.

 

Fuller, Cowell, Clifford, all the same to me.

[La Parka]

It is all down to how we select the youngsters.

 

There is a reason why their are only 4 professional  British Asian players (4-4-2 magazine).

 

Physique.

 

Far, Far, Far too much  emphasis on this aspect of our youngsters. Good athletes, but light years behind other nations in technique and many other skills such as holding possession.

 

Other factors include:

 

-11 a side far too early (Italy don't start this until age 15/16)

-Emphasis on bigger games means only the athletic kids truly stand out

-To competitive as in not every kid gets a look in

-Emphasis on physical attributes resulting in technically deficient players 

- The style of play is long ball direct fast

 

There are many other factors, on here I have made several posts. I would dig around but cba

 

There are many solutions including

 

- Better acadamy structures more like the setups in Holland, where schooling, nutrition and training all go together.

- More oppertunties, less focus on winning more emphasis on having fun

- Smaller, more technical training. 5 a side, small games where space is tight etc , training both feet from an early age