England

[Guest Howaythetoon]

Martinez calling England a long ball and set piece team there.

 

Nowt wrong with being strong at set-pierces, it’s when it’s your only strength and it isn’t. Long ball? I’ve actually wanted us to be more direct at times, we are not a long ball team or even direct though. Weare a possession team which has helped us get this far, but we lack creativity in midfield which if we aren’t scoring from set-pieces or an individual like Kane does the magic, our better players get starved of proper service.

[gdm]

Martinez calling England a long ball and set piece team there.

 

He’s spot on

[Wullie]

I can't stand the English players not getting opportunities argument. It sounds like bullshit & excuses to me, if they're good enough, they play. Just look at Rashford, that season Man Utd paid about £50m for Martial yet Rashford started over him time and time again.

 

There's plenty of opportunities for English youth players.

 

That's just silly. How can a player be 'good enough' at 18/19 when there's a ready made alternative somewhere else in the world that a Premier League can easily afford with many years of first team football behind them? Even if they're supremely talented at that age, you still don't have the experience of having played two or three hundred games, which we saw the other night when we looked incredibly naive against the Croatians.

 

That's fair enough, but my argument is that they do get the opportunities at first team level, whether on loan or at their present clubs. Can you give an example of an English player who would have 'made it' but didn't get the opportunities as there were foreign players in their place? I can't think of any, hence if they're good enough, they get into their teams or get a transfer sooner than later.

 

This is a really weird question.

 

It's not worded very well, yes - but it's a perfectly reasonable question and the answer to which is probably no, there's no examples where an English youngster failed or didn't develop through lack of opportunities alone. (of course many have failed because of other reasons, but I can't see any case where it's been down to lack of opportunities to develop).

 

It's not a reasonable question, it's preposterous. Let's play your silly game then: Scott Sinclair.

[Carlito]

Rashford is rubbish though. We just have a pretty average pool of players to choose from. Sterling is quality for Man City.

 

For Man City he is, but that's for Man City with a different set of players and tactics. Even for Man City he wastes countless chances.

 

Rashford may not have some of Sterling's strong points, but he's more positive-minded in that he likes to run at people, doesn't give the ball away so much and can actually beat a man, which in turn allows us to create more chances in front of goal.

 

I still don't understand what Sterling is doing to justify starting every single game. Can't beat a man, can't shoot, can't pass, can't even find a team-mate from 3 yards.

 

 

You mean apart from the one he put on a plate for Kane?

 

Needle in a haystack, sure. What else has he done? He gives possession away more than anybody else in the team.

 

How many assists does he have in this tournament? One?

How many shots did we have on target against Croatia?

How many times has he given away possession and sparked counter attacks for the opposition?

 

I never said he doesn't have impressive work-rate or movement because he does. He can use his pace to beat someone TO the ball. It's once he GETS the ball that we're in trouble. It's not pursuing an agenda or any of that nonsense. It's saying what we're all seeing on our TV for goodness sake. Is it part of our tactical set-up for him to lose the ball so much or miss golden chances?

Suggest an alternative then. He's clearly more effective than Rashford in that role.

 

I already said Jamie Vardy offers much more in that role. He's just as pacey as Sterling and works just as hard for the team. He chases down lost causes and even wins possession back for us at times as he's shown in this tournament.

 

He's very unfashionable, sadly.

Vardy's not unfashionable in the slightest in his own role, but his game is different enough from Sterling's that if you play him, the team's system is different so I understand why he's not played, particularly as we naively don't have the Shelvey type that you need for Vardy's game to work at all.

 

Vardy was still able to slot into the Sterling role throughout this tournament and perform well in the time he was given. He chased everything down, he won possession back for us, he ran at players, he came deep for the ball, and he created scoring opportunities. The major difference is he wasn't so error-prone in possession like Sterling has been in virtually every single game.

 

Regardless of how well Sterling may play for his club, he hasn't performed well enough on the ball for England in this competition. His work rate and movement off the ball can be really solid, sure. However what use is that if he's not winning possession back for us, and 9x out of 10 he's the one giving possession away in the first place? What use is it if he's not creating enough chances, or finishing his chances?

[Infinitely Content]

I can't stand the English players not getting opportunities argument. It sounds like bullshit & excuses to me, if they're good enough, they play. Just look at Rashford, that season Man Utd paid about £50m for Martial yet Rashford started over him time and time again.

 

There's plenty of opportunities for English youth players.

 

That's just silly. How can a player be 'good enough' at 18/19 when there's a ready made alternative somewhere else in the world that a Premier League can easily afford with many years of first team football behind them? Even if they're supremely talented at that age, you still don't have the experience of having played two or three hundred games, which we saw the other night when we looked incredibly naive against the Croatians.

 

That's fair enough, but my argument is that they do get the opportunities at first team level, whether on loan or at their present clubs. Can you give an example of an English player who would have 'made it' but didn't get the opportunities as there were foreign players in their place? I can't think of any, hence if they're good enough, they get into their teams or get a transfer sooner than later.

 

This is a really weird question.

 

It's not worded very well, yes - but it's a perfectly reasonable question and the answer to which is probably no, there's no examples where an English youngster failed or didn't develop through lack of opportunities alone. (of course many have failed because of other reasons, but I can't see any case where it's been down to lack of opportunities to develop).

 

It's not a reasonable question, it's preposterous. Let's play your silly game then: Scott Sinclair.

 

Why is it preposterous?

[Guest Howaythetoon]

Martinez calling England a long ball and set piece team there.

 

He’s spot on

 

Is he fuck, at one point we had doubled the number of passes and with a higher accuracy percentage. We don’t even get many crosses in which is annoying as we are often in great positions on either flank to get them in.

 

Martinez has done a great job, but has been helped with the players he has. I guarantee this Belgium team will not kick on in the way England will or should.

[Wullie]

I can't stand the English players not getting opportunities argument. It sounds like bullshit & excuses to me, if they're good enough, they play. Just look at Rashford, that season Man Utd paid about £50m for Martial yet Rashford started over him time and time again.

 

There's plenty of opportunities for English youth players.

 

That's just silly. How can a player be 'good enough' at 18/19 when there's a ready made alternative somewhere else in the world that a Premier League can easily afford with many years of first team football behind them? Even if they're supremely talented at that age, you still don't have the experience of having played two or three hundred games, which we saw the other night when we looked incredibly naive against the Croatians.

 

That's fair enough, but my argument is that they do get the opportunities at first team level, whether on loan or at their present clubs. Can you give an example of an English player who would have 'made it' but didn't get the opportunities as there were foreign players in their place? I can't think of any, hence if they're good enough, they get into their teams or get a transfer sooner than later.

 

This is a really weird question.

 

It's not worded very well, yes - but it's a perfectly reasonable question and the answer to which is probably no, there's no examples where an English youngster failed or didn't develop through lack of opportunities alone. (of course many have failed because of other reasons, but I can't see any case where it's been down to lack of opportunities to develop).

 

It's not a reasonable question, it's preposterous. Let's play your silly game then: Scott Sinclair.

 

Why is it preposterous?

 

It's not, it's perfectly reasonable. Scott Sinclair.

[Guest Howaythetoon]

Unless a player is of the calibre of Rooney or at a small or mid-table club, it’s going to be hard for any young talented player to get regular football and truly develop.

 

Every player that featured has had loan spells and a good number are not regulars or have only recently become a regular for their club.

 

If this Foden is as good as he’s made out to be, learning under Pep could be to our advantage and if he’s of the calibre or Rooney he will make it in that team. If he’s not though, he won’t. We don’t need world-class players, we need the right kind of players so I’m not bothered if he’s not of the calibre of Rooney.

 

I don’t want someone that could be the right fit for us, being stunted development wise by being sent out on loan constantly or sat on the bench.

[Guest firetotheworks]

 

 

Rashford is rubbish though. We just have a pretty average pool of players to choose from. Sterling is quality for Man City.

 

For Man City he is, but that's for Man City with a different set of players and tactics. Even for Man City he wastes countless chances.

 

Rashford may not have some of Sterling's strong points, but he's more positive-minded in that he likes to run at people, doesn't give the ball away so much and can actually beat a man, which in turn allows us to create more chances in front of goal.

 

I still don't understand what Sterling is doing to justify starting every single game. Can't beat a man, can't shoot, can't pass, can't even find a team-mate from 3 yards.

 

 

You mean apart from the one he put on a plate for Kane?

 

Needle in a haystack, sure. What else has he done? He gives possession away more than anybody else in the team.

 

How many assists does he have in this tournament? One?

How many shots did we have on target against Croatia?

How many times has he given away possession and sparked counter attacks for the opposition?

 

I never said he doesn't have impressive work-rate or movement because he does. He can use his pace to beat someone TO the ball. It's once he GETS the ball that we're in trouble. It's not pursuing an agenda or any of that nonsense. It's saying what we're all seeing on our TV for goodness sake. Is it part of our tactical set-up for him to lose the ball so much or miss golden chances?

Suggest an alternative then. He's clearly more effective than Rashford in that role.

 

I already said Jamie Vardy offers much more in that role. He's just as pacey as Sterling and works just as hard for the team. He chases down lost causes and even wins possession back for us at times as he's shown in this tournament.

 

He's very unfashionable, sadly.

Vardy's not unfashionable in the slightest in his own role, but his game is different enough from Sterling's that if you play him, the team's system is different so I understand why he's not played, particularly as we naively don't have the Shelvey type that you need for Vardy's game to work at all.

 

Vardy was still able to slot into the Sterling role throughout this tournament and perform well in the time he was given. He chased everything down, he won possession back for us, he ran at players, he came deep for the ball, and he created scoring opportunities. The major difference is he wasn't so error-prone in possession like Sterling has been in virtually every single game.

 

Regardless of how well Sterling may play for his club, he hasn't performed well enough on the ball for England in this competition. His work rate and movement off the ball can be really solid, sure. However what use is that if he's not winning possession back for us, and 9x out of 10 he's the one giving possession away in the first place? What use is it if he's not creating enough chances, or finishing his chances?

 

I can't see why anyone would think that Vardy played the Sterling role well at all, let alone better than Sterling did like. I'm a big fan of Vardy, but he did nothing in this World Cup at all.

[Guest Howaythetoon]

We don’t play the kind of football that suits Vardy, and his game cannot benefit the way we play. He was taken as a plan B for later on when the game is stretched or extra time etc. Although we had no-one in midfield that would help Vardy such as Shelvey who can look up deep, ping a 60 hard ball over the top for him to run onto and smash, that’s his game. We don’t play a pressing game either so his work-rate, running and pace wouldn’t help. He would, starting in this set-up, stand about hands on hip a lot and although I’d back him to score if a chance came his way you need more than that the way we play. Vardy would be ideal for Rafa’s NUFC...

[Carlito]

 

 

Rashford is rubbish though. We just have a pretty average pool of players to choose from. Sterling is quality for Man City.

 

For Man City he is, but that's for Man City with a different set of players and tactics. Even for Man City he wastes countless chances.

 

Rashford may not have some of Sterling's strong points, but he's more positive-minded in that he likes to run at people, doesn't give the ball away so much and can actually beat a man, which in turn allows us to create more chances in front of goal.

 

I still don't understand what Sterling is doing to justify starting every single game. Can't beat a man, can't shoot, can't pass, can't even find a team-mate from 3 yards.

 

 

You mean apart from the one he put on a plate for Kane?

 

Needle in a haystack, sure. What else has he done? He gives possession away more than anybody else in the team.

 

How many assists does he have in this tournament? One?

How many shots did we have on target against Croatia?

How many times has he given away possession and sparked counter attacks for the opposition?

 

I never said he doesn't have impressive work-rate or movement because he does. He can use his pace to beat someone TO the ball. It's once he GETS the ball that we're in trouble. It's not pursuing an agenda or any of that nonsense. It's saying what we're all seeing on our TV for goodness sake. Is it part of our tactical set-up for him to lose the ball so much or miss golden chances?

Suggest an alternative then. He's clearly more effective than Rashford in that role.

 

I already said Jamie Vardy offers much more in that role. He's just as pacey as Sterling and works just as hard for the team. He chases down lost causes and even wins possession back for us at times as he's shown in this tournament.

 

He's very unfashionable, sadly.

Vardy's not unfashionable in the slightest in his own role, but his game is different enough from Sterling's that if you play him, the team's system is different so I understand why he's not played, particularly as we naively don't have the Shelvey type that you need for Vardy's game to work at all.

 

Vardy was still able to slot into the Sterling role throughout this tournament and perform well in the time he was given. He chased everything down, he won possession back for us, he ran at players, he came deep for the ball, and he created scoring opportunities. The major difference is he wasn't so error-prone in possession like Sterling has been in virtually every single game.

 

Regardless of how well Sterling may play for his club, he hasn't performed well enough on the ball for England in this competition. His work rate and movement off the ball can be really solid, sure. However what use is that if he's not winning possession back for us, and 9x out of 10 he's the one giving possession away in the first place? What use is it if he's not creating enough chances, or finishing his chances?

 

I can't see why anyone would think that Vardy played the Sterling role well at all, let alone better than Sterling did like. I'm a big fan of Vardy, but he did nothing in this World Cup at all.

 

Considering he came off the bench more often than not, he made more of an impact in my opinion. Again, watch his play, particularly against Belgium in the group stage. He chased down lost causes, put defenders under pressure, won the ball back for us with his pace and work-rate, created opportunities (one of them a golden opportunity for Rashford against Belgium), ran at Colombia and generally made a nuisance of himself. How you could think Sterling performed better in that role when all he's done has lost possession countless times and missed a handful of sitters is baffling.

[Wullie]

I can't stand the English players not getting opportunities argument. It sounds like bullshit & excuses to me, if they're good enough, they play. Just look at Rashford, that season Man Utd paid about £50m for Martial yet Rashford started over him time and time again.

 

There's plenty of opportunities for English youth players.

 

That's just silly. How can a player be 'good enough' at 18/19 when there's a ready made alternative somewhere else in the world that a Premier League can easily afford with many years of first team football behind them? Even if they're supremely talented at that age, you still don't have the experience of having played two or three hundred games, which we saw the other night when we looked incredibly naive against the Croatians.

 

That's fair enough, but my argument is that they do get the opportunities at first team level, whether on loan or at their present clubs. Can you give an example of an English player who would have 'made it' but didn't get the opportunities as there were foreign players in their place? I can't think of any, hence if they're good enough, they get into their teams or get a transfer sooner than later.

 

This is a really weird question.

 

It's not worded very well, yes - but it's a perfectly reasonable question and the answer to which is probably no, there's no examples where an English youngster failed or didn't develop through lack of opportunities alone. (of course many have failed because of other reasons, but I can't see any case where it's been down to lack of opportunities to develop).

 

It's not a reasonable question, it's preposterous. Let's play your silly game then: Scott Sinclair.

 

Why is it preposterous?

 

Don't know whether Sinclair fits your criteria or not but the question is ridiculous because anybody I name, you can just say "ah not good enough anyway" because you've got the benefit of hindsight and can just claim their current ability is their ceiling. I don't know the exact reasons Player X failed to reach his potential but I do know that the quickest way to improve a player is to play them regularly.

 

The point is that footballers only improve by playing football, and neither you nor I can possibly know how an obviously talented player like Sinclair - who left Chelsea at 21 having played 5 games for them, would have fared if he'd been given the opportunity to play regularly in the top flight in the key development years of 16-21.

 

Chelsea bought Eden Hazard when he was 21, same age as Sinclair when he was binned. By that time he'd played nearly 200 games for Lille - 4 full seasons of top flight and European football. Hazard would not have been as good as he was at 21 if he'd been sat round at Lille scratching his arse as Sinclair was at Chelsea, with a month loan once a season. That's the difference, and the advantage other countries have over England because of the financial success of the Premier League, where every single club can afford to buy any player they need, ready made off the shelf. There are vastly more Italians, French, Germans and Spanish playing in their respective leagues as a percentage of the total players. You only need half a dozen of those to really blossom as a result of playing in the top flight every week to give you a big advantage at international level.

 

In 2017-18, only 203 professionals in the Premier League were eligible to feature for England. The other 390 were either foreigners or have declared for other national teams. Three talented youngsters are playing in the Bundesliga -- Jadon Sancho (18 years old, Borussia Dortmund), Keanan Bennetts (Borussia Monchengladbach, 19) Kahlen Hinds (20, Wolfsburg) -- while Jonathan Panzo (17, Monaco) is in Ligue 1, but there are no Englishmen contracted to Serie A or La Liga clubs. (Loanee players do not count.)

 

Compare that with the Bundesliga, where 49.2 percent of players -- 264, in only 18 teams -- are German; with a further 21 playing in either the Premier League, Ligue 1, Serie A or La Liga, mostly at top clubs, the pool available to Joachim Low is a whopping 38 percent bigger than that of Southgate.

 

Spain (62.6 percent Spanish players in La Liga) and France (52.3 percent French in Ligue 1) have an even more pronounced advantage. Ahead of the World Cup, then-Spain manager Julen Lopetegui had a choice of 356 professionals from La Liga, Bundesliga, Premier League, Serie A and Ligue 1; France boss Didier Deschamps could whittle down 384 first-team players, from the same five leagues, to his squad of 23.

 

A glaring example of how much playing can improve is Kieran Trippier - fucked off from Man City when he was 21 (having played zero games for them), went to Burnley and it's taken him until he's 27 to make an England squad, and arguably been the best in his position at a World Cup. How good could he have been if Man City had put their faith in him instead of buying, for example, Zabaleta? If he'd played 150 top flight games by the time he was 21 instead of 0? What if Burnley had never been promoted, just falling short? He'd probably still be faring his trade at a decent level in the Championship, like dozens of other players who came through big academies before getting the boot in their 20s, the likes of Josh McEachran, Patrick Bamford, Sam Hutchinson. McEachran was supposed to be the next big thing, an England midfielder who could pass like the Europeans. He's 25 now, a Championship regular and he's still played less first team games than Hazard had by the time he was 20. He's played in 15 top flight games. What chance did he ever stand of meeting that standard?

 

That's why you get newspapers making these daft "future England XI" teams (this one happens to include Sinclair and Hutchinson actually), and they always look ridiculous five years down the line because half the players that were so highly thought of in their teens never got a game and drifted away.

 

http://www.whoateallthepies.tv/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/england-2007.jpg

[Shearergol]

Robbie threlfall eh. Followed his career closely.

 

Who the fuck is he?

[Guest firetotheworks]

 

 

Rashford is rubbish though. We just have a pretty average pool of players to choose from. Sterling is quality for Man City.

 

For Man City he is, but that's for Man City with a different set of players and tactics. Even for Man City he wastes countless chances.

 

Rashford may not have some of Sterling's strong points, but he's more positive-minded in that he likes to run at people, doesn't give the ball away so much and can actually beat a man, which in turn allows us to create more chances in front of goal.

 

I still don't understand what Sterling is doing to justify starting every single game. Can't beat a man, can't shoot, can't pass, can't even find a team-mate from 3 yards.

 

 

You mean apart from the one he put on a plate for Kane?

 

Needle in a haystack, sure. What else has he done? He gives possession away more than anybody else in the team.

 

How many assists does he have in this tournament? One?

How many shots did we have on target against Croatia?

How many times has he given away possession and sparked counter attacks for the opposition?

 

I never said he doesn't have impressive work-rate or movement because he does. He can use his pace to beat someone TO the ball. It's once he GETS the ball that we're in trouble. It's not pursuing an agenda or any of that nonsense. It's saying what we're all seeing on our TV for goodness sake. Is it part of our tactical set-up for him to lose the ball so much or miss golden chances?

Suggest an alternative then. He's clearly more effective than Rashford in that role.

 

I already said Jamie Vardy offers much more in that role. He's just as pacey as Sterling and works just as hard for the team. He chases down lost causes and even wins possession back for us at times as he's shown in this tournament.

 

He's very unfashionable, sadly.

Vardy's not unfashionable in the slightest in his own role, but his game is different enough from Sterling's that if you play him, the team's system is different so I understand why he's not played, particularly as we naively don't have the Shelvey type that you need for Vardy's game to work at all.

 

Vardy was still able to slot into the Sterling role throughout this tournament and perform well in the time he was given. He chased everything down, he won possession back for us, he ran at players, he came deep for the ball, and he created scoring opportunities. The major difference is he wasn't so error-prone in possession like Sterling has been in virtually every single game.

 

Regardless of how well Sterling may play for his club, he hasn't performed well enough on the ball for England in this competition. His work rate and movement off the ball can be really solid, sure. However what use is that if he's not winning possession back for us, and 9x out of 10 he's the one giving possession away in the first place? What use is it if he's not creating enough chances, or finishing his chances?

 

I can't see why anyone would think that Vardy played the Sterling role well at all, let alone better than Sterling did like. I'm a big fan of Vardy, but he did nothing in this World Cup at all.

 

Considering he came off the bench more often than not, he made more of an impact in my opinion. Again, watch his play, particularly against Belgium in the group stage. He chased down lost causes, put defenders under pressure, won the ball back for us with his pace and work-rate, created opportunities (one of them a golden opportunity for Rashford against Belgium), ran at Colombia and generally made a nuisance of himself. How you could think Sterling performed better in that role when all he's done has lost possession countless times and missed a handful of sitters is baffling.

 

We'll have to agree to disagree because I can't relate to that outlook on what Sterling did vs what Vardy did even in the slightest.

[Shearergol]

 

 

Rashford is rubbish though. We just have a pretty average pool of players to choose from. Sterling is quality for Man City.

 

For Man City he is, but that's for Man City with a different set of players and tactics. Even for Man City he wastes countless chances.

 

Rashford may not have some of Sterling's strong points, but he's more positive-minded in that he likes to run at people, doesn't give the ball away so much and can actually beat a man, which in turn allows us to create more chances in front of goal.

 

I still don't understand what Sterling is doing to justify starting every single game. Can't beat a man, can't shoot, can't pass, can't even find a team-mate from 3 yards.

 

 

You mean apart from the one he put on a plate for Kane?

 

Needle in a haystack, sure. What else has he done? He gives possession away more than anybody else in the team.

 

How many assists does he have in this tournament? One?

How many shots did we have on target against Croatia?

How many times has he given away possession and sparked counter attacks for the opposition?

 

I never said he doesn't have impressive work-rate or movement because he does. He can use his pace to beat someone TO the ball. It's once he GETS the ball that we're in trouble. It's not pursuing an agenda or any of that nonsense. It's saying what we're all seeing on our TV for goodness sake. Is it part of our tactical set-up for him to lose the ball so much or miss golden chances?

Suggest an alternative then. He's clearly more effective than Rashford in that role.

 

I already said Jamie Vardy offers much more in that role. He's just as pacey as Sterling and works just as hard for the team. He chases down lost causes and even wins possession back for us at times as he's shown in this tournament.

 

He's very unfashionable, sadly.

Vardy's not unfashionable in the slightest in his own role, but his game is different enough from Sterling's that if you play him, the team's system is different so I understand why he's not played, particularly as we naively don't have the Shelvey type that you need for Vardy's game to work at all.

 

Vardy was still able to slot into the Sterling role throughout this tournament and perform well in the time he was given. He chased everything down, he won possession back for us, he ran at players, he came deep for the ball, and he created scoring opportunities. The major difference is he wasn't so error-prone in possession like Sterling has been in virtually every single game.

 

Regardless of how well Sterling may play for his club, he hasn't performed well enough on the ball for England in this competition. His work rate and movement off the ball can be really solid, sure. However what use is that if he's not winning possession back for us, and 9x out of 10 he's the one giving possession away in the first place? What use is it if he's not creating enough chances, or finishing his chances?

 

I can't see why anyone would think that Vardy played the Sterling role well at all, let alone better than Sterling did like. I'm a big fan of Vardy, but he did nothing in this World Cup at all.

 

Considering he came off the bench more often than not, he made more of an impact in my opinion. Again, watch his play, particularly against Belgium in the group stage. He chased down lost causes, put defenders under pressure, won the ball back for us with his pace and work-rate, created opportunities (one of them a golden opportunity for Rashford against Belgium), ran at Colombia and generally made a nuisance of himself. How you could think Sterling performed better in that role when all he's done has lost possession countless times and missed a handful of sitters is baffling.

 

We'll have to agree to disagree because I can't relate to that outlook on what Sterling did vs what Vardy did even in the slightest.

 

Completely different players. Vardy doesn’t fit the England system. He should just come play for us and retire from international football tbh

[taxfree]

Robbie threlfall eh. Followed his career closely.

 

Who the fuck is he?

 

Just went to check out where he is now. Marine A.F.C.

 

 

 

More interestingly, this is their badge:

 

 

Very original that.

[Shearergol]

Robbie threlfall eh. Followed his career closely.

 

Who the fuck is he?

 

Just went to check out where he is now. Marine F.C.

 

 

 

More interestingly, this is their badge:

 

 

Very original that.

 

Where have I seen that before?

[joeyt]

Great post Wullie

 

Sinclair and McEachran were going to be my examples too. Going to be interesting with more British players going to Germany. Lookman for example had to go to Leipzig to get an opportunity because Big Sam didn't want to use him at Everton. Reece Oxford at West Ham too

[Shearergol]

Jadon sancho likely to be involved soon? Or foden?

[Carlito]

 

 

Rashford is rubbish though. We just have a pretty average pool of players to choose from. Sterling is quality for Man City.

 

For Man City he is, but that's for Man City with a different set of players and tactics. Even for Man City he wastes countless chances.

 

Rashford may not have some of Sterling's strong points, but he's more positive-minded in that he likes to run at people, doesn't give the ball away so much and can actually beat a man, which in turn allows us to create more chances in front of goal.

 

I still don't understand what Sterling is doing to justify starting every single game. Can't beat a man, can't shoot, can't pass, can't even find a team-mate from 3 yards.

 

 

You mean apart from the one he put on a plate for Kane?

 

Needle in a haystack, sure. What else has he done? He gives possession away more than anybody else in the team.

 

How many assists does he have in this tournament? One?

How many shots did we have on target against Croatia?

How many times has he given away possession and sparked counter attacks for the opposition?

 

I never said he doesn't have impressive work-rate or movement because he does. He can use his pace to beat someone TO the ball. It's once he GETS the ball that we're in trouble. It's not pursuing an agenda or any of that nonsense. It's saying what we're all seeing on our TV for goodness sake. Is it part of our tactical set-up for him to lose the ball so much or miss golden chances?

Suggest an alternative then. He's clearly more effective than Rashford in that role.

 

I already said Jamie Vardy offers much more in that role. He's just as pacey as Sterling and works just as hard for the team. He chases down lost causes and even wins possession back for us at times as he's shown in this tournament.

 

He's very unfashionable, sadly.

Vardy's not unfashionable in the slightest in his own role, but his game is different enough from Sterling's that if you play him, the team's system is different so I understand why he's not played, particularly as we naively don't have the Shelvey type that you need for Vardy's game to work at all.

 

Vardy was still able to slot into the Sterling role throughout this tournament and perform well in the time he was given. He chased everything down, he won possession back for us, he ran at players, he came deep for the ball, and he created scoring opportunities. The major difference is he wasn't so error-prone in possession like Sterling has been in virtually every single game.

 

Regardless of how well Sterling may play for his club, he hasn't performed well enough on the ball for England in this competition. His work rate and movement off the ball can be really solid, sure. However what use is that if he's not winning possession back for us, and 9x out of 10 he's the one giving possession away in the first place? What use is it if he's not creating enough chances, or finishing his chances?

 

I can't see why anyone would think that Vardy played the Sterling role well at all, let alone better than Sterling did like. I'm a big fan of Vardy, but he did nothing in this World Cup at all.

 

Considering he came off the bench more often than not, he made more of an impact in my opinion. Again, watch his play, particularly against Belgium in the group stage. He chased down lost causes, put defenders under pressure, won the ball back for us with his pace and work-rate, created opportunities (one of them a golden opportunity for Rashford against Belgium), ran at Colombia and generally made a nuisance of himself. How you could think Sterling performed better in that role when all he's done has lost possession countless times and missed a handful of sitters is baffling.

 

We'll have to agree to disagree because I can't relate to that outlook on what Sterling did vs what Vardy did even in the slightest.

 

Completely different players. Vardy doesn’t fit the England system. He should just come play for us and retire from international football tbh

 

Again, Vardy was able to create clear-cut opportunities against Belgium, which Rashford squandered with poor finishing, and he made a big difference when he came on against Colombia. Vardy won possession back for the team more than Sterling did, and lost possession less than Sterling did. How does he not fit into England's system? What, because he didn't score? Vardy can't adapt? That's absolute madness to even suggest. He might not have been able to run in much beyond the back line due to lack of creativity in the midfield, but on the whole he offered way more to the team's cause because again, he wasn't constantly losing possession due to a lack in concentration.

 

How someone at that level can even lose possession as much as Sterling did when we're supposed to be playing a possession-based system is even more baffling. His off the ball movement and his work-rate are not the issues I have with him starting every game.

 

Like KI said, maybe we should just agree to disagree to avoid going round in circles.

[Guest Howaythetoon]

Bang on the money Wulie. Players need to play for all kinds of reasons, fitness, confidence, experience and all-round development. Id make it a rule that English teams have to play 3 homegrown players from the academy in x percentage of league games with clubs rewarded the more starts a player gets. I wouldn’t know how to work such a system, but look at Lascelles for example and the experience and development in his game playing and working under Rafa. He has come on hugely. Dummett too even though he’s limited.

 

By the way, Trippier is 27? I thought he was 22 or something. Where has he bloody been? I’m not just saying this, but he looks a brilliant little player, our best of the tournament for me. 27 fuck

[taxfree]

Bang on the money Wulie. Players need to play for all kinds of reasons, fitness, confidence, experience and all-round development. Id make it a rule that English teams have to play 3 homegrown players from the academy in x percentage of league games with clubs rewarded the more starts a player gets. I wouldn’t know how to work such a system, but look at Lascelles for example and the experience and development in his game playing and working under Rafa. He has come on hugely. Dummett too even though he’s limited.

 

By the way, Trippier is 27? I thought he was 22 or something. Where has he bloody been? I’m not just saying this, but he looks a brilliant little player, our best of the tournament for me. 27 fuck

 

28 in two months too.

[Infinitely Content]

I can't stand the English players not getting opportunities argument. It sounds like bullshit & excuses to me, if they're good enough, they play. Just look at Rashford, that season Man Utd paid about £50m for Martial yet Rashford started over him time and time again.

 

There's plenty of opportunities for English youth players.

 

That's just silly. How can a player be 'good enough' at 18/19 when there's a ready made alternative somewhere else in the world that a Premier League can easily afford with many years of first team football behind them? Even if they're supremely talented at that age, you still don't have the experience of having played two or three hundred games, which we saw the other night when we looked incredibly naive against the Croatians.

 

That's fair enough, but my argument is that they do get the opportunities at first team level, whether on loan or at their present clubs. Can you give an example of an English player who would have 'made it' but didn't get the opportunities as there were foreign players in their place? I can't think of any, hence if they're good enough, they get into their teams or get a transfer sooner than later.

 

This is a really weird question.

 

It's not worded very well, yes - but it's a perfectly reasonable question and the answer to which is probably no, there's no examples where an English youngster failed or didn't develop through lack of opportunities alone. (of course many have failed because of other reasons, but I can't see any case where it's been down to lack of opportunities to develop).

 

It's not a reasonable question, it's preposterous. Let's play your silly game then: Scott Sinclair.

 

Why is it preposterous?

 

Don't know whether Sinclair fits your criteria or not but the question is ridiculous because anybody I name, you can just say "ah not good enough anyway" because you've got the benefit of hindsight and can just claim their current ability is their ceiling. I don't know the exact reasons Player X failed to reach his potential but I do know that the quickest way to improve a player is to play them regularly.

 

The point is that footballers only improve by playing football, and neither you nor I can possibly know how an obviously talented player like Sinclair - who left Chelsea at 21 having played 5 games for them, would have fared if he'd been given the opportunity to play regularly in the top flight in the key development years of 16-21.

 

Chelsea bought Eden Hazard when he was 21, same age as Sinclair when he was binned. By that time he'd played nearly 200 games for Lille - 4 full seasons of top flight and European football. Hazard would not have been as good as he was at 21 if he'd been sat round at Lille scratching his arse as Sinclair was at Chelsea, with a month loan once a season. That's the difference, and the advantage other countries have over England because of the financial success of the Premier League, where every single club can afford to buy any player they need, ready made off the shelf. There are vastly more Italians, French, Germans and Spanish playing in their respective leagues as a percentage of the total players. You only need half a dozen of those to really blossom as a result of playing in the top flight every week to give you a big advantage at international level.

 

In 2017-18, only 203 professionals in the Premier League were eligible to feature for England. The other 390 were either foreigners or have declared for other national teams. Three talented youngsters are playing in the Bundesliga -- Jadon Sancho (18 years old, Borussia Dortmund), Keanan Bennetts (Borussia Monchengladbach, 19) Kahlen Hinds (20, Wolfsburg) -- while Jonathan Panzo (17, Monaco) is in Ligue 1, but there are no Englishmen contracted to Serie A or La Liga clubs. (Loanee players do not count.)

 

Compare that with the Bundesliga, where 49.2 percent of players -- 264, in only 18 teams -- are German; with a further 21 playing in either the Premier League, Ligue 1, Serie A or La Liga, mostly at top clubs, the pool available to Joachim Low is a whopping 38 percent bigger than that of Southgate.

 

Spain (62.6 percent Spanish players in La Liga) and France (52.3 percent French in Ligue 1) have an even more pronounced advantage. Ahead of the World Cup, then-Spain manager Julen Lopetegui had a choice of 356 professionals from La Liga, Bundesliga, Premier League, Serie A and Ligue 1; France boss Didier Deschamps could whittle down 384 first-team players, from the same five leagues, to his squad of 23.

 

A glaring example of how much playing can improve is Kieran Trippier - fucked off from Man City when he was 21 (having played zero games for them), went to Burnley and it's taken him until he's 27 to make an England squad, and arguably been the best in his position at a World Cup. How good could he have been if Man City had put their faith in him instead of buying, for example, Zabaleta? If he'd played 150 top flight games by the time he was 21 instead of 0? What if Burnley had never been promoted, just falling short? He'd probably still be faring his trade at a decent level in the Championship, like dozens of other players who came through big academies before getting the boot in their 20s, the likes of Josh McEachran, Patrick Bamford, Sam Hutchinson. McEachran was supposed to be the next big thing, an England midfielder who could pass like the Europeans. He's 25 now, a Championship regular and he's still played less first team games than Hazard had by the time he was 20. He's played in 15 top flight games. What chance did he ever stand of meeting that standard?

 

That's why you get newspapers making these daft "future England XI" teams (this one happens to include Sinclair and Hutchinson actually), and they always look ridiculous five years down the line because half the players that were so highly thought of in their teens never got a game and drifted away.

 

http://www.whoateallthepies.tv/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/england-2007.jpg

 

I mean, good post - and I agree with a lot of stuff in there; I'm also aware of the futile nature of the initial line of questioning. The Trippier example of course feels like a good one, given how well he's played this WC. I'm pretty sure neither you nor me watched him at youth level, but what if he simply wasn't showing strong enough signs of growth or was lacking a certain key mental, physical or technical attribute at the time and City felt right to, A. not trust him at first team level, and B. let him move on? I can't see good enough reason to simplify it as - if more top clubs played their young English talent then they would develop to become better players and our pool would be expanded. There has to be a reason for a Chelsea or City to bring a youngster into their team, it can't just be done in hope they will develop - obviously - they have matches to win. So unless a player, Foden for instance is so talented that he demands recognition in a strong team, then why shouldn't those youngsters have to drop down the league, or drop to lower leagues and look to develop through games there? Because as far as I can see, that's what happens with the majority, and when certain ones fail to climb back up to the top flight they're deemed as not fulfilling their potential, and we start hearing these excuses like they weren't given the chance at top level through foreign players being in their positions - but maybe it's actually just an accurate reflection of their skill set, whether City played them for 3 years or Bury did. I'm not saying that's always the case, but it certainly has to be considered.

 

I know what you're saying with the experience factor though, obviously what separates equally talented players is often match experience and football maturity. You raise Hazard as an example of someone who by 21 had 200 appearances for Lille. Well Marcus Rashford, at one of the biggest clubs in the world will almost certainly have around that many appearances by the time he's 21 too. So clearly, it does happen. Hazard and Rashford are also supremely talented players, who despite the fact they would have had downsides to their games at 17/18 year old, we're so talented that they still warranted starting and playing matches despite their deficiencies, and thus end up with a large amount of appearances by 21 say. They also play attacking, wide roles which often require less tactical discipline. Then you take McEachran or Swift for example, who as central midfielders, would have had to show immense maturity tactically at 17/18 along with their technical qualities in order for Chelsea to justify playing them as much as a Rashford or a Hazard. Is that Chelsea's fault then for not giving them game time to develop, and thus having them drop down leagues? Absolutely not, yet those, and players alike often get grouped into these conversations where people claim top clubs don't provide opportunities. Well maybe it's not that simple. What position the player plays seems a fairly substantial factor that has to be considered imo.

[Guest Howaythetoon]

Like fuck am I reading that...

[Infinitely Content]

Like fuck am I reading that...

 

...but I always read yours?! 

 

(I don't  )