David Beckham

[ohmelads]

To be honest though when I see kids playing these days in the park they're far more focused on technique and skill than they ever used to be, trying tricks all the time and getting egged on by their mates to 'do the elastico' or whatever. When I was younger it was a case of charging everyone down and fighting it out and I'm only 23, so I think the culture is changing here. I put it down to the foreign influence on the Premiership more than anything else, people idolise the likes of Thierry Henry and Cristiano Ronaldo these days rather than people like Ian Wright or Gary Lineker.

 

I don't think English football is suffering, the youth coaching isn't aimed at dribbling skill but then English players generally haven't had the quick feet and agility of the Brazilians. It's natural for coaches to work on the strengths of a youngster, and if that's a deft touch and an eye for a pass they'll work on that rather than trying to get them to skin people all day. We're not an unsuccessful footballing nation, we're one of the only 7 countries ever to have lifted the world cup and everybody, English or otherwise, nearly always predicts us to make the last 8. We haven't made that extra step to the final too often because of a combination of luck, penalties, poor tactics or simply being beaten by a better team. Truth is we are a very good footballing nation who regularly make the last 8 in the world cup but there are better nations out there. This idea that we're rubbish because we can't get to the final is silly, we were knocked out of the quarters by a famous handball in 86 against an Argentina team with arguably the greatest player who ever lived, four years later we missed a place in the final on penalties. In 98 we lost on penalties to Argentina, in 2002 we lost 2-1 to the eventual winners Brazil and last year we were knocked out on penalties. We're one of the top ten sides in the world but there's better out there. If we're getting anything wrong it's the tactics/performances on the big occasion against those teams better than us.

 

To cut a long story short I think there's way too much finger pointing goes on with regard to the England team. Football reflects culture, the Italians will always be organised and solid defensively, the Brazilians will always have their samba football and the English will always be a team of passion and width. The culture of our football is changing slightly but trying to get English kids playing samba football would be a disaster to be honest.

[Guest Alan Shearer 9]

the idea we're rubbish comes from us playing rubbish. 

[ohmelads]

We're not as good as we should be given the players at our disposal, it's not just us saying that but fans of other countries too. But I don't think it's so much down to the coaching at grass roots level because we continue to churn out lots of good English players.I think it's more to do with the tactics employed against nations better than ourselves. We play the likes of Brazil and Argentina with an attacking 4-4-2 formation every time. We need to learn to be more humble and grind out results because that's what cup competitions are about - we're simply not good enough to go and outplay Brazil yet people always get carried away in the patriotism and expect this swashbuckling performance. Then when we get beat people say they're rubbish 'cos The Sun said so.

 

Greece are rubbish but they're the current European Champions because of the tactics they employed, not because of their grass roots player development. Holland who are one of the best in the world at youth development have never won anything.

[Exiled in Texas]

One other thought as to what might hold back American kids.....they never watch the game. Sure they play the game, but they don't watch the game. They never get to see Arsenal or Manure carving teams up with running and vision.

 

When I'm watching Premier League, Champions league or the odd Italian or Argentine games on TV I'll call my son over to watch a play or a goal, and he will enjoy the move, but will never sit down to watch the entire game. They therefore never learn the nuances of the game from the pros.

[Shearer9]

We're not as good as we should be given the players at our disposal, it's not just us saying that but fans of other countries too. But I don't think it's so much down to the coaching at grass roots level because we continue to churn out lots of good English players.I think it's more to do with the tactics employed against nations better than ourselves. We play the likes of Brazil and Argentina with an attacking 4-4-2 formation every time. We need to learn to be more humble and grind out results because that's what cup competitions are about - we're simply not good enough to go and outplay Brazil yet people always get carried away in the patriotism and expect this swashbuckling performance. Then when we get beat people say they're rubbish 'cos The Sun said so.

 

Greece are rubbish but they're the current European Champions because of the tactics they employed, not because of their grass roots player development. Holland who are one of the best in the world at youth development have never won anything.

There's still an expectation though that the team isn't, and won't ever be good enough, and this is part of the problem.  These people are saying that the English should take on the characteristics of Brazil, Argentina, Italy, etc because they're better teams, and that doesn't sound daft to me.  It seems like people assume that England is rubbish and only gets through because of passionate and hardworking performances, or they acknowledge that this is the way of English performances and its simply bad luck that England can't win a tournament.  I think you'll find that nations who win tournaments do so because of certain characteristics that they develop, not that come naturally.  In the end, most everyone just excepts English performances as they are, rather than trying to figure out how to improve them.

 

And to suggest that the Greece win in the European Championships was anything but a fluke is pretty foolish. 

[Guest fatshaft]

There is something about football, the very core of the game which fundamentally is just not American. Think it's the idea of a team.

That doesn't make any sense at all. There are no individual sports that get a higher rating than any of their four main team sports, whereas in this country, we are far more aware of golf, tennis and athletics. We have Football, then a whole lot of simlilarly ranked sports -  rugby, cricket, golf & tennis being probably the next in line.

[Memphis]

For whatever it's worth, I think a large part of the lack of success for football here in the States is the inability to quantify exactly what is going on.  We have an extraordinary obsession with stats over here - in American football, it's about rushing yards, passing yards, touchdowns, interceptions, quarterback ratings, etc.  In baseball, it's batting average, on-base percentage, home runs, RBIs, etc.  All of those "team" sports have easy ways for fans and presenters alike to break down a player's contribution statistically.  Thus, most of our television/radio coverage relies on statistics and numbers. 

 

We are inundated with highlights shows about all the major sports here, but presenters haven't a clue about how to present a football highlights package.  And since it can't be distilled into a highlights package or a brief article in a paper, it is easily ignored.

 

Obviously it is far more difficult to quantify an individual's performance in football.  Michael Essien is a phenomenal footballer, but how many goals has he scored?  How many assists does he have?  What is his ACTIM player rating?  Does any of that matter in his evaluation as a key player for Chelsea?  There is far more subtext in football than the typical American fan wants to see.  They are willing to sit through a 1-0 baseball game, which I find horribly boring, because they take note of all the "little plays" in the game.  For whatever reason, be it statistical or xenophobic, they simply don't want to do that same thing for football.  A 1-0 or 0-0 football match is always "boring" to them, no matter how much may have happened in the 90 minutes.  Those of us who try to explain otherwise are largely ignored.

[Robster]

If the Beckham's were a bit more discreet, whilst being a bit sceptical about the move, I would be more than happy to be one of the people backing him all the way and hoping he succeeds.

However, watching him and that quite astronomically annoying pouting faced missus of his, just makes me want him/them to fall flat on their arses and to be bankrupt and selling their arses on Sunset Boulevard within weeks.

Hate is a strong word... but I am starting to hate them both.... the move over there obviously has so little to do with the football I think its tarnishes the game for anyone watching who has any sense or real feeling for the game

[ohmelads]

There's still an expectation though that the team isn't, and won't ever be good enough, and this is part of the problem.  These people are saying that the English should take on the characteristics of Brazil, Argentina, Italy, etc because they're better teams, and that doesn't sound daft to me. It seems like people assume that England is rubbish and only gets through because of passionate and hardworking performances, or they acknowledge that this is the way of English performances and its simply bad luck that England can't win a tournament.  I think you'll find that nations who win tournaments do so because of certain characteristics that they develop, not that come naturally.  In the end, most everyone just excepts English performances as they are, rather than trying to figure out how to improve them.

 

And to suggest that the Greece win in the European Championships was anything but a fluke is pretty foolish. 

 

When you say 'take on the characteristics of Brazil, Argentina, Italy etc' - which one? Or do you mean we copy all of them? Italy have always played the way they do. Likewise Brazil. Likewise Argentina. Likewise England. Italy won WC 2006 with their 'catenaccio' football conceding just two goals in the tournament - how typically Italian is that? That's just the way football is played in those countries, and I think a great many factors are to do with it from the weather to the attitudes to the culture - football is an expressive sport.

 

Certainly lessons can be learned in youth development, and habits can be taught, but the main disagreement I have about that article is that it focuses almost entirely on individual development when football is essentially a team game. I don't think England has a problem producing good footballers, we've got more than the vast majority of countries and can line up 11 top class footballers - yet as a team the sum is smaller than the parts - they underachieve. Looking at the individuals isn't the answer IMO, it's the team dynamics.

 

Holland and Spain aren't poor footballing nations, but Spain have never made it past the quarter finals in a world cup, Holland have never won anything at all. Players like Ruud Van Nistelrooy and Puyol lift league titles and Champions Leagues with their clubs yet at international level they never get close to winning anything. If we need to copy the Italians or Brazilians at anything it's how their teams play the game, not how they develop the individuals.

[WarrenBartonCentrePartin]

"The Galaxy" are like a pub team apparantly.  Got beat off Mexican side, Tigres.

 

Beckham looked "horrified"....

 

 

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007330371,00.html

[BlufPurdi]

Good. 

[Guest fatshaft]

 

Holland and Spain aren't poor footballing nations, but Spain have never made it past the quarter finals in a world cup, Holland have never won anything at all. Players like Ruud Van Nistelrooy and Puyol lift league titles and Champions Leagues with their clubs yet at international level they never get close to winning anything.

Apart from a couple of European Championships?

[merlin]

I just wish everyone would forget about Beckham AND his ridiculous wife - if ever we needed someone NOT to represent English Football its him (AND her).

Most overrated England Captain of all time in my opinion, would not even have got into 66 side if he had been available then.

Would never have attained the number of caps he has if ;

a) Someone other than Eriksson had been manager

b)There had been a greater choice of English players

 

Should never have played in 2004 Euro Champs - was a disgrace.

 

I bet the Yanks soon suss them both out...

[ohmelads]

 

Holland and Spain aren't poor footballing nations, but Spain have never made it past the quarter finals in a world cup, Holland have never won anything at all. Players like Ruud Van Nistelrooy and Puyol lift league titles and Champions Leagues with their clubs yet at international level they never get close to winning anything.

Apart from a couple of European Championships?

 

Just checked it seems we're both wrong, they won it once in 1988, but then so did Denmark in 1992 and Greece in 2006. My point is that teams like Denmark and Greece can win it because of the the way their train their teams, not their individuals.

[Tooj]

 

Holland and Spain aren't poor footballing nations, but Spain have never made it past the quarter finals in a world cup, Holland have never won anything at all. Players like Ruud Van Nistelrooy and Puyol lift league titles and Champions Leagues with their clubs yet at international level they never get close to winning anything.

Apart from a couple of European Championships?

 

Just checked it seems we're both wrong, they won it once in 1988, but then so did Denmark in 1992 and Greece in 2006. My point is that teams like Denmark and Greece can win it because of the the way their train their teams, not their individuals.

 

Denmark's team in Euro '92 despite not initially qualifying had some truly brilliant players.

[ohmelads]

Denmark's team in Euro '92 despite not initially qualifying had some truly brilliant players.

 

England have players like Terry, Ferdinand, Gerrard, J.Cole, Rooney, Owen, so I don't think individuals are our problem. Personally I think a manager like Scolari could get us a long way in a knockout competition but we missed the boat there.

[Guest alex]

 

Holland and Spain aren't poor footballing nations, but Spain have never made it past the quarter finals in a world cup, Holland have never won anything at all. Players like Ruud Van Nistelrooy and Puyol lift league titles and Champions Leagues with their clubs yet at international level they never get close to winning anything.

Apart from a couple of European Championships?

 

Just checked it seems we're both wrong, they won it once in 1988, but then so did Denmark in 1992 and Greece in 2006. My point is that teams like Denmark and Greece can win it because of the the way their train their teams, not their individuals.

That goal from Van Basten. Fucking awesome!

[Tooj]

Denmark's team in Euro '92 despite not initially qualifying had some truly brilliant players.

 

England have players like Terry, Ferdinand, Gerrard, J.Cole, Rooney, Owen, so I don't think individuals are our problem. Personally I think a manager like Scolari could get us a long way in a knockout competition but we missed the boat there.

 

But you said Denmark won it because of the way they trained their teams and not individuals.

 

Peter Schmeichel saving Van Basten's penalty was nothing to do with the training though.

 

Michael Laudrup's genius had nothing to do with the way he was trained.

 

Those players you mentioned are all overhyped when you compare them to something like Michael Laudrup's genius.

[ohmelads]

Well there will always be things you can't prepare for. How you line up and play as a team and how you utilise your stars is what it's all about, luck is something else entirely. Anyway I'm sure you get my point by now so I won't go over it again.

[Guest Alan Shearer 9]

There is something about football, the very core of the game which fundamentally is just not American. Think it's the idea of a team.

That doesn't make any sense at all. There are no individual sports that get a higher rating than any of their four main team sports, whereas in this country, we are far more aware of golf, tennis and athletics. We have Football, then a whole lot of simlilarly ranked sports -  rugby, cricket, golf & tennis being probably the next in line.

 

Yeah, it was bullshit. I just can't put my finger on what it is, but something's not quite right with North American football atm.

[Parky]

They've already turned on Beckham apparently.

 

 

My mate who works in Hollywood says you get three parties to make your mark. If you don't cut it the invites start to dry up and no one returns your calls.

[La Parka]

I think the problem with bringing through young players in this country is down to three things

 

1) Matches are about winning not participation. Only a select few kids get to develo pdue to the way most sunday league teams are run

2) Emphasis too soon on 11 v 11. Due to the pitch size in comparison to age this promotes a long ball game. This is also reflected in the lack of emphasis on maintaining possession. Countries which od this well include Brazil/Italy who incidentally use smaller pitches with 5v5/7v7. This promotes a need of good control, vision and creativity and the ability to hold possession in smaller spaces. The game for English young players is based on physicality and the more developed kids get more of a chance. In Italy they don't use a size 5 football until the kids are 14. They don't play 11 v 11 until then either.

3) Tactics. This follows on to much of my previous post. We are totally non versatile and stuck in our ways with regards to tactics. Holland play 4-3-3 throughout their training this leads to the players becoming adept at a number of positions. Our tactics are very much based on physical factors.

 

Just IMO.

[ohmelads]

I think the problem with bringing through young players in this country is down to three things

 

1) Matches are about winning not participation. Only a select few kids get to develo pdue to the way most sunday league teams are run

2) Emphasis too soon on 11 v 11. Due to the pitch size in comparison to age this promotes a long ball game. This is also reflected in the lack of emphasis on maintaining possession. Countries which od this well include Brazil/Italy who incidentally use smaller pitches with 5v5/7v7. This promotes a need of good control, vision and creativity and the ability to hold possession in smaller spaces. The game for English young players is based on physicality and the more developed kids get more of a chance. In Italy they don't use a size 5 football until the kids are 14. They don't play 11 v 11 until then either.

3) Tactics. This follows on to much of my previous post. We are totally non versatile and stuck in our ways with regards to tactics. Holland play 4-3-3 throughout their training this leads to the players becoming adept at a number of positions. Our tactics are very much based on physical factors.

 

Just IMO.

 

Good points. Thing is the clubs are trying to gear their youngsters up for the Premier league - they owe nothing to international football.

 

If you're quick or strong you are more likely to be thrown in and for a good reason. Players like Hugo Viana are simply less likely to cut it if over here. You could give someone like him a runout in the Portuguese league and he'll get time on the ball, bring a young player into the Premiership at that age and he'll struggle. I'd hazard a guess we have more technical players than Alan O'Brien in our reserves, but he got the nod because his pace on occasion meant he might have had an impact on proceedings.

 

We simply can't expect English clubs to train up technical footballers who lack the physical characteristics so important for the Premier League/Championship/League One etc. If Newcastle started bringing through loads of kids who were slow and weak but had great touch and vision, and trained them up playing 5 or 7 a side, they'd probably get murdered when we bring them into the first team. This is why so few Italians/Brazilians have made it playing in the Premier League, and it's probably why English teams are reluctant to train up players who don't have the physical ability to handle the Premiership. There is room for cultured English players like Carrick and Scholes but you've got to be able to handle the pace of the game as well as the football we play in England doesn't lend itself to weak/slow players.

[La Parka]

I think the problem with bringing through young players in this country is down to three things

 

1) Matches are about winning not participation. Only a select few kids get to develo pdue to the way most sunday league teams are run

2) Emphasis too soon on 11 v 11. Due to the pitch size in comparison to age this promotes a long ball game. This is also reflected in the lack of emphasis on maintaining possession. Countries which od this well include Brazil/Italy who incidentally use smaller pitches with 5v5/7v7. This promotes a need of good control, vision and creativity and the ability to hold possession in smaller spaces. The game for English young players is based on physicality and the more developed kids get more of a chance. In Italy they don't use a size 5 football until the kids are 14. They don't play 11 v 11 until then either.

3) Tactics. This follows on to much of my previous post. We are totally non versatile and stuck in our ways with regards to tactics. Holland play 4-3-3 throughout their training this leads to the players becoming adept at a number of positions. Our tactics are very much based on physical factors.

 

Just IMO.

 

Good points. Thing is the clubs are trying to gear their youngsters up for the Premier league - they owe nothing to international football.

 

If you're quick or strong you are more likely to be thrown in and for a good reason. Players like Hugo Viana are simply less likely to cut it if over here. You could give someone like him a runout in the Portuguese league and he'll get time on the ball, bring a young player into the Premiership at that age and he'll struggle. I'd hazard a guess we have more technical players than Alan O'Brien in our reserves, but he got the nod because his pace on occasion meant he might have had an impact on proceedings.

 

We simply can't expect English clubs to train up technical footballers who lack the physical characteristics so important for the Premier League/Championship/League One etc. If Newcastle started bringing through loads of kids who were slow and weak but had great touch and vision, and trained them up playing 5 or 7 a side, they'd probably get murdered when we bring them into the first team. This is why so few Italians/Brazilians have made it playing in the Premier League, and it's probably why English teams are reluctant to train up players who don't have the physical ability to handle the Premiership. There is room for cultured English players like Carrick and Scholes but you've got to be able to handle the pace of the game as well as the football we play in England doesn't lend itself to weak/slow players.

 

A prime example of a world class footballer who would have got nowhere over here is Messi. He was a tiny (4 foot 2"? Due to a growth hormone deficiency) when he made it onto the bench for his team in Argentina. Imagine that over here

[Mike]

Anyone watching the friendly? Not actually a bad game, but ESPN has no idea how to broadcast this sport.