Discussion in 'Soccer' started by Denzil, Jun 29, 2016.
Yeah, not really..
People who say that England has weak players really are not looking at the lineup objectively. England has the best league in the world, and while there are many international players, it still stands to reason that playing in the best league in the world would produce amazing talent and players.
It's an internal team issue, not a player issue. Compare the German lineup to the England lineup and player by player I'd take England over them. However, Germany is a much better team and is managed a lot better.
Well one thing you can notice right away only by watching is that pretty much all the players were misused.Harry Kane does his damage in the box.He has no business taking free kicks from 40 yards out like he is Lionel Messi.Dele Alli who was lethal with Kane this year in Tottenham wasn't used in an attacking position.Sturridge a lethal striker was positioned too far from the net.We could go on and on.
Err no.Except for the striking position, the German defense and midfield is way better than anything that England can throw out there.
No. No. No. No. No. Noooooooooooooo
Im sorry but that is ludicrous
Talks like he's Pep, coaches like he's Sam Allardyce
EPL is not the best league and it doesn't produce talents, it pillages other countries'.
Academies don't have anything to do with the quality of the league (see Brazil, Argentina, Portugal, Holland). It has to do with academies and youth organisations, period.
Other than one of England's strikers over Gomez I can't think of a single one.
The thing is, England's perpetual disappointment when you see teams with lesser players either advancing far in these tournaments or winning them is only down to coaching. Especially when you see what teams like Chile, Colombia, Iceland, Costa Rica, and Poland have been able to do in tournaments of late. Those teams have either one or two world class players or even less than that. But they know exactly how they intend to play and are able to get results that England can't even replicate. The US and Mexico have also performed better in the last two WC's than England, what sense does that make?
Anyway, if Italy can get deep in these tournaments without players that everyone rates super highly, England can too. They just don't have anyone in charge who knows how.
I'll quote myself from another thread to answer this thread's question :
1: almost all talented children from all over Croatia are concentrated at 2 clubs. (Dinamo and Hajduk)
-> you only need a few good youth coaches
-> faster development, because they have a lot of talented fellow players
-> playing with their teammates together in the youth national teams
2: players will be thrown into the first team very early.
-> you can let them play in the league because the league is weak
-> and their salaries are low
Just look at Nikola Vlasic(brother of Blanka Vlasic). He is 18 years old and already played 2 full seasons HNL+Euroleague-Q.
3: players will be sold early because the clubs can't survive without transfer fees
-> they learn new game styles
-> their previous successes aren't valid any more. they have to show it a second time
That's the only good thing abut the HNL (Croatian league) is that guys as young as 17-18 are playing regularly every week against grown professionals, if we can call them that in some cases
I also think English players need to be more open going abroad, though they might take a hit in wages and with them possibly exiting the EU (don't know when that officially starts) it will be harder for them with some leagues having non-EU rules such as Spain and ITaly
Oh boy. England has the best league in the World? Well Sky does do a nice broadcast of La Liga, so yes, they do have it on the telly.
The England players I'd take over Germany's are very few. Not only does the German team have better players at almost every position and on the bench, in some cases it's not even close. What comparable players by position do England have that can even touch the likes of Kroos, Boateng, Hummels, Neuer, Muller or Ozil?
The issue has to do with a failure of developing talented creative players who can create. England hasn't hasn't had a legit playmaker since Gazza.
The issue runs deep beginning with failures to identify techinical players because the English mentality is to choose the physical player.
The fact that 6'3 Harry Kane is taking set pieces for the NT should tell you all you need to know about England.
After the game the other night on ITV, Lee Dixon was bemoaning sticking with the same players and not playing people who're in form. Mark Noble, Danny Drinkwater not in the team: Jack Wilshere in. Compare their 15/16 seasons, you wonder why.
Hey, I was going to post a lot of words and here's someone effectively making my argument for me. Everything you said is completely wrong and in fact forms the basis of a mass English delusion that's existed since they invented football in 1992.
Why is the Premier League the most popular topic of discussion on this board? A board made up mainly of North Americans with a few mainland Europeans thrown in? It's marketed. It's shown in North America and given comprehensive advertising budgets to do so. When the Premier League started in 1992 it was broadly the same, Sky started showing it, they charged people to see it, they made a fortune. Since then, the money has only gone up.
With it has gone the advertising and the need to continue to sell it to people (note: football generally does quite well of its own accord, with the people who live in the towns and cities football teams come from. They know it exists) as the world has shrunk and the internet and streaming has come in. North American markets have emerged. Asian markets have emerged. All of these contain people who want to spend money to watch the Premier League.
This money in turn does two things. It makes Premier League teams want to maintain their Premier League status because of the money it brings them in. Some have been and are bought by extremely rich businessmen with a view to making money in the aforementioned market. Ask anyone with any experience and they'll tell you you can't make money from a football club. With the amount of money Premier League clubs are able to generate and the subsequent devaluing of their own transfer funds in the global market the amount of money you actually need to put into one yourself is diminishing. Roman Abramovich is a billionaire. He was a billionaire when he bought Chelsea. He's probably put close to a billion pounds into Chelsea in the 13 years he's been in charge in transfer fees alone - you'll see in the news they're signing some 20 year old Belgian boy for 40 million. They're making these signings because it will generate money. It'll generate money in merchandising, it'll generate money in prize money, in stature they can take to sponsors and draw more money from that way.
The other effect money has on the Premier League is to those who are not in the Premier League. It becomes the sole focus for non Premier League clubs. Second tier clubs are bought for increasingly baffling sums, increasing money is spent on wages and transfer fees there. I vaguely recall seeing that in fees and wages it's somewhere in the top ten in Europe. The focus of these clubs' owners and managers is to get promoted. To get the Premier League money. That is all. All of these clubs exist as a means of generating and perpetuating wealth for the people who own them. This exists to varying degrees of success, for every Bournemouth there's a Blackburn.
What effect does all this have on the England national team? Well, it's an effect that is the ultimate responsibility of all clubs at every stage of the league set-up. Their focus isn't to produce good English players. Their focus is to buy the best players. It's the best players who are marketed as the stars, who are talked of in terms of being the draw to all those advertisers and all those watching eyes the world over. While there is undeniable quality in the Premier League, ask someone who the best players in it are and they'll tell you foreign players who are not English, who were not trained and developed in England, who are the focus of the wealth which is what runs the game.
Even for what young English players there are filled with potential, how can they honestly be expected to succeed in an environment like I've described? They can grow up at a football club with the best modern facilities and treatment and coaching available, that's great. They can learn every day from some of the best players in the world who themselves bring together experiences of football from all over the globe. That's surely unquestionable, and I've no doubt it is a boon to these players. The problem is that this cannot in any way create a mentality among young English players that anything is worth doing. Being Scottish you read stories of players who were at Celtic or Rangers until they were 19 or 20. How they went in and trained with these great players in these great surroundings every day. How they got one sub appearance in the league cup before being released on a free and signing for Stranraer or some other godforsaken hellhole and realising that things are very, very different in the real world. If that's in the relatively meagre surroundings of Scotland, how is an 18 year old English boy coming through at Chelsea or Man City supposed to concentrate on improving themselves as a footballer when they're being paid a minimum of a four-figure sum every week?
With every English failure at a tournament there seems to be the inevitable talk of national inquiries and schemes and programs and the like to rectify it and trying to implement another of these now would be a waste trampling over anything that's come before it before it's had a chance to work. I think there are issues within English league football that are largely unsolvable with regard to the English players it produces. If there's a crash in the money of the Premier League somehow then there's a chance but until then, I don't see any way for what I've described to change.
Now, if you want to discuss why England failed on this occasion, well that's very simple. Its simplicity is matched only by the sheer volume of reasons. They were led by someone patently out of his depth. The day after the game Hodgson had to come out and give another press conference and seemed affronted at the concept. "I thought my statement covered everything," he said, apparently unaware that it had the air of being prepared well in advance of knowing who their opponents would be in that game even.
Being led by Hodgson in this way has a trickledown effect which crops up in other areas. I've no doubt that the England players underestimated Iceland. Their entire ****ing country did. Discussing Hart's mistake at halftime, the punditry chat is "will he be dropped for the quarter-final?" The expectation, the arrogance, call it what you will, I don't doubt there was a sense of having to turn up being all that was required. You only had to look in the opposite dugout to see the value of proper preparation starting from the top down.
How does that manifest itself on the pitch? Players couldn't pass five yards in a straight line. Players were played out of position. Players looked unable to have any ideas of how to break Iceland down. Their goal was a penalty from a relatively long ball at the start of the game. The only other hope of incision they seemed to have was in the last five minutes when Rashford came on who had the idea of taking the ball and running into the Iceland box with it. He played with a youthful instinctiveness that said a direct approach was needed - not one other player in that team wanted to do that at any point in the match.
You could view their cavalcade of failure over the years individually and examine the reasons for their failure and you'd come up with a different one every time but consider last night - where was the leadership on that pitch? Where was the initiative, the player or players to say: This has to change. I need to something to change this. Alli, Kane, Dier, they're playing at their first major tournament. You can excuse them, even if their international performances aren't on par with their club performances (and even if those three and Walker/Rose can't hide behind the foreigners on their club team argument). What about Rooney, shoehorned into the team in midfield because he can't run? Hopeless. The captain, unable to inspire any sort of performance in either himself or his teammates. I think it was the first game of the World Cup in 2014, Rooney started on the left and Sterling was in the middle. They played badly because Rooney kept trying to cut in and play more centrally. They come out after half time and Rooney's in the middle and Sterling on the left - the commentary hails the tactical genius of Hodsgon with the air of Mr. Burns boasting because he told Strawberry to hit a home run. Wayne Rooney's paid 300 g rand a week and Sterling's built a reputation on the back of picking up the scraps of someone much better than he is doing what he wants - is there not one part of these peoples' heads that says "I will try something different?" No. Because for their clubs, they don't have to. Because the money makes everything better. Where is someone to go up to Harry Kane and tell him to stop taking free kicks? Nowhere.
I will say also, I think HadjukSplit touched on this, there's no hope for the coaching either. I'll give you a taste of ITV's coverage from Monday night:
Second goal goes in. Glenn Hoddle (sacked as England coach because he said disabled people are punished for sins in a past life) bemoans the fact that the goal came from a long throw. "It's from the 80s," he says, "you don't get those in the Premier League any more, the players don't know how to defend them." He said this with the petulance you might expect from someone in his position, or perhaps his brain was just rebelling because it had momentarily forgotten that Rory Delap exists. Either way, you get to half time and Lee Dixon's going over the goal. "Gary Neville is a good coach," he says, "they'll have worked and worked on this in training, these players should know who they're picking up - why is Rooney covering the runner?" he asks as Rooney stands still while the first ball is won by some huge Icelandic boy before Walker falls down when Sigthorsson scores.
Ally this with the fact that Ian Wright was in the same studio being remarkably sensible and reserved by his standards and also there was Peter Crouch apparently representing the ignorance of every other English person, you're sat wondering how there can be any hope when you've got all this analysis of what's going on and different people are saying different things.
Then the game finishes and Hodgson chucks it. Gary "Great Coach" Neville goes with him, presumably eliminating him from potentially taking over the job. And hey he's a great coach, he has this pretension of intelligence because he can go on Sky and use a computer, he presided over this shambles. Oh and ask Valencia (since renamed from Gary Neville's Valencia) fans what they think of him as a manager. A list of favourites goes up for the manager's job, Gareth Southgate's name tops the list. Great Coach. Of course he is. Utterly smacked about in his most notable encounter with non-English opposition, but still a Great Coach. Steve McClaren is a Great Coach, he still manages to get employed as a manager. You wonder how long it will take them to figure it out.
It seems though that a role in the England set-up is the only chance a young English coach has a chance of staying for a few years and being able to hone any skills with any sense of stability. Look at the names mentioned for the job. Look at the English names. It's grim reading. Eddie Howe and Garry Monk are the only two under forty who don't have the stink of failure from somewhere on them. Glenn Hoddle's been tipped by everyone's favourite Sky exponent Arry Redknapp (he now of international experience with two games in charge of Jordan, tax free (allegedly (probably))), Glenn Hoddle doesn't think teams should defend trifling things like throw-ins. That's who the English football people seem to think is a viable candidate - much like the player watching 40 million come in from Spain or Brazil wonder why he should bother trying to play for his club, why should a coach or a young manager think they can ever achieve anything when so many are brought in by all those rich clubs and owners I've mentioned? If one does get through, why bother with the hassle of trying to sort out the England team when you can stick with the funny money of the Premier League?
With that said, it's Big Sam's to lose. I want him to get it so badly.
I'll give you one last British TV anecdote to tie all this together. With the BBC highlights after the game broadly resembling a wake with Gary Lineker, Alan Shearer, Rio Ferdinand and Jermaine Jenas in attendance, Shearer let rip at everything with the air of someone forgetting Newcastle United exist. It was unparalleled. His seethe was so off the charts he took a potshot at the FA, saying he offered to take up some sort of coaching role (I refuse to believe I heard him emptying the pram at being turned down for England manager given his record). Flailing, clueless, nonsense. It's okay though, the show finished with a collective giggle at Antonio Conte trying to mount his dugout. What a character he'll be in the Premier League, eh lads? He'll spend a lot of Roman Abramovich's money too.
There aren't any, striker aside. I'd say it was a bizarre thing to say in the first place, but it's amazing what can happen when marketing and exposure is the primary basis for forming your opinion of something.
That isn't a pointed criticism at anyone on here or elsewhere, but it's symptomatic of the delusion that exists around English football which creates the impression English players are better than they are.
I think a couple of them are borderline, but it could go either way. Even on the bench though it's bad. Anyway, you're spot on (in both posts, and I rather enjoyed the longer post) about the marketing and exposure. I remember when I was exposed only to the Premiership when it came to Europe's big leagues back in the 90s. In fact I was living in London when BarÃ§a crushed United 4-0 at the Camp Nou. I wasn't a BarÃ§a supporter at the time and I expressed my shock at the result. My French friends at the time told me it shouldn't be a shock at all. Thing was I wasn't exposed to anything but the Premiership and the Eredivisie at that time. Today though it's much easier to get exposure to a number of leagues, even at no cost. To your point though, I can't believe what I read sometimes.
Kind of to your previous post, I watched some of the match against Iceland and I just kept shaking my head at the Darke/McManaman commentary. Sure the result is historic for Iceland, but it shouldn't be some major shock. They got their group without a loss and finished ahead of Portuglal. And it's not like their squad are all guys who just place back home in Iceland. What's more though is how great the English players must be or should be. Sure they put in a poor performance and there are plenty of questionable decisions like Kane taking the freekicks, but this still isn't a top tier side even on paper. I think Evilo mentioned this, they do have some talented younger guys who could be top players, but they may not be as well. And as I think someone else mentioned, they're behind other top NTs when it comes to technical and creative players. Anyway, Darke and McManaman made it out like it was Guatemala beating Germany in a World Cup Final when it wasn't even close to that.
*looks pointedly at camera*
They don't suck. They just don't live up to the hype. England usually always make the World Cup & Euro Cup. They are a good side. The media always blow them up although I feel for Euro 16' the fans didn't expect much but they did expect to beat Iceland. I strongly believe a better manager would have put in more experience into this team. Perhaps a Michael Carrick in midfield or a Defoe up front or Baines in the back would have went a long way. I'm not suggesting they are better players than who RH took to the Euros but they definitely have big game experience and tournament experience which goes a long way.
damn VDB is really overpaid tbh
Very well said Evilo.
Another point I have to add is that the system England plays does not match the talent. Roy is adamant about playing a 4-3-3 yet he doesn't bring any true wingers except for Sterling (who is an awful soccer player and should be nowhere near this squad). Your best players are Vardy, Sturridge, Kane and Del Alli. He needed to play a 2-striker formation but unfortunately, he is not dynamic enough of a coach to implement such a system. During qualifying, he used the same 4-3-3 and the 4-2-3-1 (awful formation unless you have the right personal to play in it; see: Germany, Poland etc) and they rolled through lesser teams. He did the same in friendlies. Once the big tournament comes along, he has nothing to fall back on when teams are actually prepared to play against them.
England need a coach to take the team by the horns and implement a system where he will get the best out of the players he has. Look at Conte. He played different formations throughout qualifying (3-5-2, 4-4-2, 4-2-4, 4-3-3 etc) and is able to change it mid game. His 3-5-2 turned into a 4-2-4, early in the Spain game and that was the difference. He even had to leave a great talent in Franco Vazquez at home because he didn't fit with his philosophy. His players are taught to play "total football" and if they can't, stay home. In friendlies, he played lesser players and tried different things out. Against Belgium, he went with a 4-2-4 and it was an open game, with Italy losing 3-1, but I believe this was key to beating them in that first group game as Wilmots could not adjust to the less open game play and better players.
Once England get a good NT manager and the FA stay out of his way, they will be much better. Roy seems to just pick his lineup and say "have fun lads". I don't think they have the talent in key positions to ever win but that's where luck comes in.
I'm sorry but this is laughable. I don't comment on this board much anymore but I do enjoy reading it as there are some very insightful people on it, but this Italy "doesn't have talent diatribe" has got to stop.
England wishes they had 1/2 the talent pool Italy does. They don't.
Italy has arguably the best GK in the world. England doesn't have anybody even close to Buffon. I would say he's rated super highly.
At CB, no English player would come close to usurping a starting position from Bonucci, Chiellini or Barzagli. Bonucci and Chiellini I would consider super talented. Hell, Rugani and Ogbonna could probably fight for a spot on the England bench.
Although I do like Clyne, I don't think any England fullback would start ahead of Florenzi or De Sciglio. Even Maggio (who was left home) would probably make the England team.
In midfield, they might have a chance with this current squad but nobody on England would replace De Rossi or Motta. Let's not forget that Italy are missing their 2 best midfielders (Verratti and Marchisio) as well as Montilivio and Pirlo ( although, admittedly they have seen better days). Verratti is absolutely world class and is one of the top 5 midfiders in the world, IMO. Ask Evilo how much PSG missed him in Champion's League.
On the wing, it's not even close. England does not have a winger better than Candreva, Insigne or Florenzi. El Shaawary would even push for a place.
As far as CF/ST goes, this is where an English player would slot in. Any one of Vardy, Sturridge or Kane might get the nod from me, although guys like Gabbiadini, Giovinco and Pelle would be right there too.
So, no, you are incorrect. England would not push for a place, if you compare talent.
Why is Italy never counted out of these competitions yet at the same time is never given a chance?
Obviously, they have some of the best coaches in the world but they could also be detrimental to their success. (See: Euro 2012 final, Prandelli moves away from the very effective 3-5-2 and opts to play a 4-4-2 )
Much like Spain, Germany, and France, they have an embarrassment of riches, talent wise. The difference is, they don't have those world class players going forward but they do have them on defence. They also have a ton of talented players that you may not consider world class, but could easily make an Italy B team and compete (much like Spain, Germany and France could). When guys like Gabbiadini, Vazquez, Giovinco, Saponara etc are left at home, it does make you wonder. It are very much a plug and play team because of their immense talent pool.
The only reason people are potty mouthing Italy this tournament is because they don't have a stand out player like Totti or Pirlo or Balotelli.
If Marchisio was healthy then maybe folks wouldn't be so quick to judge but even he isn't a "big house hold name" yet
That's a lot of words from a Scot about England. Not that I could find fault with much of it.
English football is not just characterized by a certain arrogance, it's also geared toward the professional game. I think it's actually not dissimilar to how the Canadians in the NHL for a long time (and to some extent to this day) didn't care much about representing Canada as a country. They figured they already knew they were the best and as 'founders' of modern hockey had a monopoly on it, so they could focus on domestic professional competition instead. That's how England quite officially felt until the 50s, today I think it lives on as a subtle current in their mentality.
That's why they're so slow to adapt to modern influences in development, that's why they're so reluctant to sacrifice immediate results for long-term success. Aside from a few weeks in June, they really do deep down care far more about Norwich City or Huddersfield Town getting a result than what happens with the England team. If a midfielder is really good at running hard and scoring screamers from 25 yards out, what is there not to like? Why should they care if he has no understanding of controlling the pace and rhythm of a game given that won't matter in any English league game?
I didn't say Italy don't have talent, although heading into the tournament I was very confused as to how they'd score goals. I also never compared England and Italy's talent pool, and of course Italy has more players who could play a part in their NT and that's clear to see when you compare who was left out of the squad. I said that Italy gets deep in tournaments without super talented players, and in comparison to Spain and Germany I think this is true. The way Prandelli approached Euro 2012 before how he approached his job during the Final and after at WC 2014 and the way Conte approached Euro 2016 as opposed to the way other, less gifted coaches have approached Italy in tournament play shows this pretty well.
Also when talking about super talented players, I'm talking about a Ronaldo, a Messi. The point is that it isn't required to have a squad full of players like that to win a tournament, nor even to have one of them. Italy and England have not had that kind of attacking player. That being said, since you took time to respond I will respond as well.
Yes, that's true. He's not the best in the world anymore imo, but certainly better than England could call up for many generations.
Bonucci is world class and the other two are very good. I don't disagree with this.
I do think he'd start before De Sciglio and that's the first part where we disagree. Clyne should have started period and England suffered because he didn't.
I know full well Italy's midfield is better when fully fit, but with the two squads they brought to the tournament I don't think there's a gigantic difference in terms of players.
I don't think their talent is comparable to those three teams you mentioned though, when everyone is fit. That's where I'd make a comparison and I'm saying that if Italy can go deep in tournaments without absolute top talents in attacking positions, there's no reason any properly coached team with talent equal or lesser than them should not be able to do the same. Spain fielded about 7 or 8 players many people would call world class and were thoroughly outcoached by Conte. That seems to be a regular pattern with Italy. It also seems to happen that the best or second best Italian coach winds up coaching Italy as opposed to who winds up coaching other top national teams. By no standard are Santos, Deschamps, Martino, Low, Hodgson, and del Bosque the best coaches from the nations they're in charge of.
Very good post and I didn't mean to pick on you in particular but rather the overall sentiment on this board.
Just some points I'll touch on.
I can see where you would take Clyne over De Sciglio but, IMO, De Sciglio is very underrated. He's been injured his whole career and he finally has a chance to show why everybody was calling him the "next Maldini". He was MoM in the Spain game, for me. I too was very confused as to why Clyne didn't start.
Fully fit, on paper, yes, Italy may not have the talent like those teams. That's because of the forwards. If Balotelli ever gets his act together (highly unlikely), it will be closer. I wasn't very clear in my post as I meant to speak to the depth of Italy. In most positions, they have 2 or 3 guys that can be plugged right in and be just as effective. This will definitely be tested on Saturday as now they will be down their 4 best midfielders.
The coaching part is a good point but I somewhat disagree. Other than Lippi in 2006, I don't think they've necessarily had the best coach, coaching them. For example, you can argue that Ancelotti is better at this time. Although Conte is amazing which, speaks to their coaching depth.
Hodgson was in charge of Inter Milan during the mid-1990s, but shipped out Carlos who he didnâ€™t think would ever make it in his chosen positionâ€¦
â€œHe told me I would never succeed as a left-back. I told him that he doesnâ€™t understand football,â€ Carlos once said â€“ as reported by a leading Brazilian online journalist.
England has the best "MARKETED" league in the world. Nobody on England would start on Germany. Even at striker, where I'd rather have Muller than any of the English options.
England is not that talented.
Separate names with a comma.