|
|
Post by Gregory Stevens on Jul 14, 2018 21:11:13 GMT
Hope you don’t mind me posting this on the rovers forum, but let’s face it, there’s not a lot going on at the moment....
So. It feels to me England underachieve.
The first premise needs some attention. Do we under achieve? We have the largest professional league in the world - 4 professional divisions. We are 65-70 million strong. Does population come into it? I’d argue yes - the countries with multiple wins - Germany, Italy, Brazil, Argentina. Us. Looking at this dynamic - historically we aren’t that bad. France have one win as do we . France are actually a larger country.
Why do we think we underachieve? I think this is because a/ we invented the game and b/ we are the spiritual home and the most popular league on earth.
We had had teams “on paper” a few times recently who should have done a LOT better.
Some blame it on the press. Have you seen the foreign press? The Italian press? No better than ours.
Is it the way we train players - possibly. We do play on wet, tough pitches and tend to favour tenacity and strength over skill. I doubt Messi and Iniesta would have made the grade in a UK system.
One theory I gave credence to is the foreign nature of the prem. let’s be honest, the 20 prem teams have 220 players starting games. If only 50 of these are British, it doesn’t take a genius to work out we have a smaller pool to choose from - as opposed to the prem as I remember it back when it started when it was more like 200/220 players who were brits.
However, we failed to qualify on several occasions when our good old league was filled with good old brits. So I can see the hole in my own theory.
One little conspiracy threory I half believe in - the rules.
Northern European teams are de facto bigger and stronger than a lot of teams out there. Football has changed, through FIFA mainly, away from physicality towards skill and speed. A lot of the supreme Spanish team would have been bashed off the ball in the old days. Our version of football was honest Graft and aggression. Not diving and simulation. The current rules favour smaller players and physicality is less of an disadvantage which puts the African and European teams at an advantage in favour of latin, med and far eastern teams (note the emergence of a Korea and Japan - teams who would have just been bullied off the park in the old days). I’m not saying thjs is wrong- the football is better and it makes for a more even gane, but it didn’t help British football.
I’ve not really got a solution other than looking at what other countries do and copy them.
We have the biggest pool, pro rata, of any nation. More clubs, even out 5th league is semi pro and having seen a Hungarian 1st div game, I can say conference teams would give them a game.
So, thanks for listening to my rantings but I’m more interested in YOUR opinions as to why England under achieve, or do you disageee we do, and we just expect too much?
Over to you!
|
|
axegas
Joined: November 2015
Posts: 222 
|
Post by axegas on Jul 14, 2018 21:49:50 GMT
Hope you don’t mind me posting this on the rovers forum, but let’s face it, there’s not a lot going on at the moment.... So. It feels to me England underachieve.The first premise needs some attention. Do we under achieve? We have the largest professional league in the world - 4 professional divisions. We are 65-70 million strong. Does population come into it? I’d argue yes - the countries with multiple wins - Germany, Italy, Brazil, Argentina. Us. Looking at this dynamic - historically we aren’t that bad. France have one win as do we . France are actually a larger country. Why do we think we underachieve? I think this is because a/ we invented the game and b/ we are the spiritual home and the most popular league on earth. We had had teams “on paper” a few times recently who should have done a LOT better. Some blame it on the press. Have you seen the foreign press? The Italian press? No better than ours. Is it the way we train players - possibly. We do play on wet, tough pitches and tend to favour tenacity and strength over skill. I doubt Messi and Iniesta would have made the grade in a UK system. One theory I gave credence to is the foreign nature of the prem. let’s be honest, the 20 prem teams have 220 players starting games. If only 50 of these are British, it doesn’t take a genius to work out we have a smaller pool to choose from - as opposed to the prem as I remember it back when it started when it was more like 200/220 players who were brits. However, we failed to qualify on several occasions when our good old league was filled with good old brits. So I can see the hole in my own theory. One little conspiracy threory I half believe in - the rules. Northern European teams are de facto bigger and stronger than a lot of teams out there. Football has changed, through FIFA mainly, away from physicality towards skill and speed. A lot of the supreme Spanish team would have been bashed off the ball in the old days. Our version of football was honest Graft and aggression. Not diving and simulation. The current rules favour smaller players and physicality is less of an disadvantage which puts the African and European teams at an advantage in favour of latin, med and far eastern teams (note the emergence of a Korea and Japan - teams who would have just been bullied off the park in the old days). I’m not saying thjs is wrong- the football is better and it makes for a more even gane, but it didn’t help British football. I’ve not really got a solution other than looking at what other countries do and copy them. We have the biggest pool, pro rata, of any nation. More clubs, even out 5th league is semi pro and having seen a Hungarian 1st div game, I can say conference teams would give them a game. So, thanks for listening to my rantings but I’m more interested in YOUR opinions as to why England under achieve, or do you disageee we do, and we just expect too much? Over to you! Disappointing performances against Belgium and Croatia but if you are referring to this World Cup then in my mind we definitely haven't underachieved. Many decent teams came into the tournament and to come out with 4th place is creditable if a little disappointing given the context of things. Before that in the last 10-15 years I think we underachieved due to the "Golden generation" playing as individuals, the persistence to play the fruitless Gerrard-Lampard combination and overlook people like Scholes and Carrick as well as the pitifully low amount of minutes that English youngsters get in the premier league which makes it harder for young English talent to adapt to the rigours of international football. Ridiculously high expectations going into every tournament and Rooney's goal drought on the big stage didn't help things either. Going into this tournament, we had a much younger and more hungrier team which had lower expectations than usual and who were playing in the premier league week in week our. New names emerging such as Maguire, Trippier and Pickford was genuinely refreshing to see rather than seeing established stars flop as had become the norm with England previously. We've got a lot better at set pieces too which is something I like about this current squad. It was ultimately the squads youthfulness that cost us towards the end of the tournament as well as not having a midfielder who could unlock defences as France and Croatia had with Pogba and Modric respectively but the promising signs are there for England, think what this squad can do in 4 years with a bit of experience under it's belts and hopefully supplemented by more English talent. I think some forget that this was the first world cup for many of the players. Your comment about Iniesta and Messi not making the grade in English football is interesting. I'd agree that English clubs do have a tendency to remove the small and the weak players from their books before they had a chance to develop. Tyrone Mings was an example of this, it never really worked out for him at Southampton or Rovers due to his height so he was forced to develop in non league football before he grew into being quite a tall chap and attracted the interest of Ipswich. I think Messi would of succeeded due to the wonderful natural ability that he possessed growing up but Iniesta I'm not so sure about. I don't think population is too much of a factor as international football has shown recently with Belgium having a fantastic array of players yet only being a country of 11m people and Croatia having 4m but getting to the final and possessing two of the best midfielders around at the moment in Modric and Rakitic. It's how you find players, cultivate them, get them playing in the best leagues in Europe and manage them as a squad that ultimately determines how well a country does in the International stage. I'd back Iceland to beat both the USA and China and there is not many fields where you can say that! |
|
|
|
Post by Gregory Stevens on Jul 15, 2018 6:35:45 GMT
Hope you don’t mind me posting this on the rovers forum, but let’s face it, there’s not a lot going on at the moment.... So. It feels to me England underachieve.The first premise needs some attention. Do we under achieve? We have the largest professional league in the world - 4 professional divisions. We are 65-70 million strong. Does population come into it? I’d argue yes - the countries with multiple wins - Germany, Italy, Brazil, Argentina. Us. Looking at this dynamic - historically we aren’t that bad. France have one win as do we . France are actually a larger country. Why do we think we underachieve? I think this is because a/ we invented the game and b/ we are the spiritual home and the most popular league on earth. We had had teams “on paper” a few times recently who should have done a LOT better. Some blame it on the press. Have you seen the foreign press? The Italian press? No better than ours. Is it the way we train players - possibly. We do play on wet, tough pitches and tend to favour tenacity and strength over skill. I doubt Messi and Iniesta would have made the grade in a UK system. One theory I gave credence to is the foreign nature of the prem. let’s be honest, the 20 prem teams have 220 players starting games. If only 50 of these are British, it doesn’t take a genius to work out we have a smaller pool to choose from - as opposed to the prem as I remember it back when it started when it was more like 200/220 players who were brits. However, we failed to qualify on several occasions when our good old league was filled with good old brits. So I can see the hole in my own theory. One little conspiracy threory I half believe in - the rules. Northern European teams are de facto bigger and stronger than a lot of teams out there. Football has changed, through FIFA mainly, away from physicality towards skill and speed. A lot of the supreme Spanish team would have been bashed off the ball in the old days. Our version of football was honest Graft and aggression. Not diving and simulation. The current rules favour smaller players and physicality is less of an disadvantage which puts the African and European teams at an advantage in favour of latin, med and far eastern teams (note the emergence of a Korea and Japan - teams who would have just been bullied off the park in the old days). I’m not saying thjs is wrong- the football is better and it makes for a more even gane, but it didn’t help British football. I’ve not really got a solution other than looking at what other countries do and copy them. We have the biggest pool, pro rata, of any nation. More clubs, even out 5th league is semi pro and having seen a Hungarian 1st div game, I can say conference teams would give them a game. So, thanks for listening to my rantings but I’m more interested in YOUR opinions as to why England under achieve, or do you disageee we do, and we just expect too much? Over to you! Disappointing performances against Belgium and Croatia but if you are referring to this World Cup then in my mind we definitely haven't underachieved. Many decent teams came into the tournament and to come out with 4th place is creditable if a little disappointing given the context of things. Before that in the last 10-15 years I think we underachieved due to the "Golden generation" playing as individuals, the persistence to play the fruitless Gerrard-Lampard combination and overlook people like Scholes and Carrick as well as the pitifully low amount of minutes that English youngsters get in the premier league which makes it harder for young English talent to adapt to the rigours of international football. Ridiculously high expectations going into every tournament and Rooney's goal drought on the big stage didn't help things either. Going into this tournament, we had a much younger and more hungrier team which had lower expectations than usual and who were playing in the premier league week in week our. New names emerging such as Maguire, Trippier and Pickford was genuinely refreshing to see rather than seeing established stars flop as had become the norm with England previously. We've got a lot better at set pieces too which is something I like about this current squad. It was ultimately the squads youthfulness that cost us towards the end of the tournament as well as not having a midfielder who could unlock defences as France and Croatia had with Pogba and Modric respectively but the promising signs are there for England, think what this squad can do in 4 years with a bit of experience under it's belts and hopefully supplemented by more English talent. I think some forget that this was the first world cup for many of the players. Your comment about Iniesta and Messi not making the grade in English football is interesting. I'd agree that English clubs do have a tendency to remove the small and the weak players from their books before they had a chance to develop. Tyrone Mings was an example of this, it never really worked out for him at Southampton or Rovers due to his height so he was forced to develop in non league football before he grew into being quite a tall chap and attracted the interest of Ipswich. I think Messi would of succeeded due to the wonderful natural ability that he possessed growing up but Iniesta I'm not so sure about. I don't think population is too much of a factor as international football has shown recently with Belgium having a fantastic array of players yet only being a country of 11m people and Croatia having 4m but getting to the final and possessing two of the best midfielders around at the moment in Modric and Rakitic. It's how you find players, cultivate them, get them playing in the best leagues in Europe and manage them as a squad that ultimately determines how well a country does in the International stage. I'd back Iceland to beat both the USA and China and there is not many fields where you can say that! Great post. I’d agree with Carrick and Scholes but also Owen Hargreaves. A lot of managers/fans don’t get what this type of player does to the shape of the team. As for your comments re a creative MF....we concurred watching a game recently that “this squad needs Gazza”. Ok, so EVERY squad needs a Gazza. There’s not a team anywhere who wouldn’t benefit from Gazza who I rank in the top ten, without question, of quality footballers. Didn’t achieve as much as others but if Zidane is there, Gazza should be, as he had everything in his locker He did, just not the application, support and mental strength. God I miss Gazza, that was a player we produced who was more than world class. Anyway, misty memories aside I’m starting to ageee with you that England are not really underachieving. We’re probablly due another WC or Euro but 4th ain’t bad I truly hope Croatia stuff France. I despise France, got to be honest, in a jokey way. Still remember the 98 final when one part of “team France” kept the Brazil team awake all night. That was a superb Brazil team and I remember everyone being dumbstruck as to how poor they were. |
|
topman
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 187
|
Post by topman on Jul 15, 2018 21:37:21 GMT
I was 13 when we won the World Cup in 1966
Since then I have lost track of the amount of promises of future golden generations /we can win nexta competition etc etc all fuelled by the media and pundits
This cup has been no different ... flatter to deceive
Only beat lowered ranked teams coming up short when it mattered
The fact that there is 70% of foreign players in the premier league does not help
More critically we have a very large population .. 61 million .. Croatia 4 million so how poor must our coaching be?
|
|
warehamgas
Predictions League
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,558
|
Post by warehamgas on Jul 16, 2018 7:26:41 GMT
Lots of good points. But if Kane or anyone had scored a second against Croatia in the first half when we were on top and should have scored again we would have been saying very different things. If the second goal went in we have different pundit opinions and different back pages. But we didn’t so it’s a different result and story. Very fine margins.
UTG!
|
|
|
|
Post by Wreckless on Jul 16, 2018 7:35:50 GMT
If you want to get a broader take on this, I recommend the book "Why England Lose" by Kuper and Szymanski.
It combines perspectives from a Sports Economist and a Football Writer.
It's almost 10 years old now, but I'm thinking not much has changed.
It sounds a bit dry, but it's a great read.
It'll stop you getting too carried away in advance of 2020/2022!
|
|
|
|
Post by chelt_gas on Jul 16, 2018 13:01:00 GMT
Mentality. Too many of our players still come across as dopey and unaware. We need to culture our players away from headphones and brands to more self awareness and thought.
|
|
|
|
Post by DudeLebowski on Jul 16, 2018 18:08:33 GMT
Lots of good points. But if Kane or anyone had scored a second against Croatia in the first half when we were on top and should have scored again we would have been saying very different things. If the second goal went in we have different pundit opinions and different back pages. But we didn’t so it’s a different result and story. Very fine margins. UTG! It’s amazing what the toe of a keepers boot and the width of a post, can do to your standard Football schizo! |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2018 18:38:59 GMT
Great post wish I had the answer. In the end England were pretty woeful in my opinion, passing the ball to the goalkeeper and then him treating it like a hot potato and invariably kicking it straight back to the opposition. Other teams when the ball is passed back to the goalkeeper always have an option to pass to a defender and therefore retain possession. This to me is one example of why we struggle those tactics must surely come from the manager.I always here the older generation saying why play the ball sideways, it's obviously to retain possession unlike the goalie hoofing it. I was all for playing the kids if you're good enough then you're old enough in my book. But ultimately it seems that was there downfall with no past experience to fall back on in the end they just withered on the vine. As for France winning the world cup that to most gasheads is like the s*** winning the FA cup and it hurts.
|
|
dido
Predictions League
Peter Aitken
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,883
|
Post by dido on Jul 16, 2018 19:22:02 GMT
Speaking for "most gasheads", now, deggy?
The breadth of your knowledge is awesome.
|
|
warehamgas
Predictions League
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,558
|
Post by warehamgas on Jul 16, 2018 20:43:39 GMT
Great post wish I had the answer. In the end England were pretty woeful in my opinion, passing the ball to the goalkeeper and then him treating it like a hot potato and invariably kicking it straight back to the opposition. Other teams when the ball is passed back to the goalkeeper always have an option to pass to a defender and therefore retain possession. This to me is one example of why we struggle those tactics must surely come from the manager.I always here the older generation saying why play the ball sideways, it's obviously to retain possession unlike the goalie hoofing it. I was all for playing the kids if you're good enough then you're old enough in my book. But ultimately it seems that was there downfall with no past experience to fall back on in the end they just withered on the vine. As for France winning the world cup that to most gasheads is like the s*** winning the FA cup and it hurts. Think you were watching different games from me over the past few weeks. Not sure that “most gasheads” see France winning as anything like the s*** winning the FACup. Perhaps for some but.... I was hoping France would win yesterday but that was personal preference, not sure there would have been a gas preference at all. UTG! |
|
