Some say English talent is spurned in favour of foreign imports at an alarming rate that dams its progress more severely than in Spain, Germany, Italy, France etc. Some suggest the corollary i.e. that the fact English talent is spurned at higher rates in favor of foreign players is due to the former not being good enough relative to the domestic talent available to Spanish, German, Italian or French clubs. I think the latter argument hits more of the nail's head. Starting from pre-teen years, English academies are not run smartly or with sufficient integrity, thus they tend to produce footballers of questionable value in the long run, either technically or psychologically speaking. I don't know what the problem is with them, whether they are too happy to accept the parent's cheques and have little stimulus to improve their teaching standards, or whether their staff likes a beer more and a book less than it befits a football coach, or whether their investment focuses on upgrading the turf and bringing in the latest vending machines to the cafeteria rather than on upgrading their organizational structure; however, I have no doubt that the talent they are producing is flawed or mediocre at rates that should alarm a passionate football nation like England. Look at the current national team. It provides a revealing snapshot that has flashed before our disappointed eyes in previous generations as well. It is a picture of stunted development in more ways than one. On one hand, you have the spoilt brats - psychologically challenging, potential-promising raw talents, inclined on vanity, self-satisfaction, complacency and indiscipline: Wilshere, Rooney, Sturridge, Hart, (Sterling), Oxlade, Shaw, Barkley On the other hand, you have the opposite of the above. You have the good ol' mules. They are good, as in not-good-enough. They are psychologically mellow, athletically square, technically predictable, offering no great spark or edge. They may excel in doing a certain type of work but can't be tasked with versatility: Jagielka, Cahill, Milner, Lampard, Welbeck, Henderson, Smalling, Jones, Baines, Lambert. A football team, be it club or national, cannot forge that winning spirit of brotherhood when these two characters are predominant and other characters are totally lacking. Where are the "tigers" (lithe, agressive, technical, decisive), the "bulls" (powerful, physical, uncompromising, passionate), the "lions" (inspirational, unwavering, talismanic, visionary) the "wolves" (ravenous, cynical, wise, merciless)? England's instead full of mules and jackasses and little in between or beyond.
I happen to believe that the taller, more physical player makes it through and the smaller technical one doesn't examples: michael n'goo.. pure power, pure lazy david amoo... i can run fast therefore i never need to look up etc. we value speed, power and strength therefore we make players that are in this mold and the kid at 14 or 16 who's that makes it and the kids who develops later drops out. we then pay kids form 17 on a pro deal more than senior pros in the 1990s were getting on average so they lose hunger very quickly. the example of wisodm at derby planking his Porsche is perfect. you can afford... a PORSCHE... what have you done.. I don't see a terry buthcer, stuart pearce or john terry out there... i don't see a sol campbel or rio ferdinand. I don't see a gazza or even a rdknapp... i CERTAINLY don't see a bergkamp or zola who arrive in england in the 1990s so any kid following their example SHOULD be 20 odd or actually older. How can anyone explain the fact that the most lauded two players out of the 1990s were bergkamp and zola but we produced 15-20 years later hendrosn, and welbeck. in what 25 years of talent like zola coming to the prem not one english equivilant has been produced... it is actually astounding really. The funny thing is if we were making keanes, vierias, gerrards (young) or petits that would be one thing but in actual fact we've made cleverly, henderosn and a few others. I'm being very mean to henderson here but he is the one guy in the england squad in CM really as barkely is more attacking and he's play bad in both group games. I'd not mind but the shearers and linekers are so long ago as well... who do the coaches look up to as what they'd like to make and what kind of f'n players are the kids looking up to!
Very harsh on Henderson.. The poor sod had to cover the defensive work of the entire England centre midfield due to Gerrard's lack of pace. It was said in modern football playing 2 in the centre will get you outnumbered. Roy should of played Gerrard in his new role with 2 additional centre midfielders to cover him defensively, not just hendo. I agree with what is said in your post by the way. But I think our loss was a contribution of other factors. England's obsession to "play wingers" or "go down the wing" is just bollocks. Take Liverpool for example. This year our best formation had the three in the centre of midfield and played with three forwards. We did not use conventional wingers or "wide midfielders". I always find it frustrating that we as a culture prefer to see players like Stuart Downing who run down the wing and lump in aimless crosses in to the box than a player who would cut inside.
We haven't learned jack from how football has evolved. Stuck in the 80s. We probably subject kids to basic athletic tests and award scholarships based on who's the fastest, who's the least winded, who's fiercest in the tackle, and who can cross the best (too real not to be funny). Even if we do try to bring up a real talent - these talents somehow end up with a psychological cog missing and challenged in leadership values. This vulnerability arises I guess from being coddled as "special".... see Rooney, Wilshere, Sturridge, and Owen, Gascoigne, Scholes in the past.
Was going to make a similar joke. For everyone bashing Gerrard, Hendo, Rooney et al - who else could have been included? I would like to see a list of English players that have performed better over the last 12/24 months that could justify starting. There is a reason that the squad was composed of polar opposites new blood and old guard - there is a sparse talent pool from ages 23-29. Our squad contained a lot of players with only a handful of caps between them because they have been rushed to the big stage, there aren't any slightly older, more experienced players that have earned the caps and deserved to be called up.
Not in this country, you can't get to college/uni on a sport scholarship like where you are, it doesn't work like that here. In terms of where the next lot of talent are coming from I think we need to look at the successful nations like Spain and Germany, see how they do it and emulate.
You're right, we are stuck with the mentality that being big and powerful is the be-all-end-all in football. Technically poor as a nation. Academies are too blame, only the little rich kids get a chance, the poorer ones that may be very gifted never get that chance. Hell, it's the same with our Universities after all, rich kids get all the privileges while poor brainy kids will end up in some dead end warehouse somewhere earning minimum wage.
took too long that's the problem, think we cant be arsed to bite the bullet and start from scratch like they did, we want it and we want it now type attitude, not 5 yrs time lol. we should have done this 5 ruddy years ago, then at least by this world cup we may have stood a chance with decent players and manager, but we kept insisting on gerrard and lampard was the way forward also rio and terry, even if neither was on form. think a lot of it is clubs they play for as well, not so much now days admittedly with lalana etc getting a look in but you know what i mean, players picked because of team they play for not if they have played well and deserve an england cap.
Was not being literal about that, but I'm sure that a similar inefficient reward system is in place. A scout or an academy should be looking for the intangibles first, like dedication, game intelligence, willingness to learn, ability to adapt, athletic litheness, ball control, positional sense, etc. It is counter-productive to sort talent by traits that can be developed later, such as physical presence, stamina, courage in the tackle, etc.
It's only been very recently coaches here came around to the notion it was a bad idea playing U12 games on full size pitches... That should tell you all you need to know Liv.
Exactly, how the hell are our youngsters supposed to develop any potential talent playing on full sized pitches? I believe small 5-a-side based games are what we need to go with, get them actually thinking of how to play with the ball instead of lumping everything up the pitch. But we can talk all we like, I fully expect nothing to change between now and Euro 2016, where we will still see the dinosaurs like Stevie "im a liability" Gerrard still in the team.
Lee you are right about two thing Full sized pitches And England being useless at euro You are dead wrong that you'll see Gerrard so leave that one ok... No one ha rising to it and let's keep an actual debate thread in the topic at hand
It is harsh but what other English midfielder is there... Whilshire who is wondering why, but outs no effort in it seems
A few things. Young English players never go and play abroad. They never play or learn different types of football. No surprise the best international teams have players they play throughout the top leagues in different countries. Now is that because the money in England is so good that a player can earn more in championship that top league in Spain France Germany Italy. Hodgson apart how many English coaches have coached or managed abroad and learnt new skills or different ways to play? Young English managers moan about not getting a chance in the Prem well why not try your luck elsewhere? Coaching at a young age has always been based on winning and not development but that's slowly changing I think.
True. It also doesn't help that, as we speak, an academy director in Allardyce mould is talking up and selling players to championship club run by Dave Moyes's brother. They have the same unfortunate concept for 'talent'. Now imagine if an academy run by Brendan Rodgers sold by players to a club run by Pochettino or vice-versa.... Things would change instantaneously for English football. Rodgers alone is responsible for Sterling and Henderson raising their game within a year or two to levels they'd never have achieved with a Moyes or an Allardyce in charge.
You know this country is never going to produce enough talent when premiership clubs are now recruiting foreign kids for their academies. We have plenty of youngsters here in the UK with talent that needs bringing through but most clubs now are foreign owned managed by foreign managers who see no further than foreign players. Until we wake up and smell the coffee and put a cap on the amount of foreign players are allowed at each club and how many they can use in a game then there is no chance of any improvement, there is not enough British talent coming through the system to warrant England and the rest of the home nations to be anything else than also rans making up the numbers...
Bearing in mind football is our national game, every primary and senior school has it on the curriculum and clubs take in youngsters from about 7 years old, you'd think that out of all those thousands of lads, there would be more than the meagre few 'fairly decent' footballers popping up every few generations. Also - talking about scholarships got me thinking, is there any correlation between the sports we are good at as a nation e.g. rugby, cricket and being at better schools or going on to further education? I'm not saying it's to do with intelligence more to do with creating a winning mentality.
There's a reason the British clubs invest in foreign youngsters; they're better. They're developed and coached from even below the U12 ages to be far better technicians than we are. I've said time and time again whenever the British youth/talent topic raises its head that it's completely down to grass roots level and how we're coaching. I still believe that it's the problem. The coaching, facilities and emphasis are all crap. We coach them to be safe, to get rid of the ball in dangerous positions and to aim for the big man, we play kids on full sized pitches with big balls which hardly encourage quick feet or skillful play - if you're fast and strong, you can just use the acres of space around you - and our emphasis isn't towards skill, passing and movement but on long ball, safe play and flat and rigid 4-4-2 formations. When you have dinosaur coaches, their players turn out the same. When your FA inquiry into the problems in the English game for youth consists of Roger Burden, Greg Clarke, Rio Ferdinand, Dario Gradi, Glenn Hoddle, Roy Hodgson, Ritchie Humphreys, Danny Mills and Howard Wilkinson, guess what you're going to get!? We should have asked Zola, Bergkamp, Guardiola, Cruyff or Klinsmann what they think are the problems. People who might actually know something about how football should be played.
