UEFA EURO U21 Championships

Likes of Scholes, Gerrard & Lampard play specialist roles in their club teams, with the whole system revolved around 'em. With non-English midfielder partners (Keane, Essien, Makelele, Hammann, Alonso) papering over the cracks. So when they turn up for England in International level, they get shown up. Coz I repeat that all-round skill is required at that level.

Actually, that it took us so long to reform our youth setup, we didn't even have one prior to that to be fair, says otherwise. The reactionary elements in Germany were extremely strong. The difference however is that we basically always had success on the international stage, and that success became counterproductive as it glossed over structural inadequacies. This became obvious in the late 1990, once the success wasn't there anymore, and only then the right steps were made.

England however hadn't had success for decades, yet nothing has changed substantially.

blutgraetsche wrote:That's all fine and dany and may improve the situation in the long run indeed. However, it's not like this is a new problem. If we're perfectly honest, England's football has been outdated since the early 1970s, e.g. the landmark Wembley match against Germany in 1972. You could even argue that it has been outdated since 1953 match against Hungary, despite the 1966 WC win.

'Cultural' aspects can change indeed, but that not only takes a lot of time, you have to consider the reactionary elements, too. Just look how pathetically otto is clinging to an idea of German football that became popular in the 1980s, that was nothing more than a (in the long term destructive) trend for various reasons. Before that, the very idea of how the game should be played was entirely different, and only in recent times the majority of people have woken up to this. What Fenomeno is trying to say is that those 'reactionary elements' are pretty strong in England.

Same argument was made about the English cricket team, and UK Olympic teams. Both were up against long held historical reactionary elements as you call it. Change the way sports are coached, and the rest will follow, however grudgingly. If you want a microscopic football related example: Look at Arsenal. 15 years ago they epitomised the "old school" traditions; a built on defence percentage game. It took one man with one framework and people now equivocate Arsenal with progressive, new age football, INCLUDING those old school fans used to screaming "clear it!" who have now come to accept this new version

Incidentally, I don't agree the English team has been outdate time eternal. The team of Gascoigne, Waddle, Barnes, Lineker in 1990 under Bobby Robson was hardly outdated in the style of football it played. The football played under Hoddle at 1998 World Cup was far from set in the old model either - he played a 3-5-2 system with wingbacks which was very modern for the time. Some would argue the Venables system in 1996 was also progressive, playing a "Christmas tree" formation which came together perfectly against Holland. 1990 and 1996 teams only beaten by Germany on penalties, and almost nothing to seperate either teams, and these were during golden ages of German football. Tiny margins of failure distort the historical truth further down the line - had England won 1990 or 1996 then few could argue they were outdated teams.

The point is the coaching. These guys - Robson, Hoddle, Venables, were interspersed with traditional old school garbage like Graham Taylor, Howard Wilkinson etc. That is the reactionary element which needs to go. It can and is likely to happen. Trevor Brooking and Gareth Southgate are now the two most influential figures in English football, and both are known to be modernists, not traditionalists. Give them more control of coaching, as will be the case with the new centralised Academy (Which is a first in British football), and they will exert more influence. That is why there is cause for optimism. Just because something "has always been" doesn't mean it can't change.

By the way, aplogies to all for having DOMINATED this thread today in a way not seen since Kroos outlined his plans to take over the World, but I'm off work and enjoy a good old football related natter. I'll shut up now

Jaime wrote:

fcb wrote:

The only thing that will change is that Walcotts and Moses will be signed at the age of 12 or 13 rather than 16 or 17. Just like it happens now in Spain (eg. Barça signing Pedro from a local club in the Canary Islands when he was 13, or Iniesta from his regional club when he was 12).

FALSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Pedrito didn't go to Barcelona until he was 17. Stop pretending like he is "yours".

You're right, must be confusing him with someone else.

No need to apologize, v interesting chat.

I'm not sure anything like as quick a fix is feasible as in cricket though, where unless I'm mistaken central contracts have played a major role in countervailing the outdated structures and relatively low standards of county cricket. The regressive aspects of the culture in football are maybe more ingrained, extensive and harder to counter. But time will tell...

Allez les rouges wrote:No need to apologize, v interesting chat.

I'm not sure anything like as quick a fix is feasible as in cricket though, where unless I'm mistaken central contracts have played a major role in countervailing the outdated structures and relatively low standards of county cricket. The regressive aspects of the culture in football are maybe more ingrained, extensive and harder to counter. But time will tell...

The central contracts concept in cricket worked so well because it gave the best players in England the opportunity to spend more time with the English set-up, for long periods of time, without the counties having the power to recall them or dictate to their own agendas. Whilst this will never happen in football, finally having an all encompassing centre for the English National Team set up is following similar principles: a place where the best coaches in Englandwill have more centralised control.

As opposed to revisiting what's already been said, what I would say regarding the idea that regressive cultural and historical aspects are too ingrained (and perhaps in 10 years this may indeed still be the case), I believe Spain and Barcelona's recent success COULD turn out to be the catalyst that helped change English football. Firstly, because you can sense from the Media through to the fans and individuals like Southgate and Brooking that this is the future, you have people queieing up to laud the Spanish model. And not just the Spanish model, but the German one too.

So what set this apart from past victories? Well, previously, it was clear there was a strong feeling through the late 90's / early 00's in England that increased athleticism in football was going to render the importance of technical individual gifts pointless - think Italy 2000, Greece 2004, Mourinho's influence (teams) - athleticism/organisation seemed to becoming the overwhelming norm to winning titles.

The unique qualities of Barcelona and Spain have clearly smashed that belief to pieces.

It's really up to the coaches at clubs and within the international set up to progress a new mindset. Culturally, it doesn't matter what fans or pundits think how football should be played - you just need a Wenger to come in with their principles and be given the control to change old mentalities and traditions and the rest will follow. No regressive traditions have to be permanent. Arsenal remains a great example of this - if David Hill-Wood (I believe was the chairman at the time) believed Arsenal's traditions could not be changed, he would never have taken the risk on Wenger. The only attitude that is holding English football back is that "we've always done it like this" mentality. And seems to me that there is now a lot of momentum pushing for change, but needs a proper catalyst such as a new national set up to ignite it.

Anyway, I'm rambling, it could all turn out to be bunkum, but there has always been glimpses of what could be, from the likes of Hoddle to Robson and the philosophies they tried to employ, so there are voices advocating change, players of technical quality such as Le Tissier to Wilshere who prove it CAN be done, just needs a full on movement.

Back to theh'actual topic, forgot that Adam Johnson AND Wilshere could have been playing in this u21 midfield. What a difference they could have provided in Paerce's midfield

Noah und der Bale wrote:Anyway, I'm rambling, it could all turn out to be bunkum, but there has always been glimpses of what could be, from the likes of Hoddle to Robson and the philosophies they tried to employ, so there are voices advocating change, players of technical quality such as Le Tissier to Wilshere who prove it CAN be done, just needs a full on movement.

Are you trying to piss me off?

I think that's a bit simplistic though Bernd. England have and actually continue to produce technically astute / skillful players from time to time. Not systematically, but it does happen. The problem is that you lack a concept, an idea how English football should be played in 2011. What is the English football philosophy these days?

To put it simply: Even if you had your own Xavi and Iniesta, the rest of the team wouldn't know how to play with them effectively.

Bernd. Until we see 4 to 6 regular English players in each of our top teams week in and week out and winning the CL then we are on the road to competing with the top national sides of the world. Your right about the pressure put on these kids to perform from a young age in England they are so concerned of making mistakes any creativity the kid had is burned by nervous energy. One English coach I new thought only the best would come through and would be able to cope later on in life with the big time. England choke to this very day because that fundamental problem of not seeding an inner self confidence into the young player.

blutgraetsche wrote:I think that's a bit simplistic though Bernd. England have and actually continue to produce technically astute / skillful players from time to time. Not systematically, but it does happen. The problem is that you lack a concept, an idea how English football should be played in 2011. What is the English football philosophy these days?

To put it simply: Even if you had your own Xavi and Iniesta, the rest of the team wouldn't know how to play with them effectively.

Blut, probably not a surprise that you missed it in my 2 page ramblings, but this was what I was getting at regarding the creation of a new central academy, the importance of coaching a philosophy/identity. Like the French were able to do through Clairefontaine. That is crucial to the success of Burton/St Georges park

I was talking to an English guy right before the game against Ukraine. One thing that's very funny about some English fans is their degree of delusion. He swore that Ukraine were gonna be "carved up" by England. I simply asked "with what? you have a whole team who can not string two passes together!".

His reasoning was "we tied Spain, the Czechs beat Ukraine, and Spain just beat the Czechs. We are gonna win 2-0" he said.

Deluded fucko! He must've missed all the goals Spain missed while only playing on second gear. Other than that, he's a good fellow.

One man's delusion is another man's overconfident wayward prediction.

Did you hear the one about South American teams dominating last year's World Cup? England losing 4-1 to USA? You should have

A distorted history appears to be taking shape regarding the opening Spain v England game- for all their dominance with possession, Spain created comparatively little. Those with a penchance for taking a balanced sensible view might just have noticed this had something to do with the rather obvious quality of the 2 English / United centrebacks. Just sayin', given it seems much simpler to just claim the Spanish played in second gear , which I imagine is also true to some degree given it was their first game and look like they're constantly improving. But maybe balanced assessments have no place in football anymore, cos they're boring?

its true, english footballers know nothing about healthy nutrition

pepsi, junk food, in the middle of an tournament, i bet they eat fish and chips to the breakfast

vanpersie also claimed that english players prefer to stay in disco until 3 am instead of thinking about football

no wonder lampard, gerrard finished players, look at them now

*Peter Hill-Wood

Deferring the Apocalypse wrote:

Noah und der Bale wrote:Anyway, I'm rambling, it could all turn out to be bunkum, but there has always been glimpses of what could be, from the likes of Hoddle to Robson and the philosophies they tried to employ, so there are voices advocating change, players of technical quality such as Le Tissier to Wilshere who prove it CAN be done, just needs a full on movement.

Are you trying to piss me off?

allworkandnoplaymakesjackadullboy

Repeating "jackwilshereisshitbecauseheplaysforarsenal" x100000000 won't make it any more true, sorry mate.

Kroos wrote:

its true, english footballers know nothing about healthy nutrition

pepsi, junk food, in the middle of an tournament, i bet they eat fish and chips to the breakfast

vanpersie also claimed that english players prefer to stay in disco until 3 am instead of thinking about football

no wonder lampard, gerrard finished players, look at them now

Kroos, you are spending time watching England's U21 goalkeeper being interviewed and taking notes of his food/drink consumption?!?

Your obsession with finding things to sneer at in English football is reaching worrying levels.

Noah und der Bale wrote:One man's delusion is another man's overconfident wayward prediction.

Did you hear the one about South American teams dominating last year's World Cup? England losing 4-1 to USA? You should have

A distorted history appears to be taking shape regarding the opening Spain v England game- for all their dominance with possession, Spain created comparatively little. Those with a penchance for taking a balanced sensible view might just have noticed this had something to do with the rather obvious quality of the 2 English / United centrebacks. Just sayin', given it seems much simpler to just claim the Spanish played in second gear , which I imagine is also true to some degree given it was their first game and look like they're constantly improving. But maybe balanced assessments have no place in football anymore, cos they're boring?

Fair enough mate, 4-1 was pushing it but I had a bet with a (non-English) mate of mine that England would not beat the motherfucking US and A last summer, saying "are you sure about this, this is like taking candy off a little kid". You will cite a preposterous if not untypical piece of goalkeeping but be real, it was never in doubt.

Allez les rouges wrote:*Peter Hill-Wood

Deferring the Apocalypse wrote:

Noah und der Bale wrote:Anyway, I'm rambling, it could all turn out to be bunkum, but there has always been glimpses of what could be, from the likes of Hoddle to Robson and the philosophies they tried to employ, so there are voices advocating change, players of technical quality such as Le Tissier to Wilshere who prove it CAN be done, just needs a full on movement.

Are you trying to piss me off?

allworkandnoplaymakesjackadullboy

Repeating "jackwilshereisshitbecauseheplaysforarsenal" x100000000 won't make it any more true, sorry mate.

Repeating exaggerations that critics never actually said won't make them any more true either.

I'm objecting to a comparison between a mostly unproven 19 year old and one of the most talented players England has ever produced. If I compared Chris Smalling to Bobby Moore or Sol Campbell it would be just as ridiculous. Same as if someone compared Henderson to Waddle or Matthews, or compared Welbeck to Shearer or Greaves.

This is about Arsenal because Wilshere would not be half as hyped as he is if he did not play for Arsenal. Same shit, different player. We've been here many times before, and the players NEVER turned out to be as good as the hype claimed, even when they didn't play for Arsenal.

Have another guess

Saints, the point I was making was across generations - that England have produced technically astute players. Without getting into a debate about Wilshere's achievements to date versus potential, it's clear that technically - in terms of footballing ability - he is not lacking when compared to the top young players in Europe

Allez les rouges wrote:

Noah und der Bale wrote:One man's delusion is another man's overconfident wayward prediction.

Did you hear the one about South American teams dominating last year's World Cup? England losing 4-1 to USA? You should have

A distorted history appears to be taking shape regarding the opening Spain v England game- for all their dominance with possession, Spain created comparatively little. Those with a penchance for taking a balanced sensible view might just have noticed this had something to do with the rather obvious quality of the 2 English / United centrebacks. Just sayin', given it seems much simpler to just claim the Spanish played in second gear , which I imagine is also true to some degree given it was their first game and look like they're constantly improving. But maybe balanced assessments have no place in football anymore, cos they're boring?

Fair enough mate, 4-1 was pushing it but I had a bet with a (non-English) mate of mine that England would not beat the motherfucking US and A last summer, saying "are you sure about this, this is like taking candy off a little kid". You will cite a preposterous if not untypical piece of goalkeeping but be real, it was never in doubt.

Yes, sadly it was almost inevitable we would fail to win that game. But Puro predicted England would lose 4-1, in line with many of his other conspiracies / home "truths". Given the sheet volume of wayward evidence to choose from, Puro labelling any individual or group of individuals as deluded fuckos is deliciously comical

Noah und der Bale wrote:Saints, the point I was making was across generations - that England have produced technically astute players. Without getting into a debate about Wilshere's achievements to date versus potential, it's clear that technically - in terms of footballing ability - he is not lacking when compared to the top young players in Europe

Depends on what you mean by technique. If you mean what Pierre means - i.e. first touch, dribbling, short passing, then OK, Wilshere is very good in these respects. If you mean actually kicking a ball more than 10 yards (shooting and longer passing) then Wilshere's no better than average, and worse than most English international midfielders.

Wilshere reminds me a lot of Joe Cole - one of the better close technique players that England have produced, but will probably never have the impact of an inferior player like Lampard due to his unwillingness and lack of ability to do the simple job of creating chances/scoring goals.

As I keep saying, Huddlestone does not have Wilshere's pace/energy/mobility and so will never be as accomplished a dribbler, but his physique allows him to shield the ball just as well if not better, and he has both a short-range and long-range game, which Wilshere does not. Add to that his vastly superior defensive game and I think Huddlestone is a considerably better player.

In short, I'm all in favour of England developing and making use of more technical players, but technique is not the be all and end all of footballing ability.

debaser wrote:

Kroos wrote:

its true, english footballers know nothing about healthy nutrition

pepsi, junk food, in the middle of an tournament, i bet they eat fish and chips to the breakfast

vanpersie also claimed that english players prefer to stay in disco until 3 am instead of thinking about football

no wonder lampard, gerrard finished players, look at them now

Kroos, you are spending time watching England's U21 goalkeeper being interviewed and taking notes of his food/drink consumption?!?

Your obsession with finding things to sneer at in English football is reaching worrying levels.

you think maybe your right, maybe i am right, i think nutrition is very important for sportsman

i am an hobby bodybuilder, and i know what good nutrition and enough sleep means for an body

Deferring the Apocalypse wrote:

Noah und der Bale wrote:Saints, the point I was making was across generations - that England have produced technically astute players. Without getting into a debate about Wilshere's achievements to date versus potential, it's clear that technically - in terms of footballing ability - he is not lacking when compared to the top young players in Europe

Depends on what you mean by technique. If you mean what Pierre means - i.e. first touch, dribbling, short passing, then OK, Wilshere is very good in these respects. If you mean actually kicking a ball more than 10 yards (shooting and longer passing) then Wilshere's no better than average, and worse than most English international midfielders.

Wilshere reminds me a lot of Joe Cole - one of the better close technique players that England have produced, but will probably never have the impact of an infhttp://europeanboard.ephpbb.com/post?p=1188716&mode=quoteerior player like Lampard due to his unwillingness and lack of ability to do the simple job of creating chances/scoring goals.

As I keep saying, Huddlestone does not have Wilshere's pace/energy/mobility and so will never be as accomplished a dribbler, but his physique allows him to shield the ball just as well if not better, and he has both a short-range and lohttp://europeanboard.ephpbb.com/post?p=1188716&mode=quoteng-range game, which Wilshere does not. Add to that his vastly superior defensive game and I think Huddlestone is a considerably better player.

In short, I'm all in favour of England developing and making use of more technical players, but technique is not the be all and end all of footballing ability.

I couldn't agree more, because if success were based simply on technique and not on physical and mental attributes then Europe would never be able to compete with South America.

If we assume Spain / Barcelona midfield as the target model, then Wilshere fits the mould - mobile, quick, able to play in tight spaces, comfortable one and two touch football, stamina to constantly be on the move playing short one two's, using both feet.

That is what I mean by not lagging in comparison. He doesn't have anything in the way of a natural ability for scoring goals as far as I can see, but if we're talking about "modern" all round technical midfielders (and boy we need those) that can play to the philosophy of Barcelona / Spain, then Wilshere is the closest and best we've got currently. Huddlestone has all the technical attributes (a pure footballer), with the shooting ability, but he cannot match the pace and movement at that level sadly. And Pierre is right - he botched his chance in the Japan friendly spectacularly, so whilst he should get given another chance, there are question marks over his mentality still.

Kroos wrote:

debaser wrote:

Kroos wrote:

its true, english footballers know nothing about healthy nutrition

pepsi, junk food, in the middle of an tournament, i bet they eat fish and chips to the breakfast

vanpersie also claimed that english players prefer to stay in disco until 3 am instead of thinking about football

no wonder lampard, gerrard finished players, look at them now

Kroos, you are spending time watching England's U21 goalkeeper being interviewed and taking notes of his food/drink consumption?!?

Your obsession with finding things to sneer at in English football is reaching worrying levels.

you think maybe your right, maybe i am right, i think nutrition is very important for sportsman

i am an hobby bodybuilder, and i know what good nutrition and enough sleep means for an body

I thought you were more into fackin ranning.

Ok, so I've had to re-visualise the face to the name.

This hot or cold?

"Hi, Nice to meet you. England is a big SHIT. Got it?!"

very cold, i am just a normal guy that trains 3-4 times in a week

ok BB is the wrong word, lets say i just do weight training

Today, (game) intelligence and versatility are probably even more important than technique. Movement off the ball, decision making, creating and making good use of space - that's where Barcelona excel, where they are miles ahead of the competition. Skills, technique, passing are all important, but most players leaving the better club academies these days are at least decent footballers. But a lot of them have all the skills in the world yet fail on the mental side, which is increasingly important in this 'systematic' era of ours.

Players have to see the team as a whole, and not be limited to a certain role on the pitch. We're actually getting close to the 'total football' ideal in which every player on the pitch can and should play various roles for their team. Defenders initiate attacks, forwards are the first line of defence, goal keepers are like sweepers of the old. Teams are more 'organic', like structured chaos.

You need to teach that to those youngsters from the beginning, it's not something you can learn easily. Especially the talented 'individualists' tend to struggle with this strong emphasis on the team aspect. I expect future generations of footballers to be better team players foremost, as football is becoming more professional in general. There will always be great players, geniuses, who make the difference, but they will only be able to make a difference if they are excellent team players, too.

Kroos wrote: i think nutrition is very important for sportsman

i am an hobby bodybuilder, and i know what good nutrition and enough sleep means for an body

This last has made me smile as much as anything this week

We still await the Kroos verdict on the Otto treachery

wilshire is really good, a stand out talent, no doubt

the problem will be, hes alone for england

you really cant have faith in walcott, lennon, milner, they are below average in my opinion, maybe they look a little bit better in the league, but for international football really useless

england dont have a single CM of international class next to wilshire, thats a huge problem, thats the most imporant area in modern football

Lennon below average.. Running through the Milan defence at the San Siro, he must've thought to himself "what am I doing, I'm below average?!"

Those who give a shit about Milner and Walcott can defend them, but Lennon ain't below average my friend.

Anyway, more crucially, Allez is still waiting - you with Otto or against him?

i dont know whats going on with otto and in blutgrätsches words his "agendas" i am more in my england obsession

and i think you NOAH should know my answer at best