Rasiak-9 wrote:kas wrote:By 2018 the concept of a DM may well be outdated.
There's no point trying to groom players for specific positions or to fit certain moulds, that's a concept doomed for failure. What you need to do is build the basic skills in young players - passing, ball control, movement, etc. Those will be universal regardless of what position someone plays.
Then depending on other attributes, physical abilities, and ability to understand tactics/positioning in different parts of the pitch, you can have a young player find his best position.
I do agree with your idea that improving the England team may require improvement on fundamental skills and tactical awareness more than anything, but I'd be very suprised if the idea of a DM is outdated in 8 years. I mean, a tough-tackling midfielder has pretty much always transcended football.
kas wrote:Rasiak-9 wrote:kas wrote:By 2018 the concept of a DM may well be outdated.
There's no point trying to groom players for specific positions or to fit certain moulds, that's a concept doomed for failure. What you need to do is build the basic skills in young players - passing, ball control, movement, etc. Those will be universal regardless of what position someone plays.
Then depending on other attributes, physical abilities, and ability to understand tactics/positioning in different parts of the pitch, you can have a young player find his best position.
I do agree with your idea that improving the England team may require improvement on fundamental skills and tactical awareness more than anything, but I'd be very suprised if the idea of a DM is outdated in 8 years. I mean, a tough-tackling midfielder has pretty much always transcended football.
What I meant is, 10 years ago nobody saw a DM as a vital element of a team, but after Makelele left Real Madrid and they collapsed, everybody wants one.
Similarly, the current fashion is for a 4-5-1/4-3-3/4-2-3-1 kind of formation. In a couple of seasons, that may change. For example, if a 4-4-2 comes back as the dominant formation, suddenly you'll have a midfielder who can sit back and defend and one who can support the forwards with sexy passes, but will worry "we just don't have anyone who can go box to box".
kas wrote:bluenine wrote:Kimbo wrote:So he's better than Seaman and Given. I suppose next week he will be better than Schmeichel aswell.
Whoa, quite a leap there from Seaman/Given to Schmeichel, don't ya think?
Anyways, I am with Tweedy on this... Hart does look promising. Sometimes it does make sense to give a shot to a promising keeper, like Italy did with Buffon many years ago. Perhaps a role as the England No 2 to start with, with an year of gradual easing into the No 1 role, as long as he moves from strength to strength?
What's "gradual easing" with a goalkeeper anyway? It's not like you can bring him on as a sub for the last 20 mins. You either play him or you don't.
As of the 41st minute of the England-USA match, Hart is already England no. 2. So I don't see why there should be any hesitation about playing him straightaway. If he fails like Carson or Robinson, then let him go away and try to recover his career. If not, then let him keep playing. There's no point protecting a young keeper if you don't have any better alternatives.
bluenine wrote:kas wrote:bluenine wrote:Kimbo wrote:So he's better than Seaman and Given. I suppose next week he will be better than Schmeichel aswell.
Whoa, quite a leap there from Seaman/Given to Schmeichel, don't ya think?
Anyways, I am with Tweedy on this... Hart does look promising. Sometimes it does make sense to give a shot to a promising keeper, like Italy did with Buffon many years ago. Perhaps a role as the England No 2 to start with, with an year of gradual easing into the No 1 role, as long as he moves from strength to strength?
What's "gradual easing" with a goalkeeper anyway? It's not like you can bring him on as a sub for the last 20 mins. You either play him or you don't.
As of the 41st minute of the England-USA match, Hart is already England no. 2. So I don't see why there should be any hesitation about playing him straightaway. If he fails like Carson or Robinson, then let him go away and try to recover his career. If not, then let him keep playing. There's no point protecting a young keeper if you don't have any better alternatives.
It usually means remaining No 2, learning from the No 1, and getting playing time in friendlies (and cup games in case of club football). Its an important part of growing up for keepers, specially young ones, so that they do not get burned too quickly or scared by a crucial mistake. Too much responsibility too early can be disasterous for a keeper. There are some who manage (eg Buffon, Cassillas), but also some talented gks who get burned and take years to recover (Frey is a good example, Inter gave him too much responsibility too early).
With young keepers, Kas, its not just a case of "you either play him or you don't".
Yeah, but as long as Hart is No 1 at club level, a bench role for another year will help him grow in the intl level. Coz if you push him in the deep end too quickly, there is a chance that he makes a crucial error in a key game (is it too soon to start calling that "doing a Green"?kas wrote:bluenine wrote:kas wrote:bluenine wrote:Kimbo wrote:So he's better than Seaman and Given. I suppose next week he will be better than Schmeichel aswell.
Whoa, quite a leap there from Seaman/Given to Schmeichel, don't ya think?
Anyways, I am with Tweedy on this... Hart does look promising. Sometimes it does make sense to give a shot to a promising keeper, like Italy did with Buffon many years ago. Perhaps a role as the England No 2 to start with, with an year of gradual easing into the No 1 role, as long as he moves from strength to strength?
What's "gradual easing" with a goalkeeper anyway? It's not like you can bring him on as a sub for the last 20 mins. You either play him or you don't.
As of the 41st minute of the England-USA match, Hart is already England no. 2. So I don't see why there should be any hesitation about playing him straightaway. If he fails like Carson or Robinson, then let him go away and try to recover his career. If not, then let him keep playing. There's no point protecting a young keeper if you don't have any better alternatives.
It usually means remaining No 2, learning from the No 1, and getting playing time in friendlies (and cup games in case of club football). Its an important part of growing up for keepers, specially young ones, so that they do not get burned too quickly or scared by a crucial mistake. Too much responsibility too early can be disasterous for a keeper. There are some who manage (eg Buffon, Cassillas), but also some talented gks who get burned and take years to recover (Frey is a good example, Inter gave him too much responsibility too early).
With young keepers, Kas, its not just a case of "you either play him or you don't".
I agree with your last line 100%...was going to mention it in my post but it was getting too long. I'd never play a young keeper in my team as long as I can avoid it. But that's exactly the problem for England now - they don't really have a decent alternative, so they may as well let Hart play. The tricky part of course is for the coach to support him when he makes his inevitable mistakes, as all young keepers do.
I don't agree about the "staying number 2, learning, and getting playing time in friendlies" though. That works at club level, not int'l level, where the games are so few. With a team having just 3 or 4 friendlies, the coach needs to use those to make his keeper and defense ready for competitive games, not fanny about giving someone experience when the defenders in front of him probably want to play with someone else.
) and his confidence takes a beating... that might push his development back by 2-3 years, goal keeping is such a confidence driven thing... instead, I would keep him as the No 2 for a year, playing him in the friendlies, and allowing him to grow in confidence/experience...
Tweesus wrote:Why the frown debbie?
Who the hell would we replace him with? 'Arry?
Its a good decision IMO. Its not his fault that Rooney was absolute tripe and that Terry had a shocker.
Tweesus wrote:Why the frown debbie?
Who the hell would we replace him with? 'Arry?
Its a good decision IMO. Its not his fault that Rooney was absolute tripe and that Terry had a shocker.
Swegen wrote:Gerrard rumours now being dismissed completely. Apparently his c**t of a wife doesn't have a sister.
http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/02072010/58/world-cup-2010-gerrard-victim-hoax.html
Emile Glenskey wrote:The England team will probably be the same in 2 years
Ferdiand, Terry, Cole, Gerrard, Lampard, Rooney probably Glen Johnson and 4 others.
I think we've decided collectively as a nation that Joe Hart and Adam Johnson are/will be World Class
so that leaves 2 places up for grabs. Milner and Heskey.
Players I'd like to see groomed include
Gibbs
Richards
Dawson
Lescott
Rodwell
Huddlestone
all this talk of Green, Parker, Warnock, Carrick etc makes me nauseous.
We should keep an eye on some of the teenage imports that top clubs have brought in at 14/15 and maybe one of them can be our Ozil.
Bashmachkin wrote:-------------------Hart------------------
------------------------------------------
G.Johnson--Jagielka--Lescott--A.Cole
------------------------------------------
---------Huddlestone-------------------
----------------------Milner----------
----------------Lampard----------------
------------------------------------------
A.Johnson-----------------------A.young
-----------------Rooney----------------
yer right it takes more than one player to clogg up the middle....Kimbo wrote:You're right, and nobody gets past Milner, we saw that in the Mexico game.
debaser wrote:Let's hope there's some truth there.
--
Here's Brooking talking some sense. But I'm pretty sure he's been saying the same things for years, without anything much changing:
http://www.football365.com/story/0,17033,8652_6243994,00.html
Home