Saxondale Posted 29 June 2016 Posted 29 June 2016 Here are some reasons why I think the England football team is so poor - and will continue to be until there is a seismic shift in approach. Squad selection Without wanting to sound like somebody who wears a tin foil hat, I think the squad is effectively picked by sponsors. Not directly, but by pressure cascaded through the FA. I’m talking about a sportswear manufacturer’s chief marketing officer having a word in the ear of an FA executive on the golf course, suggesting it might be good if certain players get picked – certain players that happen to have endorsement deals with the aforementioned sports brand. You get the picture. In amongst the half-time adverts during the television coverage of England’s painful embarrassment against Iceland was an advert for Nivea – a brand owned by £5.5bn turnover cosmetics conglomerate Beiersdorf. The ad, ridiculously, proclaims the brand as ‘official skincare supplier to Liverpool FC’ and features Liverpool and England squad members Adam Lallana and Jordan Henderson. Now, regardless of personal opinions about these two players, the facts are clear. Both players featured in England’s squad for Euro 2016. Both players played in a Liverpool side that managed to get one manager sacked before stutteringly rallying to manage a tepid 8th place league finish. What’s more, these were not stand-out players in that painfully ordinary side. So what conversations were had that resulted in these two being picked for the England squad for a major tournament? Putting conspiracy theories aside, one can’t fail to draw the conclusion that players are favoured when they play for a more commercially successful club. Recent form seems to have been disregarded, meaning Premier League star midfield performers Danny Drinkwater and Mark Noble were overlooked in favour of a bunch of irresistibly marketable misfits that got dominated by Iceland. The baffling squad selection also included a bloke who has been injured all season (Wilshere), a bloke who’s been injured most of the season (Sturridge), an old bloke who isn’t particularly highly rated amongst fans (Milner), a young defender who can’t defend (Stones) and a kid who – to be blunt – isn’t actually very good at football (Sterling). If we can’t find the right players in the Premier League, then why not look at the Championship? It is a fiercely competitive league, reckoned by many to be on par with many European top-flight competitions. ‘Systems’ I’m getting absolutely sick of the bullshit talk that surrounds England squads. Systems. Experimenting. Options. Group of players. Building for [tournament X]. It is all meaningless drivel. We don’t need options. If the England squad was to play a full league season, including two domestic cups and European football, then maybe it would need options. We play a small handful of genuinely competitive games every two years. We need our eleven best players, a bench and a few of others to cover injuries. That’s it. Instead, it seems that almost every Englishman is trialled in the squad at some point. These days, if you’re English and play for one of the top six or seven most marketable clubs, there is an extremely strong chance you’ll get a cap. In fact I’m not sure how bad you actually have to be to avoid getting a call up for a round of international friendlies and participating in an ‘experimental side’. We seem to have completely lost sight of what a national football team is – or is supposed to be. Playing for your national side is a privilege of staggering proportions. It is something that should be earned by season-upon-season of stellar performances. By being consistently better than all others around you. By demonstrating commitment and passion that inspires others. As well as not being able to decide on team members, England managers don’t seem to able to decide on tactics either. Maybe it’s just recent memories clouding my judgement, but I think Roy Hodgson was worst for this. In the run up to Euro 2016, the pre-tournament friendly games featured some ‘systems’ so bizarre as to leave fans and pundits puzzled and bemused. Worryingly, the worst example of this was the match against Portugal that immediately preceded the tournament. Firstly, these ridiculous ‘systems’ are unnecessary. Just pick a proper bloody team and play a simple 4-4-2. If the players are actually any good, they will prevail. More important than the formation are discipline, work rate and mentality. Secondly, it’s plainly obvious that none of the players understood any of the ‘systems’. Clearly, this will have a hugely detrimental effect. Another point worth mentioning is that Roy obviously adapted the way his team was set out to play in order to accommodate certain players. In other words, he picked his team, then his formation. Clearly this is wrong. What’s wrong with just picking your best goalkeeper, your best left back, your best two centre halves… Obviously this strategy will lead to occasions where certain high profile players are left out because their position is occupied by another player. But that’s the manager’s job: to make judgement calls; to make hard decisions. Get over it. Maybe they’ll try harder next season. Hype I’m afraid that the football-consuming public has lost the plot. We’ve collectively forgotten how to judge if a player is any good or not. We’re constantly told how the Premier League is the best league in the world. But is it? It certainly benefits from the best marketing. It riles me when I hear TalkSport presenters talking pre-season about how ‘Man City need to buy five or six players’ or ‘Chelsea need to spend £60m’. Why? What’s wrong with last season’s hyped-up imports? Basically, in this throwaway society, we get bored. We need something – or someone - shiny and new to amuse our little brains. With, for example, consumer electronics, it’s fair to say that each new model is an improvement on the last. Each new iPhone, though it looks like the last, features a newer processor, better firmware, a higher resolution camera and innovative features. This logic does not apply to footballers. The new players are not better than the last lot, but the perception is that every new signing is progress. Newer; younger; better. All of this mad talk and institutional delusion has completely and utterly skewed our collective perception of whether players are actually any good or not. At this point it would be probably be remiss of me not to mention the obvious fact that the correlation between transfer fee and quality is actually frighteningly weak. Case study: R. Mahrez (£400k) vs R. Sterling (£49m). But, actually, in the context of talking about the England national side, this is all slightly irrelevant. Another obvious problem is that there are actually so few English players in the Premier League. The result of this is that as soon as an Englishman puts on a football shirt featuring the Premier League crest, we think we’ve been handed a gift from god. The caveat to this is that he must play for one of the most marketable teams. As a rule of thumb, if you can buy a duvet cover in Argos with the club’s badge on it, then they fall into this category. So when one of these clubs that seven-year-old boys support fields a young English player, pundits and fans are extremely quick to herald him as the future of English international football. He makes a handful of bit-part appearances for his club; he scores a single impressive goal; the ‘papers start to talk. Whether or not he’s actually – genuinely –any good, he will be thrust into the England squad and churned through the machine. Naturally, the product endorsement deals follow and, before long, he will become one of the institutional ever-presents – inexplicably un-droppable. Is he any good? Well, it doesn’t matter, because his sponsors will make sure he goes to the next big tournament. Regardless, surely a player should have to earn the right to play for his country by consistently performing over a period of time. Then, perhaps, we can judge if he’s any good or not. The other inevitable and visible downside of thrusting young players into the England side is that they take it for granted. This translates into an obvious lack of passion, commitment, effort and desire. If players are made to work hard for their place in the squad, you can have confidence that they’ll give it everything when they finally get there. Realism Aside from all of this, the truth of the matter will be painful for many to hear. Perhaps we’re just not that good. We seem to think that England has a divine right to be considered one of the football powerhouses of the world. Maybe we’re just not. If we all recalibrated our expectations, we’d all be much happier.
Larry_LCFC Posted 29 June 2016 Posted 29 June 2016 I'm sure it's insightful. But that is longer than Lord of The Rings.
Dodgy Bob Posted 29 June 2016 Posted 29 June 2016 Rumour has it that a certain recent former England manager had a back door stake in a football player agency that represents some of the more, shall we say, surprising inclusions in the England squad.
Kitchandro Posted 29 June 2016 Posted 29 June 2016 Well I read it, and generally agree. Re expectations, you might have a point. Any sensible person surely realised that we were likely to play poorly and that losing to Iceland was always a possibility. I'm surprised that some people were in shock during and after the Iceland match. I saw it coming. We do, overall, have an average group of players. But then again we always have done. Even 10 years ago when people thought we had a 'golden generation', we were massively overrated. Yet, even with my tempered enthusiasm and faith, we still manage to perform below expectations. Every tournament we do worse than even I considered we would. Hodgson has brought a new low. He's taken the extremely questionable selections and non-existent tactics of Sven, McClaren and Capello and gone one step further on the level of retardation. Unfortunately, I think you might be right about the culture of the England set up, in that whoever the manager is (certainly from the likely list) players will still be selected on status rather than performance. That needs to change immediately or else we can forget everything else. Once the manager is building a team around our best players, some of which didn't travel to France, then he can look at the second vital thing; constructing a philosophy, a way of playing that gives us the best chance of scoring goals. A manager hasn't even attempted, let alone succeeded with, either of those things for the last 15 years.
Beliall Posted 29 June 2016 Posted 29 June 2016 Here are some reasons why I think the England football team is so poor - and will continue to be until there is a seismic shift in approach. Squad selection Without wanting to sound like somebody who wears a tin foil hat, I think the squad is effectively picked by sponsors. Not directly, but by pressure cascaded through the FA. I’m talking about a sportswear manufacturer’s chief marketing officer having a word in the ear of an FA executive on the golf course, suggesting it might be good if certain players get picked – certain players that happen to have endorsement deals with the aforementioned sports brand. You get the picture. In amongst the half-time adverts during the television coverage of England’s painful embarrassment against Iceland was an advert for Nivea – a brand owned by £5.5bn turnover cosmetics conglomerate Beiersdorf. The ad, ridiculously, proclaims the brand as ‘official skincare supplier to Liverpool FC’ and features Liverpool and England squad members Adam Lallana and Jordan Henderson. Now, regardless of personal opinions about these two players, the facts are clear. Both players featured in England’s squad for Euro 2016. Both players played in a Liverpool side that managed to get one manager sacked before stutteringly rallying to manage a tepid 8th place league finish. What’s more, these were not stand-out players in that painfully ordinary side. So what conversations were had that resulted in these two being picked for the England squad for a major tournament? Putting conspiracy theories aside, one can’t fail to draw the conclusion that players are favoured when they play for a more commercially successful club. Recent form seems to have been disregarded, meaning Premier League star midfield performers Danny Drinkwater and Mark Noble were overlooked in favour of a bunch of irresistibly marketable misfits that got dominated by Iceland. The baffling squad selection also included a bloke who has been injured all season (Wilshere), a bloke who’s been injured most of the season (Sturridge), an old bloke who isn’t particularly highly rated amongst fans (Milner), a young defender who can’t defend (Stones) and a kid who – to be blunt – isn’t actually very good at football (Sterling). If we can’t find the right players in the Premier League, then why not look at the Championship? It is a fiercely competitive league, reckoned by many to be on par with many European top-flight competitions. ‘Systems’ I’m getting absolutely sick of the bullshit talk that surrounds England squads. Systems. Experimenting. Options. Group of players. Building for [tournament X]. It is all meaningless drivel. We don’t need options. If the England squad was to play a full league season, including two domestic cups and European football, then maybe it would need options. We play a small handful of genuinely competitive games every two years. We need our eleven best players, a bench and a few of others to cover injuries. That’s it. Instead, it seems that almost every Englishman is trialled in the squad at some point. These days, if you’re English and play for one of the top six or seven most marketable clubs, there is an extremely strong chance you’ll get a cap. In fact I’m not sure how bad you actually have to be to avoid getting a call up for a round of international friendlies and participating in an ‘experimental side’. We seem to have completely lost sight of what a national football team is – or is supposed to be. Playing for your national side is a privilege of staggering proportions. It is something that should be earned by season-upon-season of stellar performances. By being consistently better than all others around you. By demonstrating commitment and passion that inspires others. As well as not being able to decide on team members, England managers don’t seem to able to decide on tactics either. Maybe it’s just recent memories clouding my judgement, but I think Roy Hodgson was worst for this. In the run up to Euro 2016, the pre-tournament friendly games featured some ‘systems’ so bizarre as to leave fans and pundits puzzled and bemused. Worryingly, the worst example of this was the match against Portugal that immediately preceded the tournament. Firstly, these ridiculous ‘systems’ are unnecessary. Just pick a proper bloody team and play a simple 4-4-2. If the players are actually any good, they will prevail. More important than the formation are discipline, work rate and mentality. Secondly, it’s plainly obvious that none of the players understood any of the ‘systems’. Clearly, this will have a hugely detrimental effect. Another point worth mentioning is that Roy obviously adapted the way his team was set out to play in order to accommodate certain players. In other words, he picked his team, then his formation. Clearly this is wrong. What’s wrong with just picking your best goalkeeper, your best left back, your best two centre halves… Obviously this strategy will lead to occasions where certain high profile players are left out because their position is occupied by another player. But that’s the manager’s job: to make judgement calls; to make hard decisions. Get over it. Maybe they’ll try harder next season. Hype I’m afraid that the football-consuming public has lost the plot. We’ve collectively forgotten how to judge if a player is any good or not. We’re constantly told how the Premier League is the best league in the world. But is it? It certainly benefits from the best marketing. It riles me when I hear TalkSport presenters talking pre-season about how ‘Man City need to buy five or six players’ or ‘Chelsea need to spend £60m’. Why? What’s wrong with last season’s hyped-up imports? Basically, in this throwaway society, we get bored. We need something – or someone - shiny and new to amuse our little brains. With, for example, consumer electronics, it’s fair to say that each new model is an improvement on the last. Each new iPhone, though it looks like the last, features a newer processor, better firmware, a higher resolution camera and innovative features. This logic does not apply to footballers. The new players are not better than the last lot, but the perception is that every new signing is progress. Newer; younger; better. All of this mad talk and institutional delusion has completely and utterly skewed our collective perception of whether players are actually any good or not. At this point it would be probably be remiss of me not to mention the obvious fact that the correlation between transfer fee and quality is actually frighteningly weak. Case study: R. Mahrez (£400k) vs R. Sterling (£49m). But, actually, in the context of talking about the England national side, this is all slightly irrelevant. Another obvious problem is that there are actually so few English players in the Premier League. The result of this is that as soon as an Englishman puts on a football shirt featuring the Premier League crest, we think we’ve been handed a gift from god. The caveat to this is that he must play for one of the most marketable teams. As a rule of thumb, if you can buy a duvet cover in Argos with the club’s badge on it, then they fall into this category. So when one of these clubs that seven-year-old boys support fields a young English player, pundits and fans are extremely quick to herald him as the future of English international football. He makes a handful of bit-part appearances for his club; he scores a single impressive goal; the ‘papers start to talk. Whether or not he’s actually – genuinely –any good, he will be thrust into the England squad and churned through the machine. Naturally, the product endorsement deals follow and, before long, he will become one of the institutional ever-presents – inexplicably un-droppable. Is he any good? Well, it doesn’t matter, because his sponsors will make sure he goes to the next big tournament. Regardless, surely a player should have to earn the right to play for his country by consistently performing over a period of time. Then, perhaps, we can judge if he’s any good or not. The other inevitable and visible downside of thrusting young players into the England side is that they take it for granted. This translates into an obvious lack of passion, commitment, effort and desire. If players are made to work hard for their place in the squad, you can have confidence that they’ll give it everything when they finally get there. Realism Aside from all of this, the truth of the matter will be painful for many to hear. Perhaps we’re just not that good. We seem to think that England has a divine right to be considered one of the football powerhouses of the world. Maybe we’re just not. If we all recalibrated our expectations, we’d all be much happier. That makes a lot of sense to me, in fact it's the only way to explain some of the inclusions to the squad, and the performance of the team. all the players are nowhere near as good as they or we think they should be. The problem I feel, partly, is contracts. Show a bit of promise, score a goal as you say, and you get picked up by the big 5, and made a millionaire. There should be a wage cap on under 25's, after which they can sign a long term, veteran contract for millions ,which clubs wont pay if they don't want to keep them, ie, they have to earn it. And we should definitely be picking players from the championship. Leicester have shown what that kind of spirit and fight can lead to.
BenTheFox Posted 29 June 2016 Posted 29 June 2016 We're not producing enough quality English coaches:UEFA 'A' Coaches: England - 1,178 Germany - 5,500 Spain - 12,720 The fact that an English manager hasn't won the English top tier in twenty-four years tells its' own story. I also feel that because of the financial repercussions of relegation from the premier league also means that clubs aren't likely to give young english players as many opportunities.
purpleronnie Posted 29 June 2016 Posted 29 June 2016 Bottom line there are many factors why we continue to fail. The spanish had a similiar problem, as did the French and the German's. All 3 nations revolutionized football from grassroots up and all went on to win major tournaments. We need the same thing but it will never happen.
filbertway Posted 29 June 2016 Posted 29 June 2016 A competent coach picking a balanced squad would be a boss way to start.
Trav Le Bleu Posted 29 June 2016 Posted 29 June 2016 I'm sure it's insightful. But that is longer than Lord of The Rings. Basically the Noldo haven't paid attention to the rise of the Children of Hurin whilst the remaining forces of Morgoth have reappeared in the east.
Detroit Blues Posted 29 June 2016 Posted 29 June 2016 Well I read it, and generally agree. Re expectations, you might have a point. Any sensible person surely realised that we were likely to play poorly and that losing to Iceland was always a possibility. I'm surprised that some people were in shock during and after the Iceland match. I saw it coming. We do, overall, have an average group of players. But then again we always have done. Even 10 years ago when people thought we had a 'golden generation', we were massively overrated. Yet, even with my tempered enthusiasm and faith, we still manage to perform below expectations. Every tournament we do worse than even I considered we would. Hodgson has brought a new low. He's taken the extremely questionable selections and non-existent tactics of Sven, McClaren and Capello and gone one step further on the level of retardation. Unfortunately, I think you might be right about the culture of the England set up, in that whoever the manager is (certainly from the likely list) players will still be selected on status rather than performance. That needs to change immediately or else we can forget everything else. Once the manager is building a team around our best players, some of which didn't travel to France, then he can look at the second vital thing; constructing a philosophy, a way of playing that gives us the best chance of scoring goals. A manager hasn't even attempted, let alone succeeded with, either of those things for the last 15 years. From the outside looking in, England have absolutely enough talent to compete at the highest levels, but they play as a group of individuals with no discernible team strategy. The only time England wins is when their individual talent is too much for the other nations to handle. But often times they lose to far inferior teams that have a cohesive team strategy like Iceland or Costa Rica. It's almost like the English style of football is too unfashionable, so you've tried to mimic the football that's played in other countries. What's wrong with playing a strong, direct, brutish style like Leicester City or Southampton. Roy would be too embarrassed to start Jamie Vardy, and try to counter-attack or play the long ball to him. He selected a squad for the Euros that didn't have one decent winger like Albrighton to deliver a cross. If you know you're playing teams determined to defend for 90 minutes, why not have a player like Andy Carroll who can win a header or send a flick on?
Larry_LCFC Posted 29 June 2016 Posted 29 June 2016 Basically the Moldovan haven't paid attention to the rise of the Children of Huron, whilst the remaining forces of Morgoth have reappeared in the east. I completely agree. Gandalf out!
Royston. Posted 29 June 2016 Posted 29 June 2016 if we're being realistic, we were lucky to get out of the group although the new format meant we really would need to be dispicable not to. however, if losing to iceland is the real world, i dont want to be a part of it. against iceland i thought we looked nervous/scared and it was the kind of bottle job we usually save for playing the big teams even with hodgsons tactics and selection we should have brushed off the minnows. the players are to blame. absolutely disgraceful.
Thracian Posted 29 June 2016 Posted 29 June 2016 Presumably the whole set-up's full of Remainers! People who'd sooner give our shirt away than say "boo" to the bullies.
BenTheFox Posted 29 June 2016 Posted 29 June 2016 It'd also appear that very few English players want to play abroad. Our players don't want to be taken out of their comfort zone in terms of having to learn a new language, living in a foreign country, embracing a different footballing culture and sadly, earning less money.
Royston. Posted 29 June 2016 Posted 29 June 2016 the thing is we missed out on a chance of losing to france in the quarter finals. we would all have accept that. it would have been interesting, no one would give us a hope of beating them but we would see what hodgsons team could do against opposition that dont stick 11 men behind the ball all game. we were denied that opportunity, not by portugal, belgium or croatia, but mother fúcking iceland if we're to go down the road of having realistic expectations of the national side, this tournament was shaping up nicely until monday's debacle. why did that happen? it must be because the players had lost respect for hodgson but why did they lose respect for themselves? this leads me to the conclusion the players are weak and pathetic.
Captain... Posted 29 June 2016 Posted 29 June 2016 The problem is simple, we couldn't beat teams like Iceland, Slovakia, Russia because they were organised and disciplined and didn't make mistakes and we were accident prone and lacked the creativity to break teams down, we only beat Wales thanks to a great assist from Williams. First thing we need to do is get someone in who can organise us defensively, we were an utter shambles, clueless and mistake ridden. You don't need great footballers at the back, you need reliable people that won't make a mistake and that can organise a back line. Full backs that defend first and are not picked for their attacking qualities and midfielders that will protect. We need to be able to defend and if that means picking experienced reliable defenders like Simpson or Smith or Daniels from Bournemouth, or Ward or Dann from Palace. We need players that can come in and defend and not be our attacking outlet. We then need players that can attack, we need someone to come in and just motivate these players Alli, Kane, Vardy, Barkley, Sterling, Walcott, Rooney, Rashford, Sturridge we have lots of options we need someone to give them confidence and the freedom to do what they do well and not give them defensive duties, push them out wise, they need to be protected from the pressure and put them in a formation where they know their role but can mix it up, they also need someone to decide on who the front 4 are and play them together, a lot, so they are comfortable switching places on the pitch and not be taking up the same space and making the same run all the time. If we address these 2 issues we might have a chance.
Fox92 Posted 29 June 2016 Posted 29 June 2016 Bottom line there are many factors why we continue to fail. The spanish had a similiar problem, as did the French and the German's. All 3 nations revolutionized football from grassroots up and all went on to win major tournaments. We need the same thing but it will never happen. Totally agree - this is what I was getting at when I said we need to "copy" these Countries but I just got ridiculed.
Webbo Posted 29 June 2016 Posted 29 June 2016 English players are weak... we think we are making them men but we're creating babies Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-3664847/JAMIE-CARRAGHER-S-DAMNING-VERDICT-English-players-weak-think-making-men-creating-babies.html#ixzz4CzX0TdHp
Ed25 Posted 29 June 2016 Posted 29 June 2016 My theory is there are two main reason: 1) No winners 2) No chemistry These two conflate...let me explain 1) No winners - Our squad: 1 Leicester; 2 Man City; 2 Southampton; 1 Burnley; 5 Spurs; 1 Chelsea; 5 Liverpool; 3 Man Utd; 2 Everton; 1 Arsenal 1 Premier League winner, 8 top four sides who were 10 points off the race, 4 (Chelsea and Utd) who play for underachieving big clubs; 10 (Southampton, Burnley, Liverpool, Everton) who play for irrelevant sides who would be delighted with a top 6-8 finish and a cup semi-final every other year. How do you expect a squad with no (1) winners to be able to go and win a tournament with some of the finest players in world football? Against players who win with ease and dominate week in week out. 2) No chemistry - Whilst I do not agree with all Roy's decisions, I think there is only so much an international manager can do considering how much time the players spend together. Look at the best teams in Europe....Germany: how many of their team does not currently or at least some point play for Munich? Neuer, Kimmich, Boateng, Hummels, Kroos, Gotze, Muller, Gomez - just the seven off the top of my head. Spain: how many players play for Barca or Madrid? Ramos, Pique, Alba, Busequets, Fabregas, Iniesta, Morata - again, seven starters off the top of my head. Even Italy, their defence of Buffon, Barzagli, Chiellini and Bonnuci play for Juventus week in week out. So you put a group of players together with no winning mentality, who never play together other than the couple of weeks a year they have an international camp, and shock horror...they win nothing. Yes, Madrid, Barca, Munich, and Juve are huge clubs and you have to be great to play with them, but guess what, we have those clubs too. Not long ago Chelsea had Terry, Lampard, Ashley Cole, and even Joe Cole to some extent. United had Scholes, Rio, Neville, Beckham, Rooney. I contend that it is no surprise whatsoever that since clubs such as United and Chelsea have taken a huge nose dive, as has the national team. More so United; they are our only global superpower, and since Fergie left look what has happened to not only them, but the Premier League, and English football in general. Coincidence? I think not... Feel free to disagree
Webbo Posted 29 June 2016 Posted 29 June 2016 My theory is there are two main reason: 1) No winners 2) No chemistry These two conflate...let me explain 1) No winners - Our squad: 1 Leicester; 2 Man City; 2 Southampton; 1 Burnley; 5 Spurs; 1 Chelsea; 5 Liverpool; 3 Man Utd; 2 Everton; 1 Arsenal 1 Premier League winner, 8 top four sides who were 10 points off the race, 4 (Chelsea and Utd) who play for underachieving big clubs; 10 (Southampton, Burnley, Liverpool, Everton) who play for irrelevant sides who would be delighted with a top 6-8 finish and a cup semi-final every other year. How do you expect a squad with no (1) winners to have the quality to go and win a tournament with some of the finest players in world football? Players who win with ease and dominate week in week out. 2) No chemistry - I do not agree with all Roy's decisions, I think there is only so much an international manager can do considering how much time the players spend together. Look at the best teams in Europe....Germany: how many of their team does not currently or at least some point play for Munich? Neuer, Kimmich, Boateng, Hummels, Kroos, Gotze, Muller, Gomez - just the seven off the top of my head. Spain: how many players play for Barca or Madrid? Ramos, Pique, Alba, Busequets, Fabregas, Iniesta, Morata - again, seven starters off the top of my head. Even Italy, their defence of Buffon, Barzagli, Chiellini and Bonnuci play for Juventus week in week out. So you put a group of players together with no winning mentality, who never play together other than the couple of weeks a year they have an international camp, and shock horror...they win nothing. Yes, Madrid, Barca, Munich, and Juve are huge clubs and you have to be great to play with them, but guess what, we have those clubs too. Not long ago Chelsea had Terry, Lampard, Ashley Cole, and even Joe Cole to some extent. United had Scholes, Rio, Neville, Beckham, Rooney. I contend that it is no surprise whatsoever that since clubs such as United and Chelsea have taken a huge nose dive, as has the national team. More so United; they are our only global superpower, and since Fergie left look what has happened to not only them, but the Premier League, and English football in genuine. Coincidence? I think not... Feel free to disagree Woy was criticised for having too many Spurs players in the side.
Ed25 Posted 29 June 2016 Posted 29 June 2016 Woy was criticised for having too many Spurs players in the side. And that is my point...they are SPURS players. They are players who have won zero. They get close to achieving something and fail every single time. Having five players from a good Spurs side, and having 5 players from a good United or Chelsea side 10 years ago are very very different things. 5 Spurs players - no winners. My point was you need winners with chemistry. We have neither
Webbo Posted 29 June 2016 Posted 29 June 2016 And that is my point...they are SPURS players. They are players who have won zero. They get close to achieving something and fail every single time. Having five players from a good Spurs side, and having 5 players from a good United or Chelsea side 10 years ago are very very different things. 5 Spurs players - no winners. My point was you need winners with chemistry. We have neither 5 players from the same team, reasonably successful (3rd isn't a bad season)team. There should be chemistry there.
yorkie1999 Posted 29 June 2016 Posted 29 June 2016 We just need to play a simple style of football that everyone understands, is easy for a player to come straight into their natural position and pick players who are in form. Also we need a manager who is popular amoung english players, someone like redknap.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.