Ideas to make England better again.

[Alph]

14 hours ago, ramsbottom said:

Grassroots football has got to change.  More 3G pitches, small sided games until kids are 12 at least.  More opportunities for people wanting to earn their coaching badges in order to train kids from 5-12 years of age (a quick search on the FA's website lists 2 classes in the whole country, both over 40 miles away from me!!!).

Interestingly the introduction for the FA Level 1 course says - 

The course will introduce practical games to develop players’ technical skills such as shooting, turning with the ball and running with the ball.

How about passing & dribbling the ball???  Our nations deficiencies summed up in one sentence...

It won't go that deep. It should but it won't. 

It's like you have to get to a certain level before your players are valued. So many wasted talents by then because valuable learning time has been lost while they were running and clearing their lines on ***** pitches for "managers" 

So when the net does eventually come you've got a smaller catch. 

But it's not money that's going to be spent on pitches and coaches. Because everyone is in this for the short term gain. All they want to do is make sure the talent that is coming through is coming to the top.

What you're suggesting is increasing the number of talented players. Madness

[Albert]

On 6/30/2016 at 05:19, Super Johnny Russell said:

After that shambles on Monday, here's a couple of ideas I have (not that they mean much). Read point one carefully, don't miss my point.

1) Glenn Hoddle. Controversial as he may be, and I understand he is, but for me he is the only man who would take the job and have a philosophy to engrain into the England setup. That's not saying there aren't better managers out there, clearly there is. But not many of them would leave a good club position where they're likely going to be champions league. And if there's a manager that isn't then it's highly likely that they won't have enough experience and are still learning. Eddie Howe for example. Great manager but no knock out tournament experience. Pardew, average club manager. And so on.

If we're realistic we could say forget the next two or three tournaments. Just plain forget them, communicate with the fans and make them understand. We're employing Hoddle to create a system, a way of playing that will stand the test of time. I genuinely feel like he's the only man for the job. Not the best manager out there but the best available and a man with immense football knowledge.

You get my drift.

2) Three foreign players rule - the FA should introduce this rule for the FA Cup (or at least the league cup). I understand that it was a disadvantage to our teams in Europe. And that it couldn't work in the premier league. But the cup competitions are domestic and I very much doubt that any foreign player would mind missing a replay away at Stevenage on a cold night.

Although look at Cantona, and how much he, Kanchelskis, Schmeichel helped the class of 92 develop into players and men through those early European campaigns.

Give youngsters a platform to showcase themselves. Let them learn and try new things against weaker players, stronger players, tougher, louder, harder, more experienced players. All at grounds they hate playing at, on pitches that make things a little uncomfortable (as opposed to youth games on near perfect grass).

But most of all it's a knockout competition. A competition that was once great, and now isn't. A competition that needs some life injecting into it. And it's an environment that will teach the best youngsters we have everything they need to know about skills, pressure, tactics, strength, aggression, etc.

A simple change during a time when everyone in the game is looking for answers to how the hell we change our game in England.

Surely until we find the magic key, we can use our own cup to our own advantage?.

Limiting foreign players who do anything particularly useful. Limiting foreigners will only lower the quality of competition for the players who are good enough for the top level (though blaming foreigners seems to be a central tenet of English society these days). 

 

England's biggest problem is its own overconfidence and mentality. England are a mid to top range European nation, that view themselves as being in the top 5 in the World. The net effect is a huge amount of pressure is put on English sides, and this will make them struggle. Underdog status helps a lot of teams, and Iceland are one demonstrating that. Less pressure on the national side and work on the mentality of the teams will take time, but will pay dividends. Of course, for the media calling your side a bunch of failures and taking your frustration out on a 21 year old is a much better paper seller. 

[JS1997]

15 hours ago, MuespachRam said:

Rooney was our best player against Russia, played very well against Wales and did enough when he came on against Slovakia, he didn't perform against Iceland but that can be said about every single one of them.

From the tournament I would say that the worst two players we had in the squad were Hart and Rooneys replacement Kane...so getting rid of Rooney is definitely not the answer.

Russian given he was our best player, but didn't play a part in us scoring.

Wales he was average and lost the ball then fouled the player for the Wales goal and did little other than that

And Slovakia, you say 'did enough' we didn't score, drew the game 0-0 and god knows how many times he lost the ball in the process.

My point is that he is now 31, by the next world cup 33, we need to move him on and look to the future. He is not a leader and we cant continue to mould the team around him when I think we would have been much better off playing Alli behind the strikers rather than making it all about Rooney. This also happened at the last world cup, first game he was suspended and Sterling played in the 10 against Italy, he was our best player that night. However when Rooney was eligible again Sterling was moved out to the wing against Uruguay and was a lot less effective. Going into that World Cup, Sterling, Lallana and BArkley were the three form players but Hodgson didn't play them together because it all had to be about Rooney.

Move him on and look to the future!

[ramsbottom]

6 hours ago, Alpha said:

It won't go that deep. It should but it won't. 

It's like you have to get to a certain level before your players are valued. So many wasted talents by then because valuable learning time has been lost while they were running and clearing their lines on ***** pitches for "managers" 

So when the net does eventually come you've got a smaller catch. 

But it's not money that's going to be spent on pitches and coaches. Because everyone is in this for the short term gain. All they want to do is make sure the talent that is coming through is coming to the top.

What you're suggesting is increasing the number of talented players. Madness

Hows this for a damning stat - 

The number of qualified UEFA A coaches in the countries with the most popular leagues in Europe - 

England - 1178 

Germany - 5500

Spain - 12720

The cost of the courses in each of those countries - 

England - £5600

Germany - 530 euros

Spain - 1200 euros

Doesn't matter though cus Wembley looks great in the evenings!!!!!!

[SaintRam]

1 hour ago, ramsbottom said:

Hows this for a damning stat - 

The number of qualified UEFA A coaches in the countries with the most popular leagues in Europe - 

England - 1178 

Germany - 5500

Spain - 12720

The cost of the courses in each of those countries - 

England - £5600

Germany - 530 euros

Spain - 1200 euros

Doesn't matter though cus Wembley looks great in the evenings!!!!!!

Time to learn German and learn to be a coach! 

[ramsbottom]

36 minutes ago, SaintRam said:

Time to learn German and learn to be a coach! 

Zwei beir bitta...

[BBG83]

8 hours ago, Albert said:

Limiting foreign players who do anything particularly useful. Limiting foreigners will only lower the quality of competition for the players who are good enough for the top level (though blaming foreigners seems to be a central tenet of English society these days). 

 

England's biggest problem is its own overconfidence and mentality. England are a mid to top range European nation, that view themselves as being in the top 5 in the World. The net effect is a huge amount of pressure is put on English sides, and this will make them struggle. Underdog status helps a lot of teams, and Iceland are one demonstrating that. Less pressure on the national side and work on the mentality of the teams will take time, but will pay dividends. Of course, for the media calling your side a bunch of failures and taking your frustration out on a 21 year old is a much better paper seller. 

I agree with the last part but not the first.

Foreign players take the places of British players, whether they're better or not in some cases.

Limiting foreign players in all competitions is damaging, I agree, but would it be in a domestic cup competition? If the youngsters are as good as they're told they are or they think they are, then surely they'll beat a lower league team accompanied by three international players. Surely. If they can't then why not? What's stopping them? Are they really not that good? or are they mentally not tough enough/clever enough?.

As a fan of football and an England supporter wouldn't you love to see what emerging talent we really have coming through? It might only be one player in one hundred who you notice, but wouldn't noticing yourself be more exciting than just hearing that Arsenal or Chelsea or Liverpool have 'this kid' who's going to be as good as Gazza coming through?. Or are you happy to wait for players like Alli to be hyped up as the next Gazza, only for them to fail to show anything close again and again and again?.

I'm not saying I'm right by any means. Maybe I'm set in my own thoughts. I don't know. But I firmly believe that the FA cup isn't a draw for foreign players. The money is. The league is. The FA Cup has been on the decline for years.

I know Arsenal used the league cup as an option to develop young players. That's ok, but that's not helping England, just Arsenal. Lets not forget that we would only be saying 'field three foreign players'. That might mean you're starting eleven is no different. It might mean that you have to pick the three players to suit the game. It might mean that you only field three or four actual youngsters. But my thinking is that there's a platform to to showcase for English players.

Imagine you're 18 and contracted to Chelsea. The first team is strong and your chances are limited, but you're getting regular football at youth level (where you should be). Deep down you want to show that there's more to you and that you are good enough to play at a higher level, and there's an FA cup fixture coming up. There's hope. You might be picked, you might not, that's the managers choice. But there's a chance you could be playing competitively in a knock out tournament - maybe your one and only chance.

Go back 21-23 years when there was a three-foreigners rule in for Europe. It held Man Utd, Blackburn, Newcastle, etc. back in terms of beating Barcelona, AC Milan and so on - but that's a club beating a club. What it actually meant was meant that Beckham, Scholes, Neville, Butt got to play more and compete properly against proven players, accompanied by Cantona/Schmeichel etc. who guided them, against better players or players with different habits, aggression, skills.

How can that be a bad thing in any way? First team would be something to aim for long term. Short term there's a place for you in a cup team available, a) if you want it, b) if you're good enough or fit the profile of the match.

Otherwise, where is the platform for English youth? There isn't one as it stands!

[ITSD]

I think we need to stop being obsessed with players who do nothing but work hard and are tall/ strong/ fast.

You need to work hard to be good at football, but that isn't everything.

I've no doubt there's some really good players about who've been ignored because they're small, weedy or slow.

[BBG83]

17 minutes ago, ITSD said:

I think we need to stop being obsessed with players who do nothing but work hard and are tall/ strong/ fast.

You need to work hard to be good at football, but that isn't everything.

I've no doubt there's some really good players about who've been ignored because they're small, weedy or slow.

Absolutely no doubt about that. Usually those in charge are from the 80s generation of aggression. They haven't a clue about skill, touch and passing.

[Albert]

2 hours ago, Super Johnny Russell said:

I agree with the last part but not the first.

Foreign players take the places of British players, whether they're better or not in some cases.

Limiting foreign players in all competitions is damaging, I agree, but would it be in a domestic cup competition? If the youngsters are as good as they're told they are or they think they are, then surely they'll beat a lower league team accompanied by three international players. Surely. If they can't then why not? What's stopping them? Are they really not that good? or are they mentally not tough enough/clever enough?.

As a fan of football and an England supporter wouldn't you love to see what emerging talent we really have coming through? It might only be one player in one hundred who you notice, but wouldn't noticing yourself be more exciting than just hearing that Arsenal or Chelsea or Liverpool have 'this kid' who's going to be as good as Gazza coming through?. Or are you happy to wait for players like Alli to be hyped up as the next Gazza, only for them to fail to show anything close again and again and again?.

I'm not saying I'm right by any means. Maybe I'm set in my own thoughts. I don't know. But I firmly believe that the FA cup isn't a draw for foreign players. The money is. The league is. The FA Cup has been on the decline for years.

I know Arsenal used the league cup as an option to develop young players. That's ok, but that's not helping England, just Arsenal. Lets not forget that we would only be saying 'field three foreign players'. That might mean you're starting eleven is no different. It might mean that you have to pick the three players to suit the game. It might mean that you only field three or four actual youngsters. But my thinking is that there's a platform to to showcase for English players.

Imagine you're 18 and contracted to Chelsea. The first team is strong and your chances are limited, but you're getting regular football at youth level (where you should be). Deep down you want to show that there's more to you and that you are good enough to play at a higher level, and there's an FA cup fixture coming up. There's hope. You might be picked, you might not, that's the managers choice. But there's a chance you could be playing competitively in a knock out tournament - maybe your one and only chance.

Go back 21-23 years when there was a three-foreigners rule in for Europe. It held Man Utd, Blackburn, Newcastle, etc. back in terms of beating Barcelona, AC Milan and so on - but that's a club beating a club. What it actually meant was meant that Beckham, Scholes, Neville, Butt got to play more and compete properly against proven players, accompanied by Cantona/Schmeichel etc. who guided them, against better players or players with different habits, aggression, skills.

How can that be a bad thing in any way? First team would be something to aim for long term. Short term there's a place for you in a cup team available, a) if you want it, b) if you're good enough or fit the profile of the match.

Otherwise, where is the platform for English youth? There isn't one as it stands!

The opposite side of the coin however is that a competition isn't of constant standard. The foreigners in the Premier League is what makes it the standard it is, and that standard is what makes it so goof for young players to play in. Flooding the competition with mediocre youngsters might make some of them better, but it won't be enough competition for the best reach their potential as it is now, it would merely be quantity over quality. There are plenty of full professional teams that are almost entirely English (i.e. the Football League), the problem isn't opportunities for the most part, though it could be argued that some young players have their chances ruined by choosing the bench at a big club over a starting spot at a smaller one. 

People look at all these nations with all the rules against foreigners and go, "see it works", without realising that all their best players have had to go to leagues like the Premier League to really develop into the players they are. Germany has no such limits at the top level, and Spain doesn't have anything particularly remarkable, nor France, yet look at their national sides, look at their leagues, their top teams. The problem isn't the foreigners, they arguably help the situation. 

There is an argument for improving opportunities for young player relegated to benches at big clubs, but that is a whole other story. 

[BBG83]

1 hour ago, Albert said:

The opposite side of the coin however is that a competition isn't of constant standard. The foreigners in the Premier League is what makes it the standard it is, and that standard is what makes it so goof for young players to play in. Flooding the competition with mediocre youngsters might make some of them better, but it won't be enough competition for the best reach their potential as it is now, it would merely be quantity over quality. There are plenty of full professional teams that are almost entirely English (i.e. the Football League), the problem isn't opportunities for the most part, though it could be argued that some young players have their chances ruined by choosing the bench at a big club over a starting spot at a smaller one. 

People look at all these nations with all the rules against foreigners and go, "see it works", without realising that all their best players have had to go to leagues like the Premier League to really develop into the players they are. Germany has no such limits at the top level, and Spain doesn't have anything particularly remarkable, nor France, yet look at their national sides, look at their leagues, their top teams. The problem isn't the foreigners, they arguably help the situation. 

There is an argument for improving opportunities for young player relegated to benches at big clubs, but that is a whole other story. 

Good points. Certainly a different way to look at it.

I'm still of the opinion though that the FA Cup is on the decline more and more each year, and that's partly because the bigger teams fail to field their strongest teams until the later stages. So I don't see why the FA don't use the cup to our own advantage.

It might work, it might not. But why not try it? Maybe other countries don't put limits on clubs, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't improve our game.

Monday proved that our players are sheltered from too much.

[Albert]

29 minutes ago, Super Johnny Russell said:

Good points. Certainly a different way to look at it.

I'm still of the opinion though that the FA Cup is on the decline more and more each year, and that's partly because the bigger teams fail to field their strongest teams until the later stages. So I don't see why the FA don't use the cup to our own advantage.

It might work, it might not. But why not try it? Maybe other countries don't put limits on clubs, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't improve our game.

Monday proved that our players are sheltered from too much.

Them being too sheltered would be an issue only made worse by limiting the number of foreigners. It's not as though the team put out there was inexperienced:

Joe Hart: 29 years, 457 club appearances + 62 full international caps

Kyle Walker: 26 years, 263 club appearances + 18 full international caps

Gary Cahill: 30 years, 422 club appearances + 46 full international caps

Chris Smalling: 26 years, 226 club appearances + 28 full international caps

Danny Rose: 25 years, 182 club appearances + 6 full international caps

Delli Ali: 20 years, 134 club appearances + 11 full international caps

Eric Dier: 22 years, 134 club appearances + 10 full international caps

Wayne Rooney: 30 years, 597 club appearances + 114 full international caps

Daniel Sturridge: 26 years, 232 club appearances + 20 full international caps

Harry Kane: 22 years, 192 club appearances + 15 full international caps

Raheem Sterling: 21 years, 176 club appearances + 25 full international caps

That isn't a side lacking experience, that isn't a side that would be bettered by just having played more (nor one that contained players who suffered from limited opportunities), as barring injuries they have for the most part being playing a great deal since the start of their careers. The opportunities are there. The grand irony in all this is two players who actually moved out of England (not English players of course, they seem to seldom have such sense) to get opportunities were Pique and Pogba, two of the finest players in the World these days. 

I still think the bigger issue is the expectations in general, and this negatively effects the sides in it's own way. The English media still behave as though England are a massive footballing nation. They are not. England in their history have made it past the quarter finals of the World Cup a grand total of twice, once was the win in '66. How England stand these days is far easier to explain as a false belief in England's original greatness than a fall from grace, a scourge of foreigners or any other issue. 

Yes, other countries do thing better, with less people at many points. Yet "damn foreigners" isn't and never has been their solution, and ironically foreigners have actually had amazing impacts on some of the biggest nations in football. But that's a whole different point. Better grass roots support, coaching at the lower levels and developing an identity and plan that they institute nation wide are things that work though. The only identity that English football has these days is the inevitable blood letting that follows England putting in their median performance.