Why the England National team is bound to fail.........?

Question

Playing international football in most cases is a step down from Champion league football.
Look at the make up of the 4 English teams that played 2 weeks ago in the Champions league
I think between them their squads had around 11 Englishmen out of 72 (7 subs/team included).
Why have Scotland had a good campaign?
Because the Old firm have had to revert to Scots due to the lack of TV money and for the first time in twenty years the Scotland teams’ backbone comes from the Old Firm who are also playing CL football.
Last night 4 Scotland OF regulars were injured and we failed.

Am I havering or is this a valid point ........opinions please

Answer 1

kennybhoy good theory but ,, i prefer it if say england are shyte and we are absolutley amazing.. now they will drag up 1966 that nearly half as bad as you regurgitating 1967

Answer 2

The English players play in a league with a higher standard of football. it is just a plain obvious fact. more money equals better players equals tougher competition.
England lost due to some poor player performances and a lack of effective management.
Scotland lost because they underperformed and couldn't rise to the occasion of playing an average team.
Both teams lost for the same reasons but England did score and looked like they would win for the majority of the game whereas Scotland were never even in the game against Georgia.
Israel are very capable of holding Russia to a draw.
England are very capable of then beating Croatia at Wembley.
I do not envy Scotland having to get three points off Italy even at home.

We will see.

Answer 3

Stop picking players from the top four clubs and use the best ones from all the ones below. Let´s see if they would be honoured enough to put up a fight. I mean what difference would it make?! The likes of Rooney Gerrard Lampard and Cole haven´t been doing so well.

It´s all money really, watching them play on wednesday was like watching eleven players walking in a mine field. " Oh Shite i´ve got a league game at the weekend, don´t want to miss that because of an injury for England" They didn´t have any bottle and sat behind the ball where it was safest.

Yep it´s all money and when your club is forking it out it´s them you remain loyal to, England comes a poor second and it shows in the performances.

As for your point, well it´s a good one. I would love to see a good England team instead of an England team filled with good individuals.

Answer 4

Yes - he wore the WHU claret & blue with pride, dignity and honour. He would be biased towards 'collective' individuality and skills - rather than the SAF influenced 'Kick, Rush and Misshit' rubbish which has won Manu many silver trinkets in the EPL but has failed abysmally (since 1966) to win anything for England on the INTERNATIONAL stage. Moore, Peters and Hurst won the WC for England back in 66 - a perfect blend of solid defence. inventive 'ghosting' midfielder - and brave sure-footed striker. Methinks Paolo's time at the Upton Park Academy equipped him well to be a future England Manager -as and when Woy Woger's son delivers or fails to do so (again). ; )))

Answer 5

Why didn't we win a trophy in the seventies or early eighties then , the fact is even if we had more English men to choose from could we improve on the likes of Terry and Rooney? Brazil and others will always be superior to us . why doesn't USA win the World cup then seeing as they have two hundred million or so Americans to choose from, or perhaps Pakistan.Quantities don't make a good football team, quality does. Also you will find that countries such as Spain and Holland support and fund their up and coming youth more than this country where it's left up to the clubs to seek out talent as the FA has neglected our academies both with lack of interest and funds

Answer 6

An interesting theory, but you could also argue that the top English players should, therefore be of an even higher standeard because of being used to compete with the best players from Europe week in, week out. Those that make their club teams have, in fact, already shown they can compete at an international level.

I think our failure was plain and siimply down to tactical niavety and panic. Gus Hiddink, on the other hand, played a blinder.

It hardly takes a genius to work out that England are vulnerable in the later stages of the game and that if you can keep things tight for an hour, then break out with attacking energy, you're going to trouble the English back line.

I said this on about the hour mark and also that we would concede if McLaren didn't change our shape and focus. I could see the team sinking deeper and deeper, relying on long ball clearances and last ditch defending.

Sure enough, within ten or fifteen minutes we were 2-1 down. The Russians had brought on an in form goalscorere and sucker punched us, while we were thinking, "great, let's hold on to this tenuous 1-0 lead."

Our squad is blessed with attacking midfielders and players who can play at tempo. Why do we insist on trying to be organised and patient when the only player who can do that for us (Hargreaves) is out injured? We know we're going to conced at some point. Even harking back to our finest performance in recent years against Germany, it was 5-1, not 5-0. We should play to our strenghts. A team like Russia would not feel so brave if we'd tasken off Wright Phillips on the hour mark, gone three up front and three in the middle and run at them.

You can argue, probably rightly, that against teams like Brazil and Italy we'd never pull it off, but against teams outside the FIFA top ten, the likes of Rooney, Owen, Cole, Gerrard/Lampard should be able to outgun most other teams.

The thing that worries me is, I can see this quite plainly with all the experience of football culminating in the lower echelons of the Rymans Unibond league and a bit of teaching at high school level.

Why can't a professional who gets paid millions to coach the national team see Hiddinks intentions a mile off like I can? Or more likely, he can see it, but doesn't know how to change things, or dare to change things.

Answer 7

England should be teaching the young players at schoolboy level to play a close passing game, and to keep possession of the ball, then and only then will England do well in international football, at the moment the English players have the personal talent, but the game plan they have is years out of date, thats not only with the English side but with the club sides also. England would do well to keep away from English coaches and managers, they don't have a clue.

Answer 8

I agree. At club level, there must be development on the local players. Look at how Italy, France and Germany select their players...all based on current form... not so much on reputation. Of course, the likes of Ballack, Klose for Germany or Trezeguet, Makelele for France or Cannavaro for Italy are always regular, because besides reputation, they are all world-class players... the english have a few world class players, but are too short on local development. Italy had a squad with no big names and still won... France are experimenting on their new players and are winning... and Germany BEAT England with a second-string team out of normal position... think about how they did that... I mean even a Christian Pander of Schalke can shoot between a Rio Ferdinand or John Terry?!

Answer 9

The problem is that the Premiership contains too many foreign players. I enjoy watching them but it is sad that there are so many. Until the administrators place a maximum limit of say 2 on the number of foreign players which can exist in a squad the problem for the national team will con tinue. In addition there should be a maximum wage policy with bonus payments available for outstanding play. Players get paid too much basic income for little return from them!

Answer 10

Simply because england team dont have the required talent to face other european team.Too many foreigners in the EPL you would say??yes ..but thats not all..in fact its the little english club who are responsible for this situation..Big english teams go for foreigners because they are cheaper.Transfers between english clubs would double the price of a player..

In italy for example there is an agreement between big clubs a minor ones.If an italian player is performing well in a small club he will always be allowed to join the big one at a reasonable price. So he will get more football at european level and chance to improve and for the Italian national team it is a good thing.
In england whenever a young player is coming up ang just performing well in a little club,of course big club like manu ,chelsea or arsenal will go for him..but the price set on this player will immediately discourage club to go for him and will look for foreigners who are available at lower prices..
So this player who could have developed further into a very talented player will continue to play minor football at a lower level.No european football.No maturity.Nothing.

So its the national team which suffers.

Do you think a player like micah richard should play for manchester city??a club which will hardly participate in an european competition.
this is a single example.

Answer 11

One thing, The England team is overrated.
Beckham to be honest was more of an actor than a footballer.
In Italy or any other country, their players are one of the best but they dont get much coverage.
Its because the British media is really biased and proud!!
Another thing, the team is quite good but the problem is with the tactics that they use. No one is really dedicated to the national team. Its only Owen maybe who is really passionate about the national team. They dont give as much as they give to their clubs..