I thought the performance was pretty good, Montenegro are only 10 places below us and have the whole of the FYR to pick players from so its not just a nation the size of Bristol....I thought Jovetic was the most technically gifted player out there. By comparison the Spainish 2-1 win against Belarus left a lot to be desired, Spain had no attacking impetus whatsoever.
Charles Hughes studied football but his plan had a major flaw - It was crap!- but seriously, in terms of a system for limited players it had some merit. Hughes looked at how many passes it took to score a goal which suggested a long ball game was more productive. The flaw was that actually, if the players can pass - passing is more productive, but the stats were obtained from the data of the less skillful English players.
The biggest problem was the conclusion drawn as to the reason. It was quantitative and ignored the qualitative, such as the break away with accurate rapid passing, or the defence splitting pass from a Hoddle type. And the reason it was successful for a while was that it was all about percentages, cynically so and in John Beck's case obsessively so, and the ability of teams to stop others physically.
In Wimbledon's case, they never really lost their long ball game, but they did look to exploit the last third a little differently from Cambridge and had some talented forward players towards the end.
The English game has always been direct, but I do think things have changed and we're not long ball merchants in the way Graham Taylor's team were, for example. For what it's worth, I do think our technique is unrecognisable from that of the 80s and is comparable to other teams.
We don't keep the ball well enough as a team though, and in part I think it's because we don't impose our own tempo on the game and end up getting frustrated with the slower pace passing from the back. This is in part a cultural thing, but if we played like a Premiership side from the off we'd find more success. After all, Arsenal and Swansea are brilliant football sides, but both play at high tempo.
Unfortunately, the English game/style will not chnage for many, many years, no matter what new strategies are put in place. I have said it before, but the culture in Britain doesn't allow for the free flowing 'Latin' style of play. Britain still has a beer and pie culture........the vino and pasta is many, many years away. To a degree the only way to accelerate the process is by not qualifying for major tournaments. While we do qualify with our current style we believe there is still hope.........our nation has never apprecaited the Hoddle, Le Tessier, Rooney, Scholes yype of player........in fact, we tend to vilify them and look at things outside of their huge talents to knock them and bring them down. When we see a Joe Cole type of player we tell him to stop being so creative and fancy.......instead just pass the ball and wok harder when not in posession......the 'Latins' do almost the opposite!
I agree - very well put. I usually hope England fail to qualify for major tournaments, so that the shock of failure will precipitate major changes.
I would never hope England fail to qualify, and I would like to point out previous failures have changed nothing. I disagree that it will take many many years to change, and that "our nation" has never appreciated the type of player you mention - the media and the establishment may have not, they are not representative of the people, as we well know.
England have just had a good result and played pretty well ( for a change ). Can't we just enjoy the moment?
You honestly thought that was a good perforamce against the mighty Montenegro? You should be wirking for the F.A. It was dire compared to the heights we think we can achieve by 2022. Nothing will change. Infidentally, the people follow what the media tells us.......
No I don't think it was a good performance, I know it was by the evidence of my own eyes. A team ranked in the top thirty in the world was dispatched easily, the England team were finding each other with their passes and had 27 shots of which 12 were on target. They had 60% of the possession and did not concede a corner in the whole game.
Often recently England have been very poor and disappointing, this was clearly not one of those occasions, it is just a pity that your preconceived ideas stopped you from enjoying it.
Let me throw your original question back at you, you honestly think a comfortable 4-1 victory is a bad performance?
In my honest opinion one of the best England performances for a long time.
Think we still look suspect at the back & a top 6 team could cause us problems but to see an England team that tried to play football & was built on attack was good enough for me ( and I am not easily pleased :-) ).
it was not a poor performance by England it was a patient non panicked, stick to the game plan performance, we got a bit of fortune for the 2nd goal, but bar that it was a good performance
It was a good performance against a side that is decent but weaker than us. The same can be said for Poland. The question is, should we be competing against the Spains and Germanys and if we think we should what are we going to do about it? But in terms of the level England are currently at - I think the preformance was decent and Hodgson did a good job with his selections.
Back to John Beck - an observation I have is that whilst he was not a top top player - he certainly had ability and the teams he managed did not play football the way he did!
The game has changed since Charlie's days. The higher the level of football the more timeyou have to play out from the back and in the middle third. It 's the defensive third where it's tight and there is little time to play.
Isn't that where the "get it up the pitch quickly away from danger" idea comes from?
There is passing with a purpose and then there is doing it for the sake of it whilst going no-where expect getting into trouble.
Even last night England got caught out a bit (no-one is going to be perfect) but as on Friday when we got going attacking wise it was a decent performance.
Players need to have the confidence they can play the ball quickly and forwards which is what young players lack.
I wasn't born when we had GT in his first spell but from what I heard we used the wide men well to get balls into the area - or was it simply lump it down the pitch hoping for a lucky break like we had with Boothroyd whose idea worked when we had King and Young but once they left it was pretty clueless.
Probably explains why he hasn't done much since...
Pushy parents screaming abuse from the sidelines are killing their kids’ love of football
It’s the pushy parents screaming at little Liam from the touchline, making him feel clumsy and putting him off his stride, who are partly to blame for the decline of English footie, says Gary Lineker.
There are three questions that I am asked on a regular basis: what is your favourite flavour of crisps? What were you doing when you pointed at your eye and looked at the bench when Gazza cried in the 1990 semi? And why do England always disappoint in major tournaments?
This is no place for brand endorsement but: salt and vinegar. Second, in the West Germany game, I looked at Bobby Robson and pointed at my eye, meaning “Watch him” because I knew that Paul was a very special and vulnerable footballer and needed care.
Finally, before I begin with my reasons why England disappoint in major tournaments and the possible fixes, let me point out that this is not going down the “Things were so much better in my day” route. They weren’t!
We have never produced, proportionally, as many technically efficient players as most other countries. There was a time when our indomitable spirit and work ethic saw us through. Alas, the rest of the world now more than matches us in the less than beautiful side of the game, while we still linger exasperatingly behind when it comes to skill, flair and that most necessary of footballing basics – maintaining possession.
Yes, there are exceptions, and some eras are more productive than others. Italia ’90 immediately springs to mind, with Gascoigne, Waddle, Beardsley et al; 1996 was another vintage group, with Gazza still hobbling around alongside Teddy Sheringham and friends. Then there was the “golden generation” that never quite managed to grab even bronze.
These wonderfully gifted individuals came through in spite of the maligned and archaic system of development we’ve had in this country, certainly not because of it.
And here we come to the crux of the matter. Until very recently, we never taught our youngsters properly. We have never taught our coaches to teach our youngsters properly. And we wouldn’t have had enough coaches, even if we had taught them how to teach our youngsters properly. Countries such as Spain, Germany and the Netherlands (the ones that consistently produce fine footballers) all have ten times the number of qualified coaches as England.
I am writing not to crush you with pessimism but to offer some degree of hope. Change is afoot. In very recent times, the FA has made some long-overdue but crucial changes that should make a drastic difference to the kind of player we develop.
In this country, since footballs made from pigs’ bladders were whacked into goals without nets, we’ve played on full-size pitches. Whatever our age. This is ludicrous. Sevenand eight-year-olds valiantly trying to cover the same acreage as those grown-up chaps in the Premier League is absurd. To add to the lunacy, a little goalkeeper, barely out of nappies, has to stand between posts that are eight strides apart – adult strides – and under a crossbar more than twice his height.
It’s obvious, then, why we have a long-ball culture: the big lads who can kick it furthest are the ones that stand out. What chance for the diminutive yet gifted midfielder? No chance of him developing his tiki-taka football. The only way to get to the other end of the pitch is to belt it and then belt it again.
This madness is only exacerbated by the maniacal parents on the touchline spouting nonsense at their children. The competitive nature of most mums and dads is astounding. The fear they instil in our promising but sensitive Johnny is utterly depressing. We need a parental cultural revolution. If we could just get them to shut the fuck up and let their children enjoy themselves, you would be staggered at the difference it would make.
Having four boys myself, I have stood on the sidelines of countless games, spanning many years. Oh, the drivel I have heard, the abuse I have witnessed, the damage I have seen done. Promising young players barked at by clueless dad. “Don’t mess with it there.” “Just kick it.” “Stop fucking about.” I could go on. I have seen a father pick his son up by the scruff of the neck and yell in his face: “You’ll never make it playing that crap.”
Occasionally, I’ve intervened and expressed my view that they are being a hindrance. The reactions have varied from acknowledgement and genuine interest to complete disgust that I should stick my nose in.
Incidentally, I never shouted anything other than encouragement from a touchline . . . to both teams. My father was generally reserved on the touchline but he did lose it once after I swore at a referee when I was about 14. He got the coach to take me off. I learned a lesson that day.
Some of the academies around the country have introduced a rule that parents must be quiet and only applaud. This has allowed talented young players to express themselves on the field, to take people on, to try a trick, all without the dreaded, predictable rubbish cascading into their ears. This is a very good thing. Who cares who wins an under-eights game? Who cares if a youngster makes a mistake? It’s how we learn.
We are creating a generation of players who are living in a world of Fifa pixels, who think they know everything about the game, yet who have never enjoyed the explosion of joyful emotions that comes with the scoring of a goal, the immense satisfaction of a defencesplitting pass (midfielders assure me that this is true), the feeling of power that comes with the winning of a crunching tackle (I made that bit up), or the agony/pleasure – depending on your disposition – of standing in a wall and getting one in the bollocks.
Things are gradually changing. Academies are silencing Mum and Dad; the FA has brought in smaller-sided games with smaller pitches and goals (oh, how the parents moaned at that); the coaching is improving. The revolution has begun.
We must keep an eye on the delicate aspects of the beautiful game, the nuances that make it beautiful: the inexplicable moments of grace created by vulnerable geniuses such as Paul Gascoigne. We need to view our young players like Sir Bobby did Paul, with patience, nurturing and understanding. Then perhaps we will see a revolution in the way England play and we might get beyond tearful semifinals against well-nourished Germans. One day, one day, we shall rise again.
Now where did I leave that packet of salt and vinegar?
Very good and hits the nail on the head but my son (a 12 year old keeper) has played more games on full size pitches and goals than on the correct sized ones this season! The coaches (generally) don't undertsand why a proportional pitch is so important and I have even seen one apologise to parents for not playing on a big pitch.
And as for winning - it is still more important than development! We are a long way off from producing the technical players other countries do, and a major factor is that we are a very insular (UKIP type) country that think we know best despite all the evidence to the contrary. We need to a) Get in more coaches of the right qulaity - some foreign, b) Get rid of the dinosaur coaches, c) Ensure U13s football and below is not too competetive, and more about learning the game and developing skills -a 13 year old should not be lacking in ball technique compared to older, d) Be strict on what pitch sizes kids play on and even with FA changes, the kids go up a size a year too early - I'll add an e) which I think is important. e) When you have a 12 year old who is built like a brick you know what and is 6ft plus- he plays with older kids - the pitch should be proportional but also the players - both the bigger and smaller players would benefit from this.
Comments
In Wimbledon's case, they never really lost their long ball game, but they did look to exploit the last third a little differently from Cambridge and had some talented forward players towards the end.
The English game has always been direct, but I do think things have changed and we're not long ball merchants in the way Graham Taylor's team were, for example. For what it's worth, I do think our technique is unrecognisable from that of the 80s and is comparable to other teams.
We don't keep the ball well enough as a team though, and in part I think it's because we don't impose our own tempo on the game and end up getting frustrated with the slower pace passing from the back. This is in part a cultural thing, but if we played like a Premiership side from the off we'd find more success. After all, Arsenal and Swansea are brilliant football sides, but both play at high tempo.
Think we still look suspect at the back & a top 6 team could cause us problems but to see an England team that tried to play football & was built on attack was good enough for me ( and I am not easily pleased :-) ).
Back to John Beck - an observation I have is that whilst he was not a top top player - he certainly had ability and the teams he managed did not play football the way he did!
There is passing with a purpose and then there is doing it for the sake of it whilst going no-where expect getting into trouble.
Even last night England got caught out a bit (no-one is going to be perfect) but as on Friday when we got going attacking wise it was a decent performance.
Players need to have the confidence they can play the ball quickly and forwards which is what young players lack.
I wasn't born when we had GT in his first spell but from what I heard we used the wide men well to get balls into the area - or was it simply lump it down the pitch hoping for a lucky break like we had with Boothroyd whose idea worked when we had King and Young but once they left it was pretty clueless.
Probably explains why he hasn't done much since...
http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/10/pushy-parents-screaming-abuse-sidelines-are-killing-their-kids-love-football
Pushy parents screaming abuse from the sidelines are killing their kids’ love of football
It’s the pushy parents screaming at little Liam from the touchline, making him feel clumsy and putting him off his stride, who are partly to blame for the decline of English footie, says Gary Lineker.
There are three questions that I am asked on a regular basis: what is your favourite flavour of crisps? What were you doing when you pointed at your eye and looked at the bench when Gazza cried in the 1990 semi? And why do England always disappoint in major tournaments?
This is no place for brand endorsement but: salt and vinegar. Second, in the West Germany game, I looked at Bobby Robson and pointed at my eye, meaning “Watch him” because I knew that Paul was a very special and vulnerable footballer and needed care.
Finally, before I begin with my reasons why England disappoint in major tournaments and the possible fixes, let me point out that this is not going down the “Things were so much better in my day” route. They weren’t!
We have never produced, proportionally, as many technically efficient players as most other countries. There was a time when our indomitable spirit and work ethic saw us through. Alas, the rest of the world now more than matches us in the less than beautiful side of the game, while we still linger exasperatingly behind when it comes to skill, flair and that most necessary of footballing basics – maintaining possession.
Yes, there are exceptions, and some eras are more productive than others. Italia ’90 immediately springs to mind, with Gascoigne, Waddle, Beardsley et al; 1996 was another vintage group, with Gazza still hobbling around alongside Teddy Sheringham and friends. Then there was the “golden generation” that never quite managed to grab even bronze.
These wonderfully gifted individuals came through in spite of the maligned and archaic system of development we’ve had in this country, certainly not because of it.
And here we come to the crux of the matter. Until very recently, we never taught our youngsters properly. We have never taught our coaches to teach our youngsters properly. And we wouldn’t have had enough coaches, even if we had taught them how to teach our youngsters properly. Countries such as Spain, Germany and the Netherlands (the ones that consistently produce fine footballers) all have ten times the number of qualified coaches as England.
I am writing not to crush you with pessimism but to offer some degree of hope. Change is afoot. In very recent times, the FA has made some long-overdue but crucial changes that should make a drastic difference to the kind of player we develop.
In this country, since footballs made from pigs’ bladders were whacked into goals without nets, we’ve played on full-size pitches. Whatever our age. This is ludicrous. Sevenand eight-year-olds valiantly trying to cover the same acreage as those grown-up chaps in the Premier League is absurd. To add to the lunacy, a little goalkeeper, barely out of nappies, has to stand between posts that are eight strides apart – adult strides – and under a crossbar more than twice his height.
It’s obvious, then, why we have a long-ball culture: the big lads who can kick it furthest are the ones that stand out. What chance for the diminutive yet gifted midfielder? No chance of him developing his tiki-taka football. The only way to get to the other end of the pitch is to belt it and then belt it again.
This madness is only exacerbated by the maniacal parents on the touchline spouting nonsense at their children. The competitive nature of most mums and dads is astounding. The fear they instil in our promising but sensitive Johnny is utterly depressing. We need a parental cultural revolution. If we could just get them to shut the fuck up and let their children enjoy themselves, you would be staggered at the difference it would make.
Having four boys myself, I have stood on the sidelines of countless games, spanning many years. Oh, the drivel I have heard, the abuse I have witnessed, the damage I have seen done. Promising young players barked at by clueless dad. “Don’t mess with it there.” “Just kick it.” “Stop fucking about.” I could go on. I have seen a father pick his son up by the scruff of the neck and yell in his face: “You’ll never make it playing that crap.”
Occasionally, I’ve intervened and expressed my view that they are being a hindrance. The reactions have varied from acknowledgement and genuine interest to complete disgust that I should stick my nose in.
Incidentally, I never shouted anything other than encouragement from a touchline . . . to both teams. My father was generally reserved on the touchline but he did lose it once after I swore at a referee when I was about 14. He got the coach to take me off. I learned a lesson that day.
Some of the academies around the country have introduced a rule that parents must be quiet and only applaud. This has allowed talented young players to express themselves on the field, to take people on, to try a trick, all without the dreaded, predictable rubbish cascading into their ears. This is a very good thing. Who cares who wins an under-eights game? Who cares if a youngster makes a mistake? It’s how we learn.
We are creating a generation of players who are living in a world of Fifa pixels, who think they know everything about the game, yet who have never enjoyed the explosion of joyful emotions that comes with the scoring of a goal, the immense satisfaction of a defencesplitting pass (midfielders assure me that this is true), the feeling of power that comes with the winning of a crunching tackle (I made that bit up), or the agony/pleasure – depending on your disposition – of standing in a wall and getting one in the bollocks.
Things are gradually changing. Academies are silencing Mum and Dad; the FA has brought in smaller-sided games with smaller pitches and goals (oh, how the parents moaned at that); the coaching is improving. The revolution has begun.
We must keep an eye on the delicate aspects of the beautiful game, the nuances that make it beautiful: the inexplicable moments of grace created by vulnerable geniuses such as Paul Gascoigne. We need to view our young players like Sir Bobby did Paul, with patience, nurturing and understanding. Then perhaps we will see a revolution in the way England play and we might get beyond tearful semifinals against well-nourished Germans. One day, one day, we shall rise again.
Now where did I leave that packet of salt and vinegar?
And as for winning - it is still more important than development! We are a long way off from producing the technical players other countries do, and a major factor is that we are a very insular (UKIP type) country that think we know best despite all the evidence to the contrary. We need to a) Get in more coaches of the right qulaity - some foreign, b) Get rid of the dinosaur coaches, c) Ensure U13s football and below is not too competetive, and more about learning the game and developing skills -a 13 year old should not be lacking in ball technique compared to older, d) Be strict on what pitch sizes kids play on and even with FA changes, the kids go up a size a year too early - I'll add an e) which I think is important. e) When you have a 12 year old who is built like a brick you know what and is 6ft plus- he plays with older kids - the pitch should be proportional but also the players - both the bigger and smaller players would benefit from this.