Serious question for someone who knows more then me about it, have the other more successful European nations achieved it by destroying their league football?
As that seems to be what guys like Danny Mills think is the cure, so im curious about what the state of Dutch, German, French, Italian, Belgian & Spanish football is outside of the teams we see in the Champions League or Europa League each season.
It is so so frustrating to see this so called expert commission going about things in all the wrong ways, pandering to the needs and wants of the top clubs.
Serious question for someone who knows more then me about it, have the other more successful European nations achieved it by destroying their league football?
As that seems to be what guys like Danny Mills think is the cure, so im curious about what the state of Dutch, German, French, Italian, Belgian & Spanish football is outside of the teams we see in the Champions League or Europa League each season.
Is it a case of one or the other?
People here would have you believe that outside of the top 10 teams in every other European league then nobody is good enough for us.
Long term we have to do something about the set up at youth level where the combination of competitive demands (usually from parents) and poor coaches/managers mean that players do not play in the best formations/positions for their development and their is minimal coaching to develop good habits and remove bad ones, An awful lot of coaching is confined to practice games where the opportunities to coach (ie change something by repetitive behaviour) are pretty limited.
Shorter term something has to be done about the financial damage being caused to the lower leagues by the dominance of the Premier League. I would also do something about deferring the wages of younger players into trust funds for later life - we have so many who show promise early on who never fully develop - I suspect living the high life predominates at the expense of putting their heads down and developing as a player. I also think the Premier League (or failing that a very rich patriotic English billionaire needs to look to getting a core of promising English players to the same team so that they get used to playing together in a competitive situation week in week out (international friendlies are a joke in this regard) as this is a pretty common pattern in most of our international rivals.
Given that the FA has repeatedly proven itself fit for purpose in running our game - I think the time is now coming where legislation is now necessary to transfer their powers and responsibilities to another set of people that might be better suited to the task (and no I don't mean politicians).
We have too many overseas players at the top clubs, limit the starting teams to 5 overseas players and the young english players will be able to break through into the top teams thus giving more competition for the likes of Barkley Lallana & co I'm not saying these players are not that good but what if one of the hundreds of english kids who don't get a look in at Man City/Arsenal/Chelsea would be ahead of them had they had game time under their belts Yes the coaching needs looking at but first of all we have to reduce the amount of overseas players in starting lineups
In the long term we should be closely studying the Northern European international successes such as Holland and Germany. Their historical football culture is similar to ours yet they've moved on and consistently produced world class talent out of all proportion to us. Also when you look at the intensity that the German team can play at you realise that we can't even compete in terms of work rate which is embarrassing as it used to be our strength. The depressing thing is that someone will open up this thread in a few years and nothing will have changed.
It might also be added that the matchday experience in the Bundesliga (to say nothing of the cost) is somewhat better than in the Premiership. We do have something of a hard core who think that we have nothing to learn from the Continent - even our beloved Belgium.
Perhaps sending out some of our youth players to get experience elsewhere in Europe rather than at Conference and L2 teams might also add something - but then you probably need a network to do that!
Frank Lampard said he and Gerrard sat the team down after the first game and told them all about how awful it feels to leave a tournament early. And that, in a nutshell, is our biggest problem. Fear of failure over confidence. How many other teams had a similar speech? Costa Rica? Ghana? Uruguay? Seems unlikely.
Frank Lampard said he and Gerrard sat the team down after the first game and told them all about how awful it feels to leave a tournament early. And that, in a nutshell, is our biggest problem. Fear of failure over confidence. How many other teams had a similar speech? Costa Rica? Ghana? Uruguay? Seems unlikely.
and at the same time you got people saying these guys don't give and shit and only care about the money.
That FA report annoys me. It makes so many assumptions that just aren't shared by the majority of football.
Take problem 1 for example: "Inadequate and insufficient playing opportunities for 18-20-year-old elite players at top clubs." To artificially create 'opportunities' for them to play at the lowest professional level in England does nothing to address this at all - whilst the clubs are financially able to buy from any market, they will go get the best players from anywhere.
I suspect the only way to stop that practice is to have a quota for starting XIs, measured as an average over a full season perhaps. This would force clubs to play English players and as a by-product would mean the foreign players would be the very best a club is able to afford - which is fine, we want our players to play with the best.
But why should we assume that English players should get into the top clubs in England? Why is there such little interest in our players from abroad? To me that says our youngsters simply aren't good enough, and more poignantly that there's little confidence elsewhere in the quality of our coaching.
We have to get it right at the roots - enable the clubs throughout the pyramid to develop their players, and for those genuinely good enough to spend time at St George's Park in their mid-teens to learn the game with the country's very best coaches and avoid the 'win at all costs' culture of the Premier League until they've properly developed.
I think the FA have asked the wrong questions and got the wrong answers even to those.
*Inadequate and insufficient playing opportunities for 18-20-year-old elite players at top clubs*
Playing lower league opposition I would also consider inadequate
Limit prem & champs sides to only 5 foreigners that way at least half the team will be English
The lower league teams will benefit more by bringing through good players and getting paid more for them
The English players will triple overnight in the top two divisions thus giving more English players the chance to play with & against top level opposition
This can only have a positive effect on the numbers of English players and not neccesarily the talent but at least we can then address that seperately once we have the numbers up
Then it comes down to the coaching, this is where we have to increase numbers of coaches etc
Take 3 clubs- Arsenal/Chelsea/Man City
Out of 75 players they have a combined total of 19 considered home grown, but only 13 of those are English and that includes Richard Wright for Man city & John Terry, Frank Lampard & Ashley Cole all considered finished at international level for England
What chance do English hopefuls have of breaking into the top teams!
The boat sailed when the clubs took control of the development of young players away from the schools. We are now trying to manufacture players through a system that ain't working. Boys starting out in the U7s are playing in leagues for TEN years before they get to the stage of signing schoolboy forms at 16 years old. That's too much. I suspect Jack Wilshere's catalogue of injuries are the result of this.
With boys only allowed to play a certain number of games per season (quite rightly), the clubs are dictating when they play, to the detriment of the schools system.
Return the development of young players back to the school system. Primary School team - Secondary School team -District - County - Country. Pump the so called grass-roots money into the schools system. The clubs should not have first call, they all have their own agendas.
Then train-up ex- players to go into schools to teach the kids how to play, with the emphasis on ball-work and technique. There are enough ex-players who would do it, to be able to allocate one per school.
School football is competitive enough in the younger age groups, without the pressure they get these days from the sidelines in youth leagues. Boys will develop naturally and progress into the clubs at 14-15, as they did previously.
Educate parents that going to a big named club at 14-15 isn't necessarily a good move for their boys development. A more focused approach, as at our club, results in progression into the first team. If they are then good enough they will be signed by Premiership clubs and eventually play representative football.
Stop the big clubs stockpiling players, who should be playing at Championship or League One level, and continuing their development, instead of stagnating. Chelsea had THIRTY players out on loan last season.
Sadly, the clubs have too much power now and there is no real chance of reversing the process. The FA doesn't have the clout to do anything about it anyway. Their report is a desperate act from a fading institution. We will all have forgotten about the World Cup when we get to Brentford for the opening game. England's fixtures in the Autumn will be an irrelevance.
Solution? Accept our position as second or third rate footballing nation, enjy our victories and be pleasantly surprised when we make it past the qualifiers. Look at fans of clubs like Japan and Australia. They have a great time. I'm so sick of seeing blubbing adults with white and red makeup all over their faces.
No disrespect, like.
Whilst I agree, partly, about accepting our position and it being pathetic the way adults behave every 2 years when an international tournament is on, I can't agree with the rest of it.
How many Australian or Japanese football clubs can you name? How big a part of their culture is football?
That's the difference - football is our national sport, a sport ingrained in our culture and a sport we have a history in. Many people in this country identify themselves not by their profession and not by their social status, but by the very team they support of a weekend. Many offices all over the country will have exactly the same discussions on a Monday morning - discussions about the same teams, the same names and same games.
Consider one of your examples; Japan. Imagine if there was a sumo wrestling world cup and the Japanese went out in the first round, would they say "Oh well, the worlds a big place - we just aren't the best!"? No! Japan's Sumo Wrestling is our Football.
Football is a big deal over here.
What's more, we're home to one of the biggest leagues in the world. Many of the players we see dominating the world cup actually make their living in this country - because there is so much money in our football system, so much media coverage and so many resources dedicated to it. Is it wrong to assume that (homegrown) players being educated and brought into the game through such a system should be able to be competitive internationally? I don't think so.
We're nothing like Australia or Japan, and whilst we shouldn't delude ourselves any further that we're world beaters and going to take every tournament by storm, we should also be able to go in to a tournament expecting to get at least one point.
For what it's worth, I'm not one of those adults you mentioned - I sipped my beer throughout the game last night, admired a decent second half and had a post-match chat with a friend, disappointed but vaguely optimistic for the future.
I take your point and sympathise with your very reasonable views. I was perhaps exaggerating, in mentioning Japan and Australia. The point is that we may (arguably) be the original home of football, but until we let go of it and begin to accept where we are in terms of footballing status, for us football will be nothing more nor less a (for some) bitter reminder of days gone by, tied in unhealthily (in my opinion) with other aspects of lost status which we as a nation have undergone. As long as we do that our unrealistically high expectations will be a source of embarrassment and the losses we undergo will carry far more weight than they should. The day we can move on will be the day we can start to enjoy our football again.
Because we spend a huge amount on football in this country, and have managed to successfully market the Premier League brand abroad should not be confused with developing the best footballers or managers. We provide a marketplace for the best footballers and managers from around the world, and have the privilege of developing a few of our own players by association.
There are options in terms of how you achieve it - but basically they are around whether you encourage clubs to produce English talent or take some power from them and produce it nationally but get them to contribute financially. Now I think some people may miss the point of how restricting foreign players can help. You have to ask yourself what is the ambition of Chelsea, Man Utd et all. It is no longer enough for these clubs to be the best in England - they demand to be the best in Europe and even the World. So if you say to them - you can only play 5 non home players at any point - they need a better level of home talent to achieve their goals! They then have a stake in that happening.
Currently they have no stake at all. Yes they want to sign up the best home players and make them better - but they know they can always get an African or another European in if they need to. It is all about an elite few in terms of home grown talent - but you need an ocean not a puddle. How many 17 year olds do you hear are going to be the next superstar and then you see them on Brentford's bench. You don't know who is going to make that step to being a world class player - you need to train all youngsters to have the basic ingredients - technique/skills/vision/intelligence (which we don't). You have to have zero interest in winning - development and encouraging kids to try things is everything and you have to end this fixation with big physical young players as it ignores the fact that most don't retain that advantage!
I have seen posts on here from people who coach youngsters and it is all about winning. That should be so low a priority that it is irrelevant. Kids shouldn't be worried about rejection - they should be freed up to express themselves - things can click into place at 17, 18, 19 even. If these kids are not receiving the coaching they need- they are lost to the game!
He isn't world footballer of the year, but the career of Ricky Lambert can show you how players can develop late. Ian Wright is an example where he started his league career at 23. You have to play the law of averages and have as many well coached youngsters as possible, as you really don't know where the stars are going to come from. At the moment, we produce Rooneys but we don't produce enough of them!
You have to decide how we are going to play - if it was up to me - that would be Hoddle's job. Then coaching will focus on developing players to acheive it. There are some risks - but this is how you do it and you then hope you have got it right. You cant rely on Chelsea - owned by a Russian, Man Utd - owned by Americans etc... to have any interest in making the England team stronger.
There are different ways to achieve it - another way would be to use the depth of professional clubs we have. Say if Crewe produced a Rooney - they should net £5m for doing so! What would this do - it would focus these academies on finding and recruiting world class players and increase the chances of more appearing! We should look to what others have done, but we can also be innovative and look at advantages that might be inherent in our football. What should tell you all you need to know is that Premier clubs have brought in measures that can only discourage smaller clubs from developing talent! The next time Dyke preaches us on what we need to do - we need to be ready with rotten eggs and tomatoes to throw at him.
Yes, you are right - and if the FA put money into it there would be more - why not make them very cheap but harder to pass. It will cost, but we would benefit. If you limit the number of foreign players the top clubs can play - they would have a stake in this!
the one thing that we don't need to be English are the coaches - we can learn from foreign coaches. Of course the numbers we need will dictate that most will be English but foreign coaches need to be encouraged. I watched a Croatian coach my son a few years back and his sessions were novel and enjoyed greatly by the kids. The head coach didn't continue with him because what he was doing wasn't exactly what he wanted, but he missed and deprived the boys of learning something special IMO.
I think there are several factors and there's some good points made here. TBH if, as is suggested, U-21 players aren't released from the Sky clubs, then there should be a positive effort to pick them from other sides with good academies (such as both CAFCs, Southampton, the Nigels). I think there is also an issue with the academy system in that there's a lot of input required by parents etc. A lot of talented kids won't have parents who have the time/commitment etc, so there has to be something that can pick up those who miss out - the Ian Wrights etc. But I don't believe anything will happen. English kids will continue to be overpriced relative to, say Belgians. The sort of grass roots commitments that countries like Germany or Netherlands show to sport will never happen here. I'd suggest that is down to culture - generally England has a very individualistic culture and the idea of working collectively (which is after all what a team does) is not promoted and has probably declined in the last 30 years.
Yes, I do agree - I think it can happen but the biggest issue is having enough people wanting it to. Do fans care that much that they put their club before England for instance. Also, we are arrogant - look at UKIP - they say we can replace European trade with trade with other countries - but there is no reason why we don't trade with those countries now! But the Englishman's (and I am English) instinct is to be individualistic to the point of stupidity.
A major thing getting in the way are the big clubs - would fans of these clubs be happy if the solution made it harder for their clubs to be competetive in Europe for 5-10 years?
This picture shows the amount of foreign based players in each world cup squad. Doesn't seem to be an overall correlation though, or any indication that foreign based players would help.
This picture shows the amount of foreign based players in each world cup squad. Doesn't seem to be an overall correlation though, or any indication that foreign based players would help.
This picture shows the amount of foreign based players in each world cup squad. Doesn't seem to be an overall correlation though, or any indication that foreign based players would help.
This article by Matt Hughes appeared in the Times this morning. I tend to agree with its central point which is that our players appear to lack the intelligence, maturity and tactical awareness to cope with tournament football. My take is that this is, in part, cultural and reflects the way the game is played in this country. It remains essentially laddish and gung-ho rather than being cerebral and disciplined. This works at Club level and produces wonderful entertainment, but in international tournaments our players become "fish out of water" and systematically fail to deliver.
Here's the article,
"Fabio Capello is not known for his lyrical and insightful use of English, but one of his observations about the national team struck a chord. “Lions in the autumn, lambs in the spring,” he said when asked to explain England’s recurrent failures.
Although Capello’s emphasis on the gruelling effects of a Premier League season has some merit, there has been a deeper malaise at work in Brazil, as England’s players have appeared to morph into even less intimidating farmyard animals. For crucial periods of both defeats by Italy and Uruguay, they resembled headless chickens, or rabbits caught in the headlights.
Steven Gerrard said as much on Thursday evening, conceding that England were naive and lacked the nous to respond to the changing game situation. Many of us are equally guilty of ignoring the mental side of the game, and the conversation soon moved on to more emotive topics, such as Gerrard’s feelings and international future.
While these were perfectly valid lines of inquiry, he confirmed the impression of a sporting culture in which the mind is regarded as secondary to the heart, and of course the feet. This old-school attitude remains depressingly widespread, with some even arguing that the presence of Steve Peters, the psychiatrist, at the World Cup is a sign of weakness.
Peters was brought in by Roy Hodgson to improve his players’ mental edge, but it was unrealistic to expect him to have a transformative effect in such a short period. What English players really need is a cultural revolution, in which the power of the brain is valued as much as the body.
Having spent years lamenting the technical deficit between English and foreign players, which has shown signs of closing recently, an even bigger mental gap may have been ignored. Even in their better moments, England appeared to be playing off the cuff. Why do English players seemingly lack such basic skills?
A big factor in this tournament is a lack of experience, for which Hodgson is culpable after assembling a squad in which only five players had played at a previous World Cup. He is also the victim of a systemic failure, however, as it is not just World Cup experience that his squad lacks. Very few of them have experience of any tournament football as a result of the disdain shown by Premier League clubs towards the international age-group competitions that take place every summer. This point has been laboured by the likes of Stuart Pearce, but remains pertinent.
As England Under-21 manager, Pearce was furious at being denied the services of 17 players at the European Championship last summer, and returned to the theme yesterday, arguing convincingly that Luke Shaw would have gained more from playing in the under-20 tournament in Toulon last month than warming the bench in Brazil. As a result of being denied such experiences, England’s players do not develop skills that are vital in tournament football — managing yourself through several games against very different opponents in a congested period, assessing evolving match situations and knowing when to accept a draw or push for a win — shortcomings that have all proved costly, as Gerrard acknowledged.
Though the pathway from age-group to senior international sides is clearly smoother elsewhere, even those who do make it to the top in this country are lacking in key areas. The tactical flexibility shown by many teams at this tournament, with many regularly switching formations during matches, is unheard of in England.
The gung-ho nature of the Premier League does not help in the development of players with more cerebral qualities, but there are other problems. It sometimes feels as if tactics are a dirty word in English football, with journalists often scorned by managers for asking about tactical issues. When a Premier League manager such as Tim Sherwood says he does not study formations and simply sends 11 players out on to the pitch, it is no wonder the English game is lacking.
This environment is not conducive to the production of thinking footballers, and it is instructive that even the most talented players who have emerged in recent years largely rely on physical virtues or their individuality. Such qualities are invaluable, of course, but it feels increasingly that England’s players and coaches should be sent back to school. And not to read Animal Farm."
A good article, matched by the insight of your introduction, Mundell. I admired Michel Platini for his intelligence on the pitch and his eloquence off it. Here, footballers with brains - Graeme Le Saux, Pat Nevin - get widely ridiculed, not least by their peers.
Yeah i supported Roy staying on but it appears that he has chosen Lampard to start against Costa Rica & is asking Gerrard to stay on, that is making me think a change is needed, as how will either of those help England long term?
Why not try out a Wilshere/Henderson partnership against Costa Rica, would make more sense IMO.
Comments
As that seems to be what guys like Danny Mills think is the cure, so im curious about what the state of Dutch, German, French, Italian, Belgian & Spanish football is outside of the teams we see in the Champions League or Europa League each season.
Is it a case of one or the other?
Can't find a link but well worth a read from a world cup winner who played and now coaches in England.
Shorter term something has to be done about the financial damage being caused to the lower leagues by the dominance of the Premier League. I would also do something about deferring the wages of younger players into trust funds for later life - we have so many who show promise early on who never fully develop - I suspect living the high life predominates at the expense of putting their heads down and developing as a player. I also think the Premier League (or failing that a very rich patriotic English billionaire needs to look to getting a core of promising English players to the same team so that they get used to playing together in a competitive situation week in week out (international friendlies are a joke in this regard) as this is a pretty common pattern in most of our international rivals.
Given that the FA has repeatedly proven itself fit for purpose in running our game - I think the time is now coming where legislation is now necessary to transfer their powers and responsibilities to another set of people that might be better suited to the task (and no I don't mean politicians).
I'm not saying these players are not that good but what if one of the hundreds of english kids who don't get a look in at Man City/Arsenal/Chelsea would be ahead of them had they had game time under their belts
Yes the coaching needs looking at but first of all we have to reduce the amount of overseas players in starting lineups
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/27962633
Take problem 1 for example: "Inadequate and insufficient playing opportunities for 18-20-year-old elite players at top clubs." To artificially create 'opportunities' for them to play at the lowest professional level in England does nothing to address this at all - whilst the clubs are financially able to buy from any market, they will go get the best players from anywhere.
I suspect the only way to stop that practice is to have a quota for starting XIs, measured as an average over a full season perhaps. This would force clubs to play English players and as a by-product would mean the foreign players would be the very best a club is able to afford - which is fine, we want our players to play with the best.
But why should we assume that English players should get into the top clubs in England? Why is there such little interest in our players from abroad? To me that says our youngsters simply aren't good enough, and more poignantly that there's little confidence elsewhere in the quality of our coaching.
We have to get it right at the roots - enable the clubs throughout the pyramid to develop their players, and for those genuinely good enough to spend time at St George's Park in their mid-teens to learn the game with the country's very best coaches and avoid the 'win at all costs' culture of the Premier League until they've properly developed.
I think the FA have asked the wrong questions and got the wrong answers even to those.
Playing lower league opposition I would also consider inadequate
Limit prem & champs sides to only 5 foreigners that way at least half the team will be English
The lower league teams will benefit more by bringing through good players and getting paid more for them
The English players will triple overnight in the top two divisions thus giving more English players the chance to play with & against top level opposition
This can only have a positive effect on the numbers of English players and not neccesarily the talent but at least we can then address that seperately once we have the numbers up
Then it comes down to the coaching, this is where we have to increase numbers of coaches etc
Take 3 clubs- Arsenal/Chelsea/Man City
Out of 75 players they have a combined total of 19 considered home grown, but only 13 of those are English and that includes Richard Wright for Man city & John Terry, Frank Lampard & Ashley Cole all considered finished at international level for England
What chance do English hopefuls have of breaking into the top teams!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/10287657/Premier-League-squads-in-full-how-many-foreign-players-in-your-team.html
John Sitton tells it like it is.
With boys only allowed to play a certain number of games per season (quite rightly), the clubs are dictating when they play, to the detriment of the schools system.
Return the development of young players back to the school system. Primary School team - Secondary School team -District - County - Country. Pump the so called grass-roots money into the schools system. The clubs should not have first call, they all have their own agendas.
Then train-up ex- players to go into schools to teach the kids how to play, with the emphasis on ball-work and technique. There are enough ex-players who would do it, to be able to allocate one per school.
School football is competitive enough in the younger age groups, without the pressure they get these days from the sidelines in youth leagues. Boys will develop naturally and progress into the clubs at 14-15, as they did previously.
Educate parents that going to a big named club at 14-15 isn't necessarily a good move for their boys development.
A more focused approach, as at our club, results in progression into the first team. If they are then good enough they will be signed by Premiership clubs and eventually play representative football.
Stop the big clubs stockpiling players, who should be playing at Championship or League One level, and continuing their development, instead of stagnating. Chelsea had THIRTY players out on loan last season.
Sadly, the clubs have too much power now and there is no real chance of reversing the process. The FA doesn't have the clout to do anything about it anyway. Their report is a desperate act from a fading institution. We will all have forgotten about the World Cup when we get to Brentford for the opening game. England's fixtures in the Autumn will be an irrelevance.
That's my view anyway.
Because we spend a huge amount on football in this country, and have managed to successfully market the Premier League brand abroad should not be confused with developing the best footballers or managers. We provide a marketplace for the best footballers and managers from around the world, and have the privilege of developing a few of our own players by association.
Currently they have no stake at all. Yes they want to sign up the best home players and make them better - but they know they can always get an African or another European in if they need to. It is all about an elite few in terms of home grown talent - but you need an ocean not a puddle. How many 17 year olds do you hear are going to be the next superstar and then you see them on Brentford's bench. You don't know who is going to make that step to being a world class player - you need to train all youngsters to have the basic ingredients - technique/skills/vision/intelligence (which we don't). You have to have zero interest in winning - development and encouraging kids to try things is everything and you have to end this fixation with big physical young players as it ignores the fact that most don't retain that advantage!
I have seen posts on here from people who coach youngsters and it is all about winning. That should be so low a priority that it is irrelevant. Kids shouldn't be worried about rejection - they should be freed up to express themselves - things can click into place at 17, 18, 19 even. If these kids are not receiving the coaching they need- they are lost to the game!
He isn't world footballer of the year, but the career of Ricky Lambert can show you how players can develop late. Ian Wright is an example where he started his league career at 23. You have to play the law of averages and have as many well coached youngsters as possible, as you really don't know where the stars are going to come from. At the moment, we produce Rooneys but we don't produce enough of them!
You have to decide how we are going to play - if it was up to me - that would be Hoddle's job. Then coaching will focus on developing players to acheive it. There are some risks - but this is how you do it and you then hope you have got it right. You cant rely on Chelsea - owned by a Russian, Man Utd - owned by Americans etc... to have any interest in making the England team stronger.
There are different ways to achieve it - another way would be to use the depth of professional clubs we have. Say if Crewe produced a Rooney - they should net £5m for doing so! What would this do - it would focus these academies on finding and recruiting world class players and increase the chances of more appearing! We should look to what others have done, but we can also be innovative and look at advantages that might be inherent in our football. What should tell you all you need to know is that Premier clubs have brought in measures that can only discourage smaller clubs from developing talent! The next time Dyke preaches us on what we need to do - we need to be ready with rotten eggs and tomatoes to throw at him.
But I don't believe anything will happen. English kids will continue to be overpriced relative to, say Belgians. The sort of grass roots commitments that countries like Germany or Netherlands show to sport will never happen here. I'd suggest that is down to culture - generally England has a very individualistic culture and the idea of working collectively (which is after all what a team does) is not promoted and has probably declined in the last 30 years.
A major thing getting in the way are the big clubs - would fans of these clubs be happy if the solution made it harder for their clubs to be competetive in Europe for 5-10 years?
Next game, Lampards captain.
I can't work it out.
Why not try out a Wilshere/Henderson partnership against Costa Rica, would make more sense IMO.