England are not that great at football. Now that is out in the open, we can discuss it. This is not a bashing article. I want England to be good.
It would be healthy for the game if the country that developed it could compete at the highest level again. It is unfortunate to see them in decline.
When your golden generation fails to qualify for its continental tournament, and does not get past the round of 16, you cannot call yourself a football powerhouse anymore.
Let us not confuse this with their league. The Premier League is of a very high quality. Regular finishes in the heights of Europe confirm this. I am not criticising the standard of football played in England, I am criticising the standard of football played by England.
England should not blame their coach. Fabio Capello’s record as a coach, apart from a poor second stint at Milan, shows that he can perform at a very high level, in big games, and knockout tournaments, and get results.
Why then have they faltered?
Football is either compared with war or art. Of course, it is neither. It is sport. But Capello is an art buff, and England expects its players to be soldiers. Capello cannot create a masterpiece without the necessary tools, and his soldiers are heavy-handed infantrymen, not the studies in artistry he requires.
This comes down to the type of player that the English regard as a footballer.
The English team is big. They are all big, broad and built. Their midfielders run out of midfield, their strikers run at defenders. There is a lot of huff and puff and little in the way of creation, passing, or thought. Hard running is no substitute for controlling the ball.
Their style is similar to Australia’s. We rely on our fitness, endurance and the ability to out-last other teams.
The goals against Japan came at the death. Harry Kewell’s goal against Croatia came at the death. The goal against New Zealand came at the death. Our match winners against Serbia came after the hour mark. Australia does not set up winners for big matches early.
Often this is called spirit. The fighting spirit. In reality it is fitness. For the moment this is fine. You play to your strengths. This will have to change before we see consistent results at the highest level. It requires generational change.
When we play a team with organisation, structure, passing, smart movement, the ability to create space and to shut it down when needed, we lose. This is how we lost to Brazil. This is how we lost to Germany.
This is something we can change through small-sided games. England faces a tougher challenge. This is their game.
There are cultural qualities at play here that cannot be turned back with ease. England still remembers Terry Butcher with his head swathed in a bandage, fighting on like he was in the trenches. Australians still remember Terry Butcher as the man who ruined Sydney. His long ball tactics and belief that his players were soldiers did not sit well with them or their fans. That is a good sign.
England’s result at this world cup could be taken as proof that our group was tough.
Australian fans will seek relief in the fact that England also let in four goals against Germany. This is missing the point. England needs to change the type of footballer they create from soldier to artist. So do we.
Steve
Guest
Doesn't the fact that the English players generally have little or no interest in playing for England come into it? Club comes first, by a long way. It's probably quite analogous to the way Canada is surprisingly weak in international Ice Hockey: the club rivalries are the aspect that really matter to fans, and the players know that's where they make their bread and butter.
Colin N
Guest
Cole and Johnson are excellent on the ball and I rate Milner, Lennon and Defoe. I agree about Upson and he shouldn't have been selected in the first place.
NY
Guest
Different players have different qualities. The top 5 or 6 English players have a good technique. After that it badly falls away. An example is Ashley Cole who has no other way of playing, but to hack it forward. Glen Johnson is barely able to control the ball properly. Upson is a terrible defender. Milner, Lennon, Defoe..I'm sorry but against top nations like Germany, Argentina and Brazil will always be made to look average. I rate England's top 5 or 6 players, but after that...David Beckham and Paul Scholes would have also been very handy in this World Cup for England. Those are the type of players you need.
Colin N
Guest
"They also have no clue what to do when they don’t have the ball against teams that don’t play at premier league tempo against them." That's a matter of formation and set-up. They handled Croatia perfectly well in qualifying and outplayed them twice, a team considered technically adept. "One strike at goal? Yes we know the English players can shoot. It’s all the other stuff where they fail. Have a look at how the South American teams play, and that is what you call technique. Controlling, dribbling, passing, positioning etc" Are you saying Gerrard, Lampard, Milner, Lennon, Rooney etc can't do all those things?
Colin N
Guest
"No country wins the world cup with a manager from another country. It is not just about the XI that Capello put on the pitch, it is about the entire approach to football. England needs to take its notions of ’spirit’ and ‘fair play’ and apply them to things like communication, structure, understanding of roles within a system, so that the coaching staff, the players, the fans, the media, the technical and youth directors are on the same page." But you didn't say that in your article. I agree with what you are saying here, but this is about the national structure of the game in England, whereas the article was about the technique of English players and changing their culture, which is what I disagreed with.
Al
Guest
4-1 flattered them in all honesty. They got really lucky they didn't play Argentina, with a defence like that they would have conceded 10. That first goal conceded is probably the worst goal that England have ever conceded, you don't even see defending like that in the pub leagues, to concede like that at the world cup finals is an absolute disgrace. England gave the world the game, the world refined it whilst England gotl stuck in the 19th century. No technique, no skill, no awareness, no understanding of positioning, one-dimensional, undisciplined players who don;t give a crap about the shirt or the country. This loss will take a long long time to get over
Al
Guest
They also have no clue what to do when they don't have the ball against teams that don't play at premier league tempo against them.
NY
Guest
One strike at goal? Yes we know the English players can shoot. It's all the other stuff where they fail. Have a look at how the South American teams play, and that is what you call technique. Controlling, dribbling, passing, positioning etc
Colin N
Guest
It's what the German press said.
Towser
Guest
Which is pretty much what I am indicating albeit in a more one dimensional way. Your wholistic approach ie "about the fact that the entire English attitude to football needs to be altered" is a better way of putting it. Technique is but one(although very important) component of that change. Perhaps the second half of this article gives England some ideas on a path to take:- http://au.fourfourtwo.com/News/170334,bundesliga-foundation-for-success.aspx
PeteHarrison
Roar Rookie
If you think the article is entirely about the technical qualities of the footballers then you are missing the point. No one debates that Rooney has great touch. But so does Maicon, and he is a fullback. The article is about the fact that the entire English attitude to football needs to be altered. The reason I say not to blame Capello is simple. Capello is not to blame. No country wins the world cup with a manager from another country. It is not just about the XI that Capello put on the pitch, it is about the entire approach to football. England needs to take its notions of 'spirit' and 'fair play' and apply them to things like communication, structure, understanding of roles within a system, so that the coaching staff, the players, the fans, the media, the technical and youth directors are on the same page. Then you can start to build a side, and when you get a genius like Rooney, he is not stranded on his own up the front or screaming down the barrel of the camera, because everyone is clear on the plan. This comes, not from 3 years with one manager, but from a lifetime of development of players, coaches and directors etc. The Germans did it, the French did it, the Italians did it, and look what happened, regular finals appearances, and trophies. When their golden generations came along, they won the world cup. Today two of those sides struggle, but they took their chances when they came.
Roger Rational
Guest
Yes, the technique thing doesn't really stack up - Lampard's strike for his "goal" was pretty unbelievable technique. I think the bigger problems are tactics and conditioning. Interesting to read Michael Ballack in The Times questioning whether England's players worked as hard on their fitness pre-tournament as the Germans did.
Towser
Guest
Personally I've never seen an English team with better technique than a German team,but if English fans wish to continue denying history,the team will never compete on the World stage.
Colin N
Guest
"It allows fast breaking movements like Germanys to come to fruition,because you can control, run, pass, shoot at speed." Interesting. England's second team played Germany's first team away in a friendly not so long ago and won 2-1 and dominated most of the game. The German press commented that the English had much better technique.
Colin N
Guest
"England should not blame their coach. Fabio Capello’s record as a coach, apart from a poor second stint at Milan, shows that he can perform at a very high level, in big games, and knockout tournaments, and get results." Capello's previous record is irrelevant when assessing his performance with England. For one, why did Capello select Gerrard on the left? Why did he play a half-fit Barry? Why did he select Upson who has played so poorly for West Ham this season? "The English team is big. They are all big, broad and built. Their midfielders run out of midfield, their strikers run at defenders. There is a lot of huff and puff and little in the way of creation, passing, or thought. Hard running is no substitute for controlling the ball." Are you saying Rooney isn't creative? Are you saying Milner is a poor crosser of the ball? Are you saying Defoe isn't a goalscorer? Is a lack of technique the problem? Well, England had the majority of possesion against Germany. Even creating chances wasn't the problem necessarily. Despite being awful, England created a few openings. It seemed to me that the organisation and set-up of the side was wrong.
Towser
Guest
Technique is the base from which you can add on the other attributes like strength stamina tactics required to create succesful teams. Without respecting it the rest is superfluous. Be comfortable/confident with the ball at the feet It allows fast breaking movements like Germanys to come to fruition,because you can control, run, pass, shoot at speed. Even in the days of Stanley Matthews when asked his secret he said "Skill at speed" long before technique became the vogue. Unfortunately Stan was a one off surrounded by the hard working,hard tackling Bill Wrights. Not enough Stans too many Billys in the balance of English football. This balance is passed generation to generation.
PeteHarrison
Roar Rookie
Other countries have had empires, other countries have geographical/social divides in their team, other countries have foreigners in their leagues. The problem is, in order for England to be better, they have to go on for a lot longer than just months deconstructing their problems. They have to pull the performances of the best sides in the world to pieces bit by bit, figure out what makes them tick, and then better it. I think the "fundamentally lack of technique" argument in a game that has been mastered by technical players probably gives it some merit.
Roger Rational
Guest
Okay, so you favour the fundamental lack of technique argument. We can add this to the List of Grand Theories of Explanation for England's Consistent Under-Performance in Tournaments: - English footballers are psychologically traumatised by the loss of Empire (Matthew Syed, The Tmes) - The Premier League is rubbish really (Mike Tuckerman, The Roar) - Fabio Capello is a plonker with no tactical clue (Michael Owen) - English children play on over-sized pitches and so fail to develop technique (Martin Samuel, Daily Mail) - The gruelling nature of the EPL and lack of a winter break (Fabio Capello,Sven Goran Eriksson) - A north-south divide in the England squad (Matt Dickinson, Times) - Too many foreigners in the EPL (Everybody) - A power structure which favours the EPL over the FA (Times Editorial) You could go on for months deconstructing it all. Personally I see a great similarity between England football players and US Ryder Cup golfers: superbly talented but fundamentally self-interested individuals who cannot adjust to a national team environment. I also think it's pretty obvious that most successful national teams (in whatever sport) sit atop a pyramid. This is how the All Blacks operate, how the England and Aussie cricket teams operate, and how German football operates. Everything is directed towards producing a successful national team. English football? It's more like a penny-farthing bicycle in which the big wheel is the EPL and the tiny wheel is the England team. Nothing will change until the FA - perhaps backed by the government - takes on the EPL and demands an 18-team league and a winter break.
Towser
Guest
Easier for Australia to change than England. Australia is a developing football nation. Not only that its ethnic mix influences football far more than in England,where English values historically prevail. Having been brought up in a football city in the English football way, that to me ie the historical weight of how football is perceived by the general public,therefore how England play, pick & develop players is its achilles heel. Whilst there have been many skilful players they are often tried & discarded for England. Let me present the case of Albert Quixall. Sheffield born & bred a player known for his sublime skills & football intelligence. Also obviously from this article a man flexible in his approach to the game, indicated by this article in which he proclaims that ballet could improve balance & leg muscles(Scroll down a bit):- http://whirligigtv.yuku.com/topic/4763 Also from the following article I quote " His principal qualities were a superbly balanced style and a cunning body swerve, great invention, first class distribution as well as a powerful shot" http://www.givemefootball.com/player-profiles/albert-quixall From the first link you will also see he was also the best ball juggler in English football at the time. He also played at 19, 5 times for England. Then no more. Why? I suspect that he was too much like Messi & less like Stuart Pearce. No coincidence then that players like Billy Wright were legends of English football & revered stalwarts of the English National team(105 appearances). From the following article:- "Wright’s talent as a footballer was that whilst he was noted for his hard, even ferocious tackling, he still played the game fairly and as a true sportsman." He was let it be said also an excellent distributor of the ball & read the game well. http://www.epltalk.com/legends-of-english-football-no5-billy-wright/9480 These are the values I recognised as English values for the National team passed down from previous generations. In hindsight due to long term exposure to other " football cultures" I realise that they were limiting Englands ability to compete on the World stage & historically it is hard to change that mindset in a nation who rightly or wrongly believes it is the home of football.
PeteHarrison
Roar Rookie
That would be the style that has delivered them one trophy in their entire history. England need to decide whether they want to play their national style, the style that encompasses their beliefs, or whether they want to win. England have been behind the 8 ball since 1970, and the more they cannibalise their own, the further they slip behind. England had to chase the game because they let in a soft goal and went behind. The second goal took them apart. At this level, you cannot afford to do that.