England's history a yoke around their neck

I watched a Euro youth tournament just after the World Cup. France were drilling sides playing confident football giving their national side a future after their flop at the World Cup. England were stagnant. England have flair players in Walcott, Wright Phillips and Lennon, neither are good at crossing a ball or doing the basics. England relied heavily on Beckham's accurate passes and set piece. Shows how far England are behind. The French have a training centre for both their Rugby and Football sides.

Yes that is another issue the continuing & rising strength of club football in Europe. Cant see it not getting stronger with TV deals etc that never existed in bygone days. Maybe a subject for another day.

Gareth Southgate is trying to change things by introducing small sided games, and the national training academy being built at Burton will help improve the national teams long term. One other major problem is the focus on club football, England is almost an afterthought. The best recent example of this is how so many club coaches refused to let their players go to the youth World Cup and junior Euros. In Australia, mainly the issue is the other way round - country is important before club. However, England is not the only nation suffering from this - international football is in big trouble because of the UCL.

Stephen Smith Certainly wasnt wrote with that in mind,but the opposite, as I genuingly believe England should do better internationally & shouldnt be constantly standing in the shadows of teams from Continental Europe & South America. I also genuingly believe that unless England changes that within a generation Australia will overtake England internationally. Simply because as I stated they carry no set ideas or historical football baggage because historically they are football lightweights. Coaches & systems are being welcomed from Germany/Holland etc & Australians will learn from it eventually,I'm not sure England ever will because of the reasons I've given

Futbanous - ok, that's your experience and your opinion. Personally, I find it somewhat ironic, because the same attitude exists with a lot of Australians, who constantly believe they are better than they are, and who continue to spout age-old stereotypes about other nations.

j binnie I know you cant help yourself.Replying that is. Where do I say I dont like physical football,on the contrary I grew up with players who would make the players you have seen making Stuart Pearce looking like a kid out of kindy,well look like kids well out of kindy. I think we are at cross purposes here. What I'm talking about is change within the overall mentality of English football,not whether this or that system was invented by an Arsenal manager. The refusal to accept well just maybe the foreigners have got some things right. The International record of England bears this out as I mentioned. You can introduce SSG's any amount of systems you like into England,tell me that such & such did this back in 1920 or further back it doesnt seem to have worked. Why because England doesnt wholheartedly take any foreign influence onboard. I am not condeming Stuart Pearce per se I am condeming the archetypal Pearce/Nobby Stiles/Norman Hunter et al player being seen as who England are rather than a creative player or indeed a team of creative players. That doesnt mean that there shouldnt be some steel involved in being creative I believe there can be both attributes. .

Futbanous - I know I promised but this latest reply to"Darofthedump" has really got to me. Where do you get the idea that English football hasn't "changed" when in the 1920's Chapman evolved the "third back"formation what was basically the opening gambit that has brought us to today's multitude of numerical combinations being bandied around by every Tom,Dick & Harry who love to talk about the game, but refuse point blank to investigate the game's 150 year old history.You don't like the physical aspect of football,that's OK, but don't try to pin that medal on one race and one race only. In my time I have seen some players playing who would make Stuart Pearce look like a kid out of kindy.Try and broaden your outlook on the game you will find it rewarding jb

"So your judgement is based on a some first hand experiences with English folk?" Absolutely & over many years. No rhetoric involved regarding English arrogance either,its from as I stated long standing & personal experience. As far as being insightful,perhaps you didnt read Glen Hoddles article, which indicates the problems,the solutions & which I agree with as stated. That as I see it is being insightful. All those reasons you stated have some merit,but the main reason which I have indicated is a refusal to change old habits born out of a belief that we invented football our way is right. Once they accept that we've got it wrong(ie Stuart Pearce preferable to GlenHoddle) they can then learn why other Nations are succesful Internationally & they are not. My own thoughts are that England cannot change because deep down its an admittance of their own failure to develop a sport they invented & is a worldwide success.

So your judgement is based on a some first hand experiences with English folk? Were you perhaps touring the country to gather an in-depth opinion? You must have been, as you quite clearly have a very definate take on the English public's sense of expectation. If 'some' fans means 2 or 3, is that really worth writing about? The English NEVER expect to win the world cup as there's always clearly better teams. They do however expect to compete and when that fails to happen-as at the last world cup, there's disappointment. And as for 66- we are more sick of hearing about it than you. You may have had a conversation with some delusional drunk Pom, but don't spout your rhetoric on English arrogance, when you know darn well you're just repeating the same old generic stereotypes. The problem with English football is many fold. It involves grass roots, players and coaching, too much money too young- soft mental attitudes of players, bad management at the top in the FA, bad formations, prostitutes, hair implants and the spice girls. Feel free to judge that particular problem. The FA have £6,000,000 a year waiting for you if you come up with anything insightful.

I was in England for a part of the last World Cup. There was hype but no one was shocked when they got knocked out. They were woeful against the US. France had a terrible World Cup and infighting in their squad but they have turned it around quickly under Laurent Blanc. Yet England are still stuck in a rut

Futbanous -Promise you, my last comment on this subject. You are obviously a great believer in Glenn Hoddle & his philosophies. That's fine, he was an excellent player in his day.However he was born in 1958, so it was 1973 when his father took him to play in an "adult league"at 15.(Note the age). Now for your consideration,small sided games on smaller fields were introduced into the English football curricula around 1972/3 & ,being a novel idea (not used anywhere in the world at that time) ,would have taken time to trickle down to grass -roots football. I don't know if you know this but there was a psychological reason as to why these SSG's were aimed at kids UNDER 13.That was an important part of the whole.If you learn the WHY about this, comprehension will follow. jb

Whose talking about the Sun,I base the arrogance by some English fans on first hand experience. I forgot to add another point to my arrogant/naive comment in the article a third scenario,the Ostrich syndrome. Excuses are easy to find,the reasons for failure & real solutions like Glen Hoddle proposes are what need to be faced.

A fair enough piece, apart from the accusations of arrogance, don't know where ppl get this from - they must think every Englishman is a tattooed bull-necked Millwall fan. Most fair-minded English fans I know are only too aware of our failings at international level, and don't aspire to much more than a quarter-final k/o (which is what normally happens). Don't believe what you read in the sun - they just appeal to the lowest common denominator (a bit like the tele in sydney) There is one very important aspect overlooked here though - the current dearth of English players is due, in part, to a policy of selling off much of the available greenfield areas under the Thatcher govt to build houses. England is a small country and space is at a premium in the bigger cities. That policy hurt football - and other sports too - as kids had precious little space in which to play as it was. Secondly, its easy to say English kids should be taught to play beautiful passing football on the ground - the reality is the lack of facilities (as outlined above) along with the weather in the UK leads to pitches that in many cases are little more than boggy cow paddocks. Try playing slick football on those surfaces!

Of course Capello can coach. He wouldn't have been offered the job otherwise. It goes back to what I was saying about attitude. Real Madrid players form a chunk of the Spanish team so it goes back to that as well. England should have adapted to the ball. They didn't take the players on one on one. England would still have got flogged in that Germany match they were all over them. Passing, long ball, set piece far superior and without a key leader in Ballack. John Terry was shown to be out of his depth as a player, like I said he was lauded in England as one of the best defenders around but as I said he didn't have Carvalho and co holding his hand. Even Rooney is over praised I would take Tevez or David Villa over him any day of the week. The Dutch got to the Final with no real striker, limited game plan, disruptive and nearly won it. They played as a unit and coped with the altitude. Knocked Brazil out in the process.

I don't bakkies blame capello totally for england's 2010 WC disaster. The jabulani stuffed all teams up,made matches a lottery and enlgand naturally play the long ball, and jabiulini helped on the ground passing better. and what i think was just about the worst ref blunder in line with the terry henr incident vs irleand frank lampard's dissallowed goal would of made match 2-2 at half time would of changed whole context of the Q/F match vs germany. ANd capello has had to deal with some totally petulant characters , and had all sorts of leadership problems. His main man for world cup john terry played but stuffed up the captaincy issues with his private life when he was the natural leader of the team. So capello had to deal with a mountain of nonsense and some terrible referee designs at the crunch. He won real madrid a title so Bakkies he can coach.

Well England has had two foreign coaches. Sven Goran Erikkson and Capello. Neither have really got their selections right when it came to the crunch. England have breezed through qualifiers under Capello but that created false hope.

Futbanous - Don't wish to carry on this discussion too much but you have me totally confused & my comprehension of the English language is normally quite good. You said in your last (small) statement that you disagreed with my observation as to why small sided games on small pitches was a better learning environment than 20 a side games played on a "scratch" field. (we had a field right behind our house but have played on the street as well). Now you say the SSG's are preferable to playing on full size pitches at younger ages.My "20 a side" teams were NOT organised teams but guys who turned up for a kick. They included guys who played top league football & others who kicked a ball for fun.No coaching was done,learning was by observation only.Now I am not in the least bit surprised Glenn Hoddle agrees with SSG,s as he is a fully qualified FA coach,runs a Football Academy for youngsters & as such, will be very well versed in the advantages of SSG's for young kids, because Loughborough,the FA coaching centre, is where the idea originated in the late 60's. OK? jb

Small sided games are preferable to the system of playing on full sized pitches at lower age levels as previously happened here & touched on by Glen. However I'm talking about playing in confined areas,on hard surfaces with learning done by playing in mixed age groups with no supervision,the older kids passing down skills, knowledge to the younger. This can only happen of course in older football cultures where football dominates the sporting culture & perhaps given Glens comments doesnt happen in England anymore ,Any skill shown in a manual I knew of already through being raised in the above environment.,Essentially as you know all either way(oldfootball culture passed on/modern sophisticated coaching) are/should be doing is teaching that feel for the ball & control that allows your mind to be free & create. What my experience is & Glen states still holds today is that its kicked out of you in England by the"I'll break your leg fraternity" when you transfer from youth to adult stage.

Futbanous - Craig's actual description of his exercise..He kicked a ball with his right foot then kicked it back with his left foot continuing this until he had completed 100 "taps". If the ball touched the ground he started again. Try it some time. As he and Glen are the same age I won't go in to who invented kicking a ball against a wall but I suspect what you meant was simply that pastime as called in Scotland , "keepie-uppie." I'm surprised you disagree with my description of a bad environment to learn,no coach,20 aside,on a farmers undulating field. This is actually the complete antithesis of the small sided games now being sold to us as a "NEW" development. Strange indeed.jb

Good observations Bakkies. Confirms for me that the ingrained football culture of England is not much influenced by the EPL & foreigners when playing for their country.