How come England can produce a true #10?

[Prenn]

Originally posted by ROM2
With an attitude like the above how can you wonder why England don't produce many #10's - it's not all about passion and getting 'stuck in'.

eh?

Cole has got a lot of tricks up his sleeve and he's a very skilful player but he often plays himself into trouble and seems to concentrate more on poncing about with the ball than setting up plays. He's got a lot of flair but he lacks the essential ingredient at present; creativity.

[rymannryan]

Originally posted by sydtheeagle
I always laugh when I see people call a Champions League Winning, triple medal holding, multi-premiership title winning fulcrum of perhaps the best domestic team ever produced in England, who has consistently scored and made goals at international level and whom people who actually know something about football consider one of England's few truly world class players, somehow lacking in vision.


Agreed.

[Slash/ED]

Scholes isn't an overly creative player, he rarely plays 25 yard defence splitting passes, which is why Man U signed Veron. This isn't to say he isn't class, but he isn't an espically good player at splitting defences open with a pass or run, that's just not his game. Owen wears the number 10, but is nothing like the player being described in the opening post and never will be, he's a goal poacher. Matt Le Tiss was amazing, how he wasn't a main stay in the England team is beyond me (Actually, no, it's not, he didn't play for one of the 'big teams').

As for Cole, he's all backheels and no end product, England have better. Gerrard can be creative, but has alot of defencive ability to so that normally gets over looked, Danny Murphy on his day can also do a job there, he's a very under rated player, but England don't have an 'in the hole' play maker because English domestic sides don't usually play that system so those players are rarely produced and when they are the English managers can't find a system that everyone can work in to suit them.

[Turk from Pigs Eye]

More and more teams are getting by without a #10. Look at Colorado, New England, and Chicago in MLS. Colorado got rid of Valerrama, New England went to MLS Cup without a #10, and Chicago traded Nowack. DC has Etcheverry and they have struggled.

You don't have to have a #10 to win football games. I don't think England did all that bad in the World Cup without one. They passed out of the group of death, Argentina didn't.

[lanman]

Germany have never had a "#10", and it hasn't stopped them being the second most successful nation in World Cup history.

[Bizzo]

Originally posted by Prenn
Cole would have been played for 20 games before they realised what we already know: He's a glorified 5-a-side player with a lot of potential but not much end product.

That's true to a point but bear in mind he's still only 21. Gazza was 23 at the WC in 1990 and he only made his England debut a few months before the tournament began. There's still lots of time for Cole.

[Turk from Pigs Eye]

One big factor in England's failure to win a WC since '66 is that they haven't played one in England since then. Because of the hooligans they may never have one there again.

I have also heard that at least one team, Argentina or Brazil, was the victim of poor refereeing in '66, I believe in the semifinals. England may not have deserved to win that one.

[lanman]

Originally posted by Turk from Pigs Eye
Because of the hooligans they may never have one there again.

Funny, I remember Euro 96 went off without any trouble from all these hooligans.

[afgrijselijkheid]

funny nobodys even mentioned gerard (movin up) or rooney (sliding back)

[crummy]

The English game just doesn't produce the kind of player being spoken about here.

We have players who can sit in that role and spread the ball about - but the role also encompasses running with the ball and committing opposition defenders - that is where we would struggle.

Not many European national teams have such a player - never really have had - it's more a typically South American thing.

Pele was a number 10 but he was nothing like the type of player being described here.

People have to remember that football isn't an exact science and just because different countries do things differently doesn't man they're wrong.

[Prenn]

Originally posted by Bizzo
That's true to a point but bear in mind he's still only 21. Gazza was 23 at the WC in 1990 and he only made his England debut a few months before the tournament began. There's still lots of time for Cole.

That's not relevant, my reply was in response to Rom2 who said

Any other country would've bloodied Cole by now so that he would develope the confidence to play at the top level...England can produce the raw talent but then they stifle it.

and I'm right.

[Bizzo]

It's relevant because the inverence from your post was that Cole would never be any more than a 5-a-side player.

[cldiscodan]

Uh, Paul Gascgoine........never did a more perfect example of the #10 play football!

[Prenn]

Originally posted by Bizzo
It's relevant because the inverence from your post was that Cole would never be any more than a 5-a-side player.

I never said he was a 5-a-side player and I never said he would not get better, want to try again?

[Bizzo]

Originally posted by Prenn
I never said he was a 5-a-side player and I never said he would not get better, want to try again?

Of course you didn't . . .

[i] Originally posted by Prenn [/]

Cole would have been played for 20 games before they realised what we already know: He's a glorified 5-a-side player with a lot of potential but not much end product.

[Prenn]

I said he was a glorified 5-a-side player which does not man I said he was a 5-a-side player.

[Bizzo]

Originally posted by Prenn
I said he was a glorified 5-a-side player which does not man I said he was a 5-a-side player.

splitting hairs.
But perhaps you don't understand your own words.

[Prenn]

Originally posted by Bizzo
splitting hairs.
But perhaps you don't understand your own words.

Perhaps you don't understand them. The 'glorified' part would make him substantially more than a 5-a-side player

[Bizzo]

It's not worth it, but what the hell.
While to glorify is 'to exalt to heavenly glory', 'glorified' actually means the opposite - 'Seeming or PRETENDING to be more splendid than in reality'. It's a word to give false or fake praise. Perhaps you didn't intend this meaning but unfortunately that's what the word means.

[kenodoki]

Originally posted by Bizzo
It's not worth it, but what the hell.
While to glorify is 'to exalt to heavenly glory', 'glorified' actually means the opposite - 'Seeming or PRETENDING to be more splendid than in reality'. It's a word to give false or fake praise. Perhaps you didn't intend this meaning but unfortunately that's what the word means.

Just like saying overated five-a-side player.
P.s watch out for James Milner at Leeds. A 17 year old winger with a lot of skill. Watch out 2004!