Why Young Yanks shouldn't go to the premiership part 2

[dark knight]

Originally posted by Matt Clark

So - for one, the highest level of football at which English players are acquitting themselves well is the Champions' League, which is several notches above any form of international football in terms of standards.

Two, that then clearly indicates that the English youth set-up and coaching approach is good enough for Champions League footballers and thus, bloody good by any rational, objective measure. The fact that the performances of a team of players who spend, at best, four weeks a year together, do not match those of their club sides is an utter irrelevance. Club football is the ultimate standard.

So, to tie it all back in with the original premise, you can opine that a system that produces players for some of the top teams in the Champions League is not good enough for the youngsters of the US, but that there is then where we do indeed have to part company and agree to disagree.

Because it's nonsense.


I guess my question is - how much does CL success have to do with the overall quality of English players? Aren't many of the more pivotal positions going to foriegners? Not trolling, just asking the question.

Some other random questions: Leaving aside Spain, why do you think England hasn't had the same WC success as Italy and Germany? Is England still capable of being number 1 in the World? The context of this thread aside, aren't Gareth Southgate's comments at least a concern with English fans as a possibility for why England has not gone further in the Cup more often?

[Maczebus]

Originally posted by dark knight


I guess my question is - how much does CL success have to do with the overall quality of English players? Aren't many of the more pivotal positions going to foriegners? Not trolling, just asking the question.

I think the bigger point is not whether CL success is due to decent quality English players, it's more to do with the fact that the English system as a whole is doing well. And an American involved in the system will be affected by that success.
I don't think it's as easy as all that just to link domestic and international success. Look at English club domination of Europe in the late 70's and early 80's, just when our national team was attrocious. Our clubs are doing well, that means by rights, our club systems are doing well. Club success doesn't necessarily relate to international success, but that certainly doesn't mean that at club level (which is where the US imports would recieve their 'training' - not English national level), English football is lacking.
I guess it's all a question of where one places ones importance. The importance of playing well at club level is massively over-shadowed by success at national level by many in America (for obvious reasons)
And in answer to the second part: I don't think the number of foriegn players in pivotal positions is significantly different from those in any other top leagues.
And what would you call a 'pivotal' postion? I'd have thought all 11 had their job to do. Is Tony Adams' position less pivotal than Veron's?


Originally posted by dark knight

Some other random questions: Leaving aside Spain, why do you think England hasn't had the same WC success as Italy and Germany? Is England still capable of being number 1 in the World? The context of this thread aside, aren't Gareth Southgate's comments at least a concern with English fans as a possibility for why England has not gone further in the Cup more often?

As has been said before, I wouldn't necessarily take Southgate's comments as bona fide.
We have a strange ability in this country to see the most bloody awful side to everything eventually. Sod the fact we actually got to the finals in the first place; sod the fact we got out of our group (which we'd already convinced ourselves we wouldn't); sod the fact we beat Argentina (2nd favourites) and the 3-0 win against Denmark was obviously not worth bothering with. We'd just lost to a side who proved in almost every game they were head and shoulders above the competition. Only an Englishman could target the one bad thing that happened to England and forget the rest.
What he said may have a glimmer of truth about it with regard to the level of fitness in different conditions. But there is no need to start thinking that English football has to have a wholesale change in style. On more than a few occasions is it our different style that has won us matches.

Yes, Italy and Germany have had more success than England over recent years. Infact when you ask 'are England still capable of being number 1?', I start feeling it must be said that England haven't been 'number1' since that period of mid-60's to early 70's plus even earlier in the century. English fans may consider us to be up there with the best, but the more realistic of us look at the all-time lists and see England in 5th at the WC. Most of us are relatively happy with this. A lot of this assumption that England should be right at the top is simply a heady combination of hype and (more importantly) massive amounts of hope from England supporters once 'every' 4 years.

I know this will sound like typical excuse making but if we look at '86 WC - the old hand job; '90 WC - s/f out on penalties;'96 EC - s/f - out on penalties; '98 WC - out on penalties. Yes I know our record is patchy, but had lady luck helped us with the above results, people obviously wouldn't be so disparaging. It was only a whisker away from happening, unfortunately not close enough. The line between success and 'failure' is agonisingly fine.
This isn't trying to excuse the results, more trying to say that to go off the success enjoyed (or lack of it) at national level isn't all that cut and dried at times.
In summary, I personally am not too worried about our youth systems. Our club sides do well in Europe (mostly), our national team is very young and shows promise. I can't really think that those sort surroundings would harm any US player, nor do I think that any US player in either Germany or Italy would be significantly better prepared for international competition.

[sinner78]

Originally posted by dark knight


I guess my question is - how much does CL success have to do with the overall quality of English players? Aren't many of the more pivotal positions going to foriegners? Not trolling, just asking the question.

Why dont you read the stats from the champions league performances of English teams. Why dont you check how many crucial goals were scored by the likes of owen ,heskey ,scholes,etc..How many assists were provided by the likes of beckham??
We've got the same amount of foreigners as any other top league .foreigners play a part in every league .

Some other random questions: Leaving aside Spain, why do you think England hasn't had the same WC success as Italy and Germany?

Yeah ,just conveniently leave spain aside.
Dont ask why the top league in Europe hasn't won a world cup ever .
If we haven't won the world cup for a while we get accused of having a flawed coaching system by some docile yanks .But if spain aint won the world cup they get left aside and out of the debate .Thats f'ckng convenient.

Even italy haven't won the cup for 20 years.
They have only won the cup once in 64 years .2 of their success' coming in 1934 and 1938 when most top teams didn;t even enter.
once in 64 years doesn't sound too clever does it? ooohhh they must have a flawed coaching system.



Is England still capable of being number 1 in the World? The context of this thread aside, aren't Gareth Southgate's comments at least a concern with English fans as a possibility for why England has not gone further in the Cup more often?

As we painfully keep trying to say......
we have implemented a long term plan that should bear fruit in the future .
We have a plan and only time will tell if it works out.

I think this argument has run its course.
There is only so many times we can attempt to explain ourselves to you yank meatheads.
None of you have the slightest clue what you're talking about .Adios fools.

[dark knight]

Thanks Macz - I appreciate the level-headed answers to my questions. I certainly don't think it would do any harm to Yanks to play in England - unless of course they are riding pine.

I guess it all begs the question, how would England go about changing it's style even if it wanted to? (Stupid question: does EPL use the same size pitch as Germany, Spain, Italy?)

Hasn't someone ever done a comparison of countries in terms of the ratio of import to export of players and how it relates to World Cup success? Probably stating the obvious, but I would think that countries that export more than they import would be more successful.

[Alex_1]

So dare I now ask, what would be the ideal place for a young American to develop? Brazil, Argentina?

The thing people overlook is the fundamental point that Matt's said - the highest standard today is club football, not necessarily the National side. And in that way, managers are trying to fill, to the best of their abilities, the players that will satisfy holes in their systems, and upgrades in their systems. The questions isn't "will the yank develop for the National team" really. It is "How will the yank progress (best) in his football career? - what better fits the style he needs to be most successful?"

The premiership is a terrific way for players to learn the game, and the English style of play. Then again, academies in Brasil are also very successful. But different countries have different football identities. So again, really, it depends on the player.

[Maczebus]

Originally posted by dark knight
Thanks Macz - I appreciate the level-headed answers to my questions. I certainly don't think it would do any harm to Yanks to play in England - unless of course they are riding pine.

Always a pleasure, never a chore.
And - do you think that US players would get more playing time in either Germany or Italy? They haven't done thus far. Indeed Friedel, an EPL player was a shining light for the US at the WC.


Originally posted by dark knight

I guess it all begs the question, how would England go about changing it's style even if it wanted to? (Stupid question: does EPL use the same size pitch as Germany, Spain, Italy?)

England's style does change rather more frequently than you'd imagine. However it still retains the more physical style. Each manager we have has a slightly different style. So far, Sven's style hasn't produced too many bad results, with overall pleasing results. But what hasn't ever, nor probably will ever, happen is a total transformation to the more continental/latin style of play. The style of play reflects to a large degree, where the majority of the team plays domestically. The vast majority of the England team plays in England where the style is for quicker and more physical play, this gets translated to the national stage. If the vast majority of our players played in Italy or Spain domestically, then maybe we'd change our style. But the EPL is one of the top leagues in Europe, so the top players don't usually go abroad.
If that's not the proviso, and you're saying we need to change at a domestic level so we can play with a more latin flavour internationally - well that's just a mind-boggling idea.

Also, who is to say that we ought to change the English style? As I said before, there's a fine line between success and being one of the also-rans.
I know this is the rivalries forum and all stupid answers aside; which team would go into a match v. England, and expect to win easily?
Because the style is usually different from the opponents, and certainly from most, it's an easy way of saying what went wrong. But it doesn't necessarily make it true.

If it was a question:
EPL pitches are all different sizes, as are those abroad. There are no strict rules on this, only guidelines. But certainly, a larger pitch would necessitate a slower pace.

[dark knight]

Originally posted by maczebus

Always a pleasure, never a chore.
And - do you think that US players would get more playing time in either Germany or Italy? They haven't done thus far. Indeed Friedel, an EPL player was a shining light for the US at the WC.


Just a wild guess, but I'd bet Yanks have more all-time minutes in the Bundesliga than the EPL. I don't really have a position on which league is best for a Yank to go to - as Alex says above, I think it depends on the player. If any Yank can get playing time in any of the top leagues, it will most likely be good for the player and good for our National team (which I don't think Wanderer disagrees with). Given that we have few players that can start regularly in these leagues, it may be best for Yanks to stay in MLS, because they can play in those "pivotal positions" and take time to grow in the positions, a luxury they don't have in Europe. I still believe that Mathis would have been less likely to breakout the way he has had he been playing in Europe. As he was developing, he wouldn't have been good enough for significant playing time.

Nevertheless, I still think what Gareth Southgate said was interesting and worth considering. Another question - I know English clubs do well in the Champions League - would you say that the bottom feeders of the EPL would do as well against the bottom feeders of Italy, Germany, Spain? (I know this sounds like I'm implying something, but I really am just wondering.)


Originally posted by maczebus
Also, who is to say that we ought to change the English style? As I said before, there's a fine line between success and being one of the also-rans.
I know this is the rivalries forum and all stupid answers aside; which team would go into a match v. England, and expect to win easily?
Because the style is usually different from the opponents, and certainly from most, it's an easy way of saying what went wrong. But it doesn't necessarily make it true.

I think that's a good point - who the heck knows why England doesn't always "meet expectations" in the World Cup. It's all conjecture. Likewise, why doesn't Spain do better than they do. I think it's a mistake though to say that because Spain doesn't do well playing a certain style that it proves that England need not worry about changing styles.

Originally posted by maczebus

If it was a question:
EPL pitches are all different sizes, as are those abroad. There are no strict rules on this, only guidelines. But certainly, a larger pitch would necessitate a slower pace.

That's what I was getting at - I was wondering if they play, on average, on smaller pitches than on the continent.

[Boro_lad]

most pitches all over the world are off similar size, if there are differences they are only a few yards here and there...

Although that said nearly all are same size in prem except arsenals which to my eyes anyway looks alot shorter than everyone elses.

Most will be same size.

[Maczebus]

Originally posted by Boro_lad
most pitches all over the world are off similar size, if there are differences they are only a few yards here and there...

Although that said nearly all are same size in prem except arsenals which to my eyes anyway looks alot shorter than everyone elses.

Most will be same size.

Arsenal - 110 x 71 yards
Birmingham City - 115 x 75 yards
Blackburn Rovers - 115 x 76 yards
Bolton Wanderers - 105 x 68 yards
Charlton Athletic - 112 x 73 yards
Chelsea - 113 x 74 yards
Everton - 112 x 78 yards
Leeds United - 117 x 76 yards
Liverpool - 110 x 75 yards
Manchester City - 116.5 x 78 yards
Manchester United - 116 x 76 yards
Middlesbrough - 115 x 75 yards
Newcastle United - 110 x 73 yards
Southampton - 112 x 74 yards
Sunderland - 115 x 75 yards
Tottenham Hotspur - 110 x 73 yards
West Bromwich Albion - 115 x 74 yards
West Ham United - 112 x 72 yards

I too would have said Arsenal's was way smaller than anything else, and I've been there!
Wouldn't have put Bolton's as smaller.

Selection from Serie A:
Milan - 105 x 68 metres (can't be bothered to translate it to yards)
Lazio - 105 x 68 metres
Bologna 110 x 68 metres
Lecce - 105 x 70 metres

Couldn't immediately find Bundesliga but I would be sure they weren't too different from these.

[BenReilly]

Originally posted by Alex_1


The thing people overlook is the fundamental point that Matt's said - the highest standard today is club football, not necessarily the National side.

The best teams are not clubs, but the elite national sides. It should be self-evident based on the mathematics alone, but otherwise please let me know which club could compete with a Brazil? A much greater concentration of talent resides in the top 6 nations than the top 6 clubs.

[dark knight]

Originally posted by maczebus


Arsenal - 110 x 71 yards
Birmingham City - 115 x 75 yards
Blackburn Rovers - 115 x 76 yards
Bolton Wanderers - 105 x 68 yards
Charlton Athletic - 112 x 73 yards
Chelsea - 113 x 74 yards
Everton - 112 x 78 yards
Leeds United - 117 x 76 yards
Liverpool - 110 x 75 yards
Manchester City - 116.5 x 78 yards
Manchester United - 116 x 76 yards
Middlesbrough - 115 x 75 yards
Newcastle United - 110 x 73 yards
Southampton - 112 x 74 yards
Sunderland - 115 x 75 yards
Tottenham Hotspur - 110 x 73 yards
West Bromwich Albion - 115 x 74 yards
West Ham United - 112 x 72 yards

I too would have said Arsenal's was way smaller than anything else, and I've been there!
Wouldn't have put Bolton's as smaller.

Selection from Serie A:
Milan - 114.8 x 74.3 yards
Lazio - 114.8 x 74.3 yards
Bologna 120.2 x 74.3 yards
Lecce - 114.8 x 76.5 yards


Thanks for the data - I converted the metres to yards.

[BenReilly]

Originally posted by sinner_ronald_monk


Why dont you read the stats from the champions league performances of English teams. Why dont you check how many crucial goals were scored by the likes of owen ,heskey ,scholes,etc..How many assists were provided by the likes of beckham??
We've got the same amount of foreigners as any other top league .foreigners play a part in every league .



Yeah ,just conveniently leave spain aside.
Dont ask why the top league in Europe hasn't won a world cup ever .
If we haven't won the world cup for a while we get accused of having a flawed coaching system by some docile yanks .But if spain aint won the world cup they get left aside and out of the debate .Thats f'ckng convenient.

Even italy haven't won the cup for 20 years.
They have only won the cup once in 64 years .2 of their success' coming in 1934 and 1938 when most top teams didn;t even enter.
once in 64 years doesn't sound too clever does it? ooohhh they must have a flawed coaching system.

As we painfully keep trying to say......
we have implemented a long term plan that should bear fruit in the future .
We have a plan and only time will tell if it works out.

I think this argument has run its course.
There is only so many times we can attempt to explain ourselves to you yank meatheads.
None of you have the slightest clue what you're talking about .Adios fools.

The EPL attracts most top British and Irish players that obviously can't play for England. A UK team (or especially a British Isles one) would probably have achieved the post WW2 success of an Italy. And please do not suggest that because you've each won 1 post WW2 cup, that Italy has done no better.

Fair point about Italy's ancient World Cups, but England is entirely to blame for having not participated. I assume that you would have hosted and probably won at least one of them.

As for your coaching system, now that you've given up on English coaches, things should be fine.

[Maczebus]

Originally posted by BenReilly


The best teams are not clubs, but the elite national sides. It should be self-evident based on the mathematics alone, but otherwise please let me know which club could compete with a Brazil? A much greater concentration of talent resides in the top 6 nations than the top 6 clubs.

During the WC is was wondering the same thing. I actually came to the opposite conclusion.
I reasoned that a fit Real Madrid/Manchester United/Bayern Munich would lput up a damn good showing against whichever national side they were against.
Mainly for the reasons that:
1) They know each other far better than the National side do, they have the easy realised potential to work better together.
2) The top clubs have some of the best players in the world playing there. Combine this with the club atmosphere, and it'd be a far closer game than you'd think.

[Maczebus]

Originally posted by BenReilly


As for your coaching system, now that you've given up on English coaches, things should be fine.

Maybe we should have given Bora a go.

[BenReilly]

Originally posted by dcc134


I'd still prefer pounds.



That choice will not be available for much longer.

The pound has not exactly been the shining currency of Europe in the post WW2 era.

[M]

Originally posted by maczebus



Bolton Wanderers - 105 x 68 yards


According to a couple of websites I just checked, I think you'll find it's 105 x 68 metres - hence the reason the numbers 'look' smaller than the others. I very much doubt a new stadium would have been buiult that size in yards because its width is too narrow to host International games (need to be 70 yards +). iirc, Bolton hosted an U21 game at some point.

[Maczebus]

Originally posted by BenReilly


That choice will not be available for much longer.

The pound has not exactly been the shining currency of Europe in the post WW2 era.

Not like the Lira, Drachma, Franc, Peseta - all stalwarts.
Still now they've all got the Euro which has worked out so nicely for them.

We'll have it eventually, but only when the public want it. I can't see it happening for a while.
I guess we'll have it when we get bored of having cheap continental holidays.
Damn this strong pound of ours! :)

[M]

Originally posted by maczebus


During the WC is was wondering the same thing. I actually came to the opposite conclusion.
I reasoned that a fit Real Madrid/Manchester United/Bayern Munich would lput up a damn good showing against whichever national side they were against.
Mainly for the reasons that:
1) They know each other far better than the National side do, they have the easy realised potential to work better together.
2) The top clubs have some of the best players in the world playing there. Combine this with the club atmosphere, and it'd be a far closer game than you'd think.

Agreed. My perception is that overall Champions League play is of a significantly higher standard than what we just saw in the WC. Can't see any of the three you mention losing to anyone bar Brasil.

[Maczebus]

Originally posted by M


According to a couple of websites I just checked, I think you'll find it's 105 x 68 metres - hence the reason the numbers 'look' smaller than the others. I very much doubt a new stadium would have been buiult that size in yards because its width is too narrow to host International games (need to be 70 yards +). iirc, Bolton hosted an U21 game at some point.

Ahhh, that would make far more sense.

So Arsenal's pitch still is the smallest. Mystery solved.

[BenReilly]

Originally posted by M


Agreed. My perception is that overall Champions League play is of a significantly higher standard than what we just saw in the WC. Can't see any of the three you mention losing to anyone bar Brasil.

The Champions League atmosphere is far superior, which I believe affects perceptions. Moreover, the quality of the 10th and 15th best club teams is vastly superior to the national team levels. I wouldn't argue that the overall quality of the World Cup is better than the Champions League, only that the very elite national teams are superior to the elite club teams.

Without provoking a whole new round of arguments, I believe that the horrid officiating severely damaged this World Cup. We missed out on some potentially brilliant matches such as Italy-Spain and Italy-Germany. Holland not being there was a problem as well.