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

[sinner78]

Is this bastard of a thread still running??
I see the yanks didn't pay a blind bit of attention to anything that has been said AGAIN.
This is torture .
One thick yank gives up and another one steps into his place.
gotta laugh haven;t ya??
These are simple folk we're dealing with here.lol

[Matt Clark]

There's no question that club football is a higher standard than international football. Who could cope with Brazil? Well, we don't have a readily available precedent of a club side against the Seleceao, so we can't look amongst the true elite of world football - we have to make do with a national team. So, raise a cheer for this lot, gang!

Cevallos, De la Cruz, Hurtado, Poroso, Guerrón - Tenorio (Sanchez), Mendez, Burbano, Aguinaga - Kaviedes, Delgado.

Oooh - a Southampton striker. Well, we mustn't wonder then, eh?

The point is painfully simple - any team that can

a) assemble talent from where ever it wants and
b) train and play together every day

stands a good chance of beating an international side, of whatever standard you care to choose.

But let's not waste any more time on the obvious aspects of this debate.

Originally posted by dark knight

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.

I'm not sure anyone's said that. I mean, I happen to agree that we needn't "worry" about changing styles. Who's got the time, quite frankly? But more importantly, there is little or nothing to be gained by changing our style - every nation has some emblematic elements to the way they approach the game and that's just the way it is. We use the power and pace of the Premiership as a motif of England's style of play. A foreign coach has, if anything, made it more of a cornerstone than it was before he arrived. Certainly, under Hoddle and Venables we played a style that represented a more definite departure from "the English style". To tie this back in to the point about player development in England, the aim is of course to increase the flow of top-notch talent into the English game (and thus, eventually, the England team) and that aim is being met in an ever more emphatic fashion. We’ve bandied about enough lists of the current crop of promising youngsters that are the first products of our revamped development environment to make the question of whether more is to be expected as time wears on a self-answering one.

[Boro_lad]

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.

lets be honest, a team like real madrid is better than brazil for a few reasons:

1) they train together everyday for the whole year.

2)They can bring in talent from anywhere in the world.

3) they have Zidane, Figo, Raul, Carlos (club before country ;)), i could go on but there is no point we all know the stars...

[Alex_1]

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.

Don't look at it as though the "Dream Team" of NBA stars is facing the Denver Nuggets. With football, to a certain degree it can be the opposite with the real "dream team" being a club.

Club is the standard, really. For starters, there is the sheer $$ that is placed in club football vs. the international game these days along with the logistics of it all. The very best players go to the very best teams that offer, amongst other things, the very best $$$ and opportunity. Club players know one another and when in the right system, feed off of each-others strengths. National sides have limited time, preparation and in many cases, abilities.

Also, a part of Brazil's problem that was overlooked leading up to 2002 was how un-organized the federation was/still is. Look at the team in the WC versus the team in the qualifiers... the preparation for the WC. The players at the WC knew eachother and had adjusted to a system. None of that was evident in the four years leading up to that... (and Ronaldo returned). For an American fan, I might suggest reviewing the archives circa 1999 when a then "full strength" US team faced Derby County in a friendly... and narrowly escaped with a 2-1 victory in the US.

It is like another poster said - for young Americans, what is ultimately best is the American league. The league growing, becoming more competitive, more successful and stronger may have an even larger impact on the chances for American players at home and abroad. The infrastructure is impressively shaping up but it would have been unfair to expect it to be on the level of one of the more advanced football cultures by now..

[Dave216J]

Originally posted by sinner_ronald_monk

You've got no need to worry because no teams have made any bids for your players .You can stay at home in the "mighty" MLS.
The claim that it would be suicide to send players here is comical .
Nobody has made any bids for your players so it aint even worth debating where to send them. [/B]

On behalf of the American soccer fans on this board, I'd like to apologize to you, Ronald, for not seeking your permission before discussing the potential transfer of Americans to the EPL. Obviously, as you have judged that the time is not ripe for such a discussion, we will wait until our lowly standing has risen in the great eyes of Europe before sharing our thoughts with one another.

While I'm sure it would be beneath you to actually weigh in with input on the subject at hand once the time for that conversation arises, if you would deign to post something indicating when we can, in fact, properly make posts to this thread, we would greatly appreciate it.

Jackass.

[dark knight]

Originally posted by Matt Clark
I'm not sure anyone's said that. I mean, I happen to agree that we needn't "worry" about changing styles. Who's got the time, quite frankly? But more importantly, there is little or nothing to be gained by changing our style - every nation has some emblematic elements to the way they approach the game and that's just the way it is. We use the power and pace of the Premiership as a motif of England's style of play.

Well, worry may be overstating it, but didn't English football undergo a change somewhat recently in terms of moving away from ye olde long ball? Hasn't that change been beneficial?

[Matt Clark]

No, I think we underwent a change in coaching and development mentality that emphasised skill ahead of physique, time with a football ahead of time with a medicine ball.

That's the point with all this "long ball" stuff - it's such a shallow, inadequate straw man in this debate. What we underwent had nothing to do with "the long ball" and "kick and rush". It was a profound, open, honest and necessary revolution in the way that we approach the basic conditions within which the game exists in this country.

Yes. The English game has traditionally been faster and more direct than some of it's continental equivalents, but the game in this country is also bestowed with a fantastically rich history of football at it's very best. You don't win World Cups and more or less own European club football for a decade without knowing your way around a football. But we fell behind the times post-Heysel, the world moved on around us whilst our approach to the game stagnated amongst the largely formulaic challenges of isolated domestic football (and yet, this period produced the best team English football has produced in the modern era, the 1988 Liverpool side).

People seem to take a couple of mental screenshots of a winter edition of "The Big Match", circa 1976, and extrapolate that into a complete view of the game as a whole in this country. In fact, let's be honest, 95% per cent of people discussing this "issue" with such knowing gravity on this board haven't even done that, they have never - not ever - seen any football from England from the era that, apparently, was marked by "ye olde long ball". It's just received wisdom. And "received wisdom", in the world of The Internet is the equivalent of a nasty rash. For those of us who actually attended football matches in England around that time, the image bandied about is comically false.

[kerpow]

When I hear the word long-ball I think of Wimbledon and Graham Taylor. Wimbledon, who were the living embodiment of the term "a hard working team" had little talent but ground out results by physical play. The long ball "route 1" tactic fitted their skill set.

The England manager Graham Taylor sat down with his assistant at the time and calculated that more goals were scored by long balls than any other method since 1950 and therefore decided to use that as his sole tactic. The results were quite obviously disastrous.

Ever since Gascoigne passed his prime there hasn't been an English player who can create plays and beat players in the middle of the park so critics unfairly point to this style of play when infact many other countries could be accused of doing this aswell.

[McGinty]

Originally posted by Matt Clark
No, I think we underwent a change in coaching and development mentality that emphasised skill ahead of physique, time with a football ahead of time with a medicine ball.

That's the point with all this "long ball" stuff - it's such a shallow, inadequate straw man in this debate. What we underwent had nothing to do with "the long ball" and "kick and rush". It was a profound, open, honest and necessary revolution in the way that we approach the basic conditions within which the game exists in this country.

Yes. The English game has traditionally been faster and more direct than some of it's continental equivalents, but the game in this country is also bestowed with a fantastically rich history of football at it's very best. You don't win World Cups and more or less own European club football for a decade without knowing your way around a football. But we fell behind the times post-Heysel, the world moved on around us whilst our approach to the game stagnated amongst the largely formulaic challenges of isolated domestic football (and yet, this period produced the best team English football has produced in the modern era, the 1988 Liverpool side).

People seem to take a couple of mental screenshots of a winter edition of "The Big Match", circa 1976, and extrapolate that into a complete view of the game as a whole in this country. In fact, let's be honest, 95% per cent of people discussing this "issue" with such knowing gravity on this board haven't even done that, they have never - not ever - seen any football from England from the era that, apparently, was marked by "ye olde long ball". It's just received wisdom. And "received wisdom", in the world of The Internet is the equivalent of a nasty rash. For those of us who actually attended football matches in England around that time, the image bandied about is comically false.

Well said. Somebody said that the only players England can brag about are those who only have potential. That is the effect on the change in coaching and development. If this were 10 years ago, I would definitely agree with the long-ball debate and the lack of real technical development.

Watching the Premiership matches now, I do see more possession. It still is an attacking league, but what is really wrong with that? Almost every WC champion is the team that can play attractive football.

The only type of player I wouldn't want to see in the EPL is a traditional central attacking midfielder. I think Zidane said that he would never play in England, because his role is not suited to English defenses that tend to push forward and take away space. But since we don't have a player like that, I say if they want to play in England, go right ahead.

[Matt Clark]

Originally posted by kerpow

Wimbledon, who were the living embodiment of the term "a hard working team" had little talent but ground out results by physical play. The long ball "route 1" tactic fitted their skill set.


And yet it was a Norwegian who took the tactic to it's logical extremes (again citing the modern mantra that most goals are scored from no more than 5 passes). And he got them relegated in a league where that style of play was as out of place as it would have been elsewhere.

Actually, I remember Wimbledon in the 80's. They, along with teams like Luton, Leeds and Watford would serve up games that made you feel like you'd just watched an artillery duel. But this is an era when the likes of Ipswich, Liverpool, United, Brighton, Arsenal (yes, Arsenal), Everton and Spurs were all fielding sides with the pass-and-move game as their defining tactic, they stuck out as sorely as they would do now.

[Dave216J]

Originally posted by Boro_lad


lets be honest, a team like real madrid is better than brazil for a few reasons:

1) they train together everyday for the whole year.

2)They can bring in talent from anywhere in the world.

3) they have Zidane, Figo, Raul, Carlos (club before country ;)), i could go on but there is no point we all know the stars...

This is an interesting idea. Until the recent Real Madrid superteam was put together, I would have said that no club team could upgrade every one of its positions ahead of a top national team because it can't afford the transfers and wages. Now, it seems that except for Real, that's true.

Still, it seems that the main advantage clubs have is training together all year. In principle, I wonder if national teams that played together all year would be better, and I still think so. If Parma sold all of its players and signed the Brazilian national team on free transfers, next year I would expect them to win Serie A. In addition to top players at every position, they would have incredible depth...

Anyway, a fantasty argument (unless MLS folds and St Phil decides to form a 5th division English club and buy every American international, and try to fight through to the top of the EPL. Now there's a line sure to start a further flame war.)

Although, in 1999 for its centenniary, I believe there was a match that ended Barcelona 2 - 2 Brazil.

[Boro_lad]

Originally posted by Dave216J



, I wonder if national teams that played together all year would be better, and I still think so.

this is what south korea did before the world cup. that is why they did so well and they looked better than the"should" have. They played about 20 odd games coming into the world cup...

[Matt Clark]

Originally posted by Dave216J


Until the recent Real Madrid superteam was put together, I would have said that no club team could upgrade every one of its positions ahead of a top national team

Well, that's not strictly true - what about the Juve side of the mid-Nineties, the Milan side of the early 90's, the Liverpool team of the 70's and 80's, the Ajax and Bayern sides of the 70's and then the Manchester United side of the 60's and - again - the Real Madrid sides of the 50's.

This iteration of the Real Madrid side is hardly the first to be significantly stronger than the average level of international football. Interestingly enough, though, the main reason international football stayed ahead of club football in terms of overall standards for so long, is the very point you raise. Until international transfers became commonplace (following the abolition of quotas), most club sides had to make do with domestic talent and, as such, the standard of club football was more indelibly tied to the standard of player development in respective countries. This is no longer the case, which again reinforces the fact that club football is the true measure by which to gauge players and, subsequently, their development within any one system.

[usain2010]

young american players should go play in mls first, then transfer to france or holland... and when they develop later on they should go play in Spain!

[Maczebus]

Originally posted by usain2010
young american players should go play in mls first, then transfer to france or holland... and when they develop later on they should go play in Spain!


Oh, how nice it must be to have all these options to hand!

[Clan]

People seem to take a couple of mental screenshots of a winter edition of "The Big Match", circa 1976, and extrapolate that into a complete view of the game as a whole in this country. In fact, let's be honest, 95% per cent of people discussing this "issue" with such knowing gravity on this board haven't even done that, they have never - not ever - seen any football from England from the era that, apparently, was marked by "ye olde long ball". It's just received wisdom. And "received wisdom", in the world of The Internet is the equivalent of a nasty rash. For those of us who actually attended football matches in England around that time, the image bandied about is comically false

I can remember as a young teenager...circa 1980...standing, yes folks standing, in Anfield and watching the scouse side of that year.I remember distinctly Mark lawrensen on the right wing and several passes that led to a goal with him scoring as he overlaped and shot a hard first timer into the far corner.Great goal.Some big bollox up the back yells out...."for fuk sake Lawrensen play football with it....give it the boot next time and stay in yer position".....
I'll never forget that.

He had a hard time adjusting to the new style i guess.Funny thing is, at the time i though he had a point.

[BenReilly]

Originally posted by Boro_lad


this is what south korea did before the world cup. that is why they did so well and they looked better than the"should" have. They played about 20 odd games coming into the world cup...

Did the refs practice with them for 20 games? Perhaps not or things wouldn't have looked so obvious.

[prk166]

This is an interesting idea. Until the recent Real Madrid superteam was put together, I would have said that no club team could upgrade every one of its positions ahead of a top national team because it can't afford the transfers and wages. Now, it seems that except for Real, that's true.


Ya, that'll change once Real goes belly up. They don't have any more property to sell. That was a one-off debt reduction scheme & they promptly turned around and racked up a lot of new debts (ZiZi, Figo).

[Juanele]

Originally posted by prk166


Ya, that'll change once Real goes belly up. They don't have any more property to sell. That was a one-off debt reduction scheme & they promptly turned around and racked up a lot of new debts (ZiZi, Figo).

Do you know this for a fact? Or are you just supposing. I haven't seen the accounting numbers for Madrid recently so I can't tell you.

[Boro_lad]

everyone knows that the council bailed out real madric by buying thier training ground for an extorsionatly high price.....

With the way they have been spending and the current football cimate it is enevitable that they will hit finantial trouble.....