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

Stereotypes are an Americans bread and butter. . . kinda like your fish and chips. Get it? Get it!?

Anyway,

I don't think that the 'English' style of play is good for developing young players simply because it is too basic. Kick and rush is not a cliche, its an exaggeration of sorts. Sort if like calling the Italian style of play "catenaccio", kinda but not quite. Its a fast paced, running game. Totally different than what most central european and south american sides play. I'll never forget what some brasilian player said, although I forget his name, wait, actually I have forgetten what he said. But, it was to the affect of "we love the ball".

That being said the dutch style of play is elaborate and has produced tons of great players but not a great national side. . .

For me, it all comes down to the fact that England brought in a foreign coach, a Serie A coach nonetheless, to try and impose a more "continental" approach to their game. And to some extent it worked. That tells you that there is a flaw in the English way of play. But, there is a flaw in every style isn't there.

In terms of french players, its good for their games because its the extreme opposite of what they've been brought up with. Examples being Henry, Pires, Robert, Viera. . . etc. But, for Italians its detrimental. Not least because they get overlooked for not playing in Italy. Friends used to ask me, an Italian fan, why Di Canio and Zola don't play for the national side. The only reasonable answer I could come up with was Vieri, Totti, Di Vaio, Montella, Del Piero, Chiesa, Inzaghi. . .

I think Maccarone will do what numerous other Italian youngsters have, play in England because they'll get more playing time then come running back to Italy once they get the chance to go to a Parma, or Milan, or Lazio.

How did I get on this tangent?

American players should just get into Europe, thats the main thing. College soccer will be the ruin of all of them and MLS ain't much better. Period.

 

That's ridiculous. Nationality has nothing to do with it - especially now where youngsters of any nationality are developing anywhere the market takes them. Quite apart from that, what do we judge (for instance) Owen Hargreaves' inate talent by? His stellar performances as a replacement for Steffen Effenberg during Bayern's Champions' League final win, or his cameo roles for England? Is the coaching at Manchester United bad because Ryan Giggs will never play in a major international tournament? Or to twist it, is Ryan Giggs not world class because he's Welsh? Does the Azzurri exile of Italian players outside of Serie A mean those players are bad, or is it just a quirk of the Italian mentality?

Come on. Think it through first, eh?

International football is an inadequate benchmark because it is not the highest standard at which football is played. To truly gauge a player's quality, you look to see their performances at the highest level possible.

Which is club football.

That hilarious Adidas monkey? Yeah ... he's a real guru.

 

Well yes, that last bit is inarguable. But the remainder of the observation is rather skewed by the reality of his impact. SGE is by some margin the most "English" coach we have had in a while. Certainly Hoddle and Venables, and, in the latter stages of his reign, Robson, were far more predisposed toward what, under the ridiculous constricts of this "style of play" cliche, would count as a "non-English" approach. SGE plays a very rigid 4-4-2 and adheres faithfully to every dictat of the modern coaching manual - strong back line, lie deep, most-goals-scored-from-five-passes-or-less, quick, athletic strikers, ball winner/ball player central midfield combo, etc, etc.

Which brings us on to another reason why the notion that one world class league is a better (or worse) development environment than another is such pap. These days, coaching innovation is a global business (in fact, see Wanderer's Adidas monkey for an example) and the thought and innovation occurs amongst a globalised, international group of elite managers. The manner in which football is coached (as opposed to managed!) is getting more and more universal. Indeed, one of the explicit aims of the revolution in our coaching infrastructure and mentality was to make the English set-up mirror that in the leading leagues of Europe as closely as possible. So again, the idea that England is a better or worse environment than, say, Italy or Spain is a nonsense. It just doesn't stand up.

 

Interesting questions....
You ask "Is the coaching at Man utd bad because Giggs will never play in a major international tournament??"

I would say "no" the coaching is not a bad standard at man utd .They have a long track record of producing good players .
but if you ask The wanderer then you will get an answer a long the lines of ........" gee ,man utd teach their players to run around like headless chickens and how to play kick and rush ,blah ,blah ,blah..."

That is the level of intelligence we are dealing with here .Just take a look at this thread from the very beginning and you'll see what im saying.
This is a man who branded man utd a "kick and rush" outfit on the yanks abroad forum.
Even cactus[14dt] is sharp compared to this mug.LOL

 

Did he? LOL!!

It does fascinate me, the way in which blatantly groundless perceptions like that manage to hang around for so long amongst people on this board. It’s like it’s a hobby or something. Anything beats taking the time to get an update, it would seem.

 

S_R_M keepin the streak alive...

 

how can anyone really catorogise(sp?) english football as kick and run. Prehaps in the days of vinnie jones etc... but now all you have to do is look at some of arsenals play last year. And most of the top 10 last year. Kick and run is not the style. pass and move with alot of pace is the only way to compete at the moment in the premiership.All the top teams have pace. This is why boro struggled last year as we had absolutly no pace. But now we have bought in quick players who have flare. No more just clearing our lines. We will play football as have the top 11 last year. The reasons why teams of the past had to play long ball was because of a lack of pace in midfield. But all has changed....

Boro for europe!

 

why did i keep reading the same stuff over and over as i went through this thread? i mean, seriously, everyone just kept repeating their arguments over and over, not taking into account what the other one said just babbling on and on about how the other one was so wrong and they are so right. and yet each was insulting the others intellingence......interesting. it was like seeing two kids trying to outshout each other.......sad, sad, sad. the "Yanks" are stupid for downplaying the EPL (which is considered by many to be the best league in the world) and the "Brits" are stupid for downplaying the talent level of young Americans (which is undeniably on the rise....rising at one of the fastest rates in the world). i mean, come one, the revolutionary war has been done for over 200 years now, hahaha.

 

ok.....

 

unless you havent noticed this is a forum. we read. Its pretty hard to tell if someone is being sarcastic as u cant hear thier voice.

Also sarcasm is the lowest form of wit....(i read that somewhere i think)

 

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

Keegan a pretty good club level coach? You're a laugh a minute. I'll just love it when you respond to this...

 

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

Well yes, we will probably have to agree to disagree, but only because we are coming at this from different angles - who gives a toss about nations or international football when judging the ability of a player to compete at the highest possible level?

I'm looking at the highest standard of play which English-developed players are comfortable with and saying that should be the judge of whether the development of English talent is being handled well. You're asking to see their passports.

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.

As to Coerver, I suggest you read up about him mate. (clue: the "monkey" reference had nothing to do with his physical appearance).

 

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

You still here??
I suggest you re-read the thread and try to digest the information thats been posted.
You still haven't got a clue.
I wont be suprised if you post a thread titled "Why yanks shouldn't got to the premiership part 3" in about 2 months time.
Even the other yanks on the thread are laughing at you.
Throw in the towel before it gets beyond a joke.

 

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

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?

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.

 

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

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.

 

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.

 

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.

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.

 

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.

 

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.