Sacked!

Danny in "posts something useful, non-sneering, non-bellicose and relevant" shock!

Yeah, I watch my little bros play saturday/sunday league now and then and the standard seems ok on the whole, though I guess it'd be better in Spain and Italy. They all seem to idolise the skilled players - Ronaldinho, C Ronaldo etc, and have clips of tricks on their mobiles.

Thing is as a nation we have achieved quite a lot IN SPITE of our lack of technical ability IMO.

1 World Cup win, a SF, regular QF's

Our club sides are equal with Italy in being the most succesful in Europe ( most won when we predominatly had British players in teams)

The trouble is that can lead to complacency and a lot of head stuck in sand moments.

JKL,

Chiggedy-check my post. Didn't say anything about wanting our kids to have good techniques would harm the way we play our premiership football.

I'm saying the kids I've coached are on a par with the kids I've coached in France and Portugal.

The difference is, we've got this Saxon machismo bunkum inherant in us where we identify the skillful opposition players from the off and use our physicality to put them out of the game or at least out of step. This goes on moreso lower down inversely lessening as we're going up the leagues because the referees won't let the same happen as it graduates.

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:Danny in "posts something useful, non-sneering, non-bellicose and relevant" shock!

Yeah, I watch my little bros play saturday/sunday league now and then and the standard seems ok on the whole, though I guess it'd be better in Spain and Italy. They all seem to idolise the skilled players - Ronaldinho, C Ronaldo etc, and have clips of tricks on their mobiles.

Fark off mate. Put your pecker away!

Not sure. Haven't seen much yoof stuff in Italy, but going by the way some of their Sat/Sun style sides play they'd be almost as cynical as us. It's just the clamour for every single player to try their hardest to be ambidextrous - therefore all-round technically better by nothing more than an extra second or two on the ball, over here, you can get away even up to the premiership being a one-footed, short-sighted useless qunt like Downing for instance.

JKLever wrote:Thing is as a nation we have achieved quite a lot IN SPITE of our lack of technical ability IMO.

1 World Cup win, a SF, regular QF's

Our club sides are equal with Italy in being the most succesful in Europe ( most won when we predominatly had British players in teams)

The trouble is that can lead to complacency and a lot of head stuck in sand moments.

We're good tournament players. At the back we(up until recently) used to be the best organised(well, second to Italy) and the most gutsy. It leads to many a clean sheet, which always gives you a chance of being in the mix. We've usually got someone with calibre up front to finish off one or two of the few clear cut chances we create.

Over a league style period with more time to implode we usually struggle moreso. There've been numerous scrapes in qualifying whereby we play a slightly better brand of football come tournament time.

We'd easily be in the last 8, were we there.

But we're not because in essence we've no clue.

Batfink Begins wrote:JKL,

Chiggedy-check my post. Didn't say anything about wanting our kids to have good techniques would harm the way we play our premiership football.

I'm saying the kids I've coached are on a par with the kids I've coached in France and Portugal.

The difference is, we've got this Saxon machismo bunkum inherant in us where we identify the skillful opposition players from the off and use our physicality to put them out of the game or at least out of step. This goes on moreso lower down inversely lessening as we're going up the leagues because the referees won't let the same happen as it graduates.

Fair enough.
Although I don't agree on the same skill levels in kids. Particularly the higher up you go.

I watch a lot of u15-u17 football and I see English teams competing well at that level because physically we can compete, not unlike the national team tbh.But even those kids piss all over us skill & technique wise.

Another pet peeve of mine is the referees in Britain.

I never actually knew there were 2 sets of rules. I see thundering blood and guts challenges not penalised here yet they would be in the rest of the world.

Yet our fans get all humphy when they see a foul given for an aggresive tackle or for a high boot on the world stage.

Thats half the reason our defenders just launch the ball up field under pressure.

JKLever wrote:
Fair enough.
Although I don't agree on the same skill levels in kids. Particularly the higher up you go.

I watch a lot of u15-u17 football and I see English teams competing well at that level because physically we can compete, not unlike the national team tbh.But even those kids piss all over us skill & technique wise.

Another pet peeve of mine is the referees in Britain.

I never actually knew there were 2 sets of rules. I see thundering blood and guts challenges not penalised here yet they would be in the rest of the world.

Yet our fans get all humphy when they see a foul given for an aggresive tackle or for a high boot on the world stage.

Thats half the reason our defenders just launch the ball up field under pressure.

I've never gone that far up JKL. U-14s is the oldest kids I've coached. What I personally see is less time on the ball, therefore less analysis of what they're doing with it on release. They always seem to be looking for the easy pass, generally will play more hospital balls - even when there's time to take it on a bit.

It's a bit of a vicious circle to an extent. Unless they're on a different plain to the other kids, they just wont have enough time here to do anything special and the play has run ragged before it can get to the 3rd phase.

In France for example, the kids will have time, say on the left wing, to control the ball, take it on a few yards looking up and loft a 30-40 yarder to a lad in space who can take it down with ease and continue the build up. Over here, the kid on the left wing would've been put out of play or play a panic ball that fizzes nowhere.

This is pretty much where the different standards of refereeing comes in. You have to play the way the world plays or else you're always going to start on the back foot. Whilst, for starters, I disagree with most of the world's referees standard of judgement for a decent tackle which has generally brought dishonour to the game IMO, we must play by the rules the way they are now.

But this argument holds little weight for an explanation IMO. The fact is, nearly all the England players play Champs League stuff and know what's right and wrong in terms of their manner of play. Furthermore, the internationals they play should hold them in good stead - even the thickest(which is pretty thick) should be more than equipped for the modern game - and are - which is why the turn of events is more sickening.

JKLever wrote:Aye, who then?

Wanted:

1 manger who can make something out of a shithouse bunch of players.

Hiddink, but he's taken.

Wouldn't be adverse to Capello or someone of similar ilk.

At the very least I'd be able to say "Even if Yella makes it A Capello". I'd chuckle to myself. When on shrooms.

Batfink Begins wrote:Wouldn't be adverse to Capello or someone of similar ilk.

At the very least I'd be able to say "Even if Yella makes it A Capello". I'd chuckle to myself. When on shrooms.

:laule:

Nice.

There is too much poofball on this forum

Don't worry mate. There's plenty of 'youngsters' in this poofball convo for you to beat off about...

Danny - if you could only ever watch one sport again, which would it be? Cricket, footy or boxing?

Same question again, but if you could only watch and play one sport again, which would it be?

These questions are open to anyone who's posted on this thread and is obviously a footy and cricket fan. Lever? Dello?

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:Danny - if you could only ever watch one sport again, which would it be? Cricket, footy or boxing?

Same question again, but if you could only watch and play one sport again, which would it be?

These questions are open to anyone who's posted on this thread and is obviously a footy and cricket fan. Lever? Dello?

If I could only watch one sport? Lesbian mud wrestling. Seriously, football.

watch & play? ummm, cricket I guess.

You could talk to me in a years time and my answer might be reversed though. I go through phases of boredom with both cricket & football.

I'm finding an answer extremely hard. I'd probably have to plump for footy on both though. My first love and all that.

I grew up football-obsessed, but I must admit that my enthusiasm for the game has lessened in recent years, and continues to do so.

Once upon a time, I might have been genuinely upset that England had been knocked out of a qualifying tournament, but now I couldn't care less.

I actually laughed when the first goal went in, the other night.

Cricket, on the other hand, has always maintained a steady level of interest to me over the years. The saturation of limited overs cricket has turned me off that to a large degree, but I still share the same excited anticipation on the first morning of a Test match.

I just hope that the increasingly ridiculous schedules don't - as I fear - kill off fast bowling and reduce cricket to what it's in danger of becoming: hours and hours of batsmen milking easy runs off sub-standard attacks on belting wickets.

"I just hope that the increasingly ridiculous schedules don't - as I fear - kill off fast bowling and reduce cricket to what it's in danger of becoming: hours and hours of batsmen milking easy runs off sub-standard attacks on belting wickets."

I'm afraid it's going that way though.

Wickets world wide are becoming flat and lifeless giving a decent quick no help whatsoever - demoralising when they know they've got to bang it into stodge for 2+ days for the batsmen to larrup to shortened boundaries..

As such, batsmen have more time to adjust and improvise - where in the past, classic quicks on wickets with some venom developed classic batsmen who patiently built their innings before opening up and accelerating.

The genuine fast bowler IMO, will soon become a rareity.
And apart from everything else adopting mediocrity, the quicks role models will vanish into the mist - every cricket nation had them - as the dibbly dobbling medium fast's take the new ball.

When McLaren was appointed I think everyone could see this day coming - although it was a surprise that it has happened so soon. His level of incompetance has surpassed all. I thought he'd at least make June 2008 before trudging off red-faced having just served up an absolute debacle of a football team.

I think the technical debate and the foreigners in English football is a n old favourite over here. But I think the likes of Gerrard, Joe Cole, Lampard, Rooney, etc don't look hopeless when playing for their clubs in Europe. Only for England.

If you have a strong coach who can pick a style of play and formation to suit the talents at his disposal (and coach the players so everyone knows what they should be doing) pick the best team rather than the biggest XI celebrities then England are still capable of winning a major tournament.

Gary 111 wrote: But I think the likes of Gerrard, Joe Cole, Lampard, Rooney, etc don't look hopeless when playing for their clubs in Europe. Only for England.

If you have a strong coach who can pick a style of play and formation to suit the talents at his disposal (and coach the players so everyone knows what they should be doing) pick the best team rather than the biggest XI celebrities then England are still capable of winning a major tournament.

Agreed with you there. Despite my wanting all the youth coaches in the country to be doused in petrol and set on fire - we do still have some very good players with good skills.

McLaren should have made more of them, trouble is we have no recognisable pattern of play - half the team weds didn't know what the fudge they were doing.

Say what you like about Sven but we were always organised & hard to score against.

Sven's side in Euro 2004 was excellent - this highly competant Croatia side were outclassed 4-2 and the Swiss (who no-one not even the French) could beat in the last World Cup were humped 3-0. Even the two defeats were near-misses, we were the best team for 75 mins against France until a collective brain-fade and the ref against Portugal should have been wearing a dark red kit.

The nucleus of this excellent side - Terry, Campbell, Lampard, Gerrard, Beckham, Rooney (and occasionally) Owen have been available for nearly all this qualifying campaign for McLaren. Only Beckham can be said to have declined since then.

Its just I reckon that McLaren's a complete and utter tool.

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:Danny - if you could only ever watch one sport again, which would it be? Cricket, footy or boxing?

Same question again, but if you could only watch and play one sport again, which would it be?

These questions are open to anyone who's posted on this thread and is obviously a footy and cricket fan. Lever? Dello?

Lesbian mud wrestling sounds good, but I'm not very good at it.

In seriousness, cricket and cricket. I love footers and it's inherant due to my family, but cricket wins out. It's a better game.

Bang on, on both posts Gary. Totally how I see it.

Gary 111 wrote:
Its just I reckon that McLaren's a complete and utter tool.

He isn't even fit to be a tool.

The last sport I'd want to watch would depend on who's playing. The last sport I'd want to play would be football.