Tuesday, June 27, 2006
England’s abiding football weakness
It seemed to me, from last weekend’s match against Ecudor that England are slowly putting together reasonable performances, and may yet surprise some of their critics. But this guy, Chris Dillow, has an interesting angle on a classic weakness of almost every England team since 1966: conglomerate discount. Confused? Read on for why Frank Lampard has had more shots on goal than any other player. And why it’s not working. Thanks for the heads up to Paul.
Mick Fealty @ 07:41 AM
Fortunately the FA has managed to secure the services of the Middlesbrough manager for the next few years. That should bring a few triangular tournament trophies in.
Posted by on Jun 27, 2006 @ 08:00 AMWell nothing new there then. That’s pretty much the jist of the after-match analysis in the pub and has been the constant criticism of the team’s structure and (lack of) strategy for some time - albeit without the management-speak analogy.
“Contrast the static England team to the fluid movement of Arsenal”.
Aaahh! Sweet memory. Roll on autumn.
Posted by on Jun 27, 2006 @ 08:13 AMFunny, but I was thinking the same the other day that England were less than the sum of their parts – Didn’t have the fancy name for it though. The contrast I would obviously put forward is the Irish team, which always seems to have a team greater than the sum of its parts. Greece winning the Euro is probably a better example though.
Posted by on Jun 27, 2006 @ 08:54 AMSorry to have lowered the tone - Should have said ‘conglomerate premium’ when describing Ireland and Greece!
Posted by on Jun 27, 2006 @ 08:56 AMThis sounds plausible. Equally, the England team could be a bunch of overhyped morons whose reputations are built on playing in teams filled with better foreign players in a weak domestic league.
The truth is that if Gerrard and Lampard were world class, they’d be able to play successfully together. Robinson is clearly not a good keeper. Terry has been exposed by playing against different styles, and Ferdinand was never worth the money paid for him in the first place. Crouch belongs in a Sunday team until he learns how to head a ball, and watching some videos of Niall Quinn might teach him how to hold the ball up. Joe Cole’s wonder goal was due to bad goalkeeping. Gerrard has done quite well sometimes, but the fact is that Beckham, for all the calls for him to be dropped, has been keeping them afloat with vital contributions. Ashley Cole has also done well, and Rooney looks sharp, but 3 or 4 players do not a good team make.
Posted by on Jun 27, 2006 @ 08:58 AMAnybody know where I can get some Niall Quinn videos? I was in Woolworths but they had obviously sold out.
Posted by on Jun 27, 2006 @ 09:03 AM“a weak domestic league” Wise up - this is the league that got teams into the 2 top european cup finals.
The problem with England is that the players aren’t as motivated by the idea of playing for their country as other nations. The other example of this is Spain, where the team is theoretically excellent, but usually flounders. Note that these are the two countries with the strongest domestic leagues in Europe - possibly the players are too focussed on their clubs to get worked up enough for their country.
This is a big a factor as conglomerate discountism (sp?).
Posted by on Jun 27, 2006 @ 09:26 AMDk,
Look at the English record over say the last decade and compare it to Spain and Italy. Rubbish. Same goes for where the best players in the world chose to play. Except for Ballack, and with the possible exception of Svenchenko, who has looked rubbish in the World Cup, who was the last world star to come to England at the top of their game? And only when Chelsea can pay outrageous sums in wages.
As for the idea English teams aren’t motivated by playing for their country, have to say I heartily disagree. Watching them belt out the anthem and the way they talk about it, I really don’t see how you can say this. The vast majority of them are little different than the average 2 World Wars and One World Cup, England is the greatest country in the world fan. They’re just not as great as Sky and the rest of the British media would have us believe.
Pith,
I hold my hands up in abject surrender.
Posted by on Jun 27, 2006 @ 09:35 AM“Look at the English record over say the last decade and compare it to Spain and Italy. Rubbish.”
OK, I did. Winners of Euopean Cup in last 10 years: Spain = 4, England = 2, Germany = 2, Italy = 1, Portugal = 1.
But why not find out from UEFA? They use a country co-efficient to determine which country has the most club slots in competitions. England are higher than either Spain or Italy; second only to Holland.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA_coefficients
So, I repeat again that the domestic league is very strong. However, this has not translated to the national team, which is not bad, but not the best in Europe.
Posted by on Jun 27, 2006 @ 10:04 AMOops - I looked at the wrong table. For clubs, Spain, Italy and then England are the top countries, getting 4 slots each. Still indicates a strong domestic league
Posted by on Jun 27, 2006 @ 10:06 AMGaribalby, although I agree wholeheartedly that the English team and leagues can be overhyped by our media, I think that the English record against Spain and Italy compares very favourably over the last 10 years.
Spain have never made it past the quarters in a World Cup and were knocked out by England in Euro ‘96 (when England reached the Semis) and France in 2000 at the quarter finals in both cases and they didn’t make it through the group stage in 2004.
Against Italy too, England went out at the same stage as Italy in 1998 (having qualified for the tournament in the same group ahead of them) and went a stage further than Italy in 2002. Our European Championship form is worse against Italy in this period, admittedly, but hardly by enough to render us “rubbish”.
In terms of Champions League wins, I make it Spain 4, England 2 and Italy 1 in the same period.
Your point just doesn’t add up. Why do you say this? Liktening to too much of the rabidly Anglophobic commentary on RTE no doubt…
Posted by on Jun 27, 2006 @ 10:54 AMBefore I admit defeat, what are the figures not for wins, but for the presence of teams in the quarter and semi-finals. I know Chelsea keep reaching the semis and that there has been an English team in the champions league final the past two years, but what about this. There’s also a similar question to be asked of the UEFA cup.
Martin, I was referring to the leagues rather than the international team. I acutally think Eriksson has done consistently well with a limited pool of talent. A quite good first 11 in relative terms, but little strength in depth.
Alas, no free state tv for me on the football front. I say this because I’ve had to put up with the nonsense from the English media and public about English football.Posted by on Jun 27, 2006 @ 11:05 AMGarabaldi.
I would hate for you to be my manager, you’d tear me to pieces;¬)
I am absolutely astounded that even the decent English players, Gerard,Lampard,Terry have yet to shine. I think Rooney has an excuse, Joe Cole, is boiling away nicely. The rest are average in the extreme. There is no getting away from attacking the easy target, the leadership so obviously isnt there!!!
Can’t wait for them to get humped soon. Strangely watching the media trying to be upbeat, is almost as fun as watching and waiting for them to get put to the sword.
Posted by on Jun 27, 2006 @ 11:08 AMWell, I haven’t checked the stats, but over the last 10 years there has been an English team that isn’t Chelsea in the Semis at least 6 times. Man U, Arsenal and Liverpool in 1999, 2005 and 2006 obviously. Then there was Leeds in 2001. Man U also reached the Semis in 1997 and 2002. So I still don’t think your point stacks up as over half the Champions League Semis over the last decade have featured English clubs.
I still think your point is not really based in anything but traditional Irish Anglophobia.
Posted by on Jun 27, 2006 @ 11:34 AMThis is a comparative not an absolute argument, i.e. if more Italian and Spanish teams are reaching quarters, semis and finals in both European competitions more consistently than the English. Also I note no-one has answered the point about why so few top class players at the height of their careers have moved to England.
As for UEFA’s co-efficients, are they any more reliable than FIFA’s, by which the Yanks are the 5th best in the world?The Premiership is a decent league, and may be more enjoyable to watch than foreign leagues (which I find to be the case), but the consistent claims in the English media that it is the best league in the world do not add up. And until many of these English players prove themselves on the international stage, they cannot be regarded as world-class, or anything approaching it. So time for Lampard, Gerrard, Joe Cole, John Terry etc to step up.
Posted by on Jun 27, 2006 @ 11:59 AMNever mind lads. If Portugal do the business, we can all relax. Good win by Dublin btw. The Germans are cheering Ghana on on the ABB principle.
On the one man team: Portugal and Eusebio were one in ‘66. He single handledly crushed North Korea like he was playing in road leagues. Pity England went on to win but at least we got the “Two worlds wars and a world cup” chant out of it.Posted by on Jun 27, 2006 @ 12:06 PM“Well, I haven’t checked the stats, but over the last 10 years there has been an English team that isn’t Chelsea in the Semis at least 6 times. Man U, Arsenal and Liverpool in 1999, 2005 and 2006 obviously. Then there was Leeds in 2001. Man U also reached the Semis in 1997 and 2002. So I still don’t think your point stacks up as over half the Champions League Semis over the last decade have featured English clubs.”
Yes, but that’s largely down to being able to call upon some of the best foreign talent.
Posted by on Jun 27, 2006 @ 12:34 PMGaribaldy,
The ranking system used by FIFA is a nonsense. They look at the teams performance over the last few years, which will usually involve matches with their neighbours in the regional competitions like the qualification for the World Cup and European Championships. The problem arises when they apply a “regional multiplier”. This is to take account of the fact that teams like the U.S. have easier neighbours to play against than do the European teams. But the multipliers are wrong and anyway it’s too simplistic a method.The whole thing should be scrapped. The only realistic way it to get a computer to churn through lots of different rankings and settle on the ordering of teams that has the fewest contradictions when compared to the results of the matches. It could easily be done on a regional basis first and then merge the lists together based on the results of matches between teams in different regions. Then you could do things like give more weight to matches in the Finals of competitions or whatever. There’s a lot that could be done, but whatever it is, the current system trying to assign a points score is just nonsense unless we put all 200 countries into a fully round robin league system!
Posted by on Jun 27, 2006 @ 12:36 PM.. adding to my comment a few minutes ago ..
In the group stages of the current World Cup, every match between a CONCACAF team (the U.S. and it’s neighbours) and a UEFA team (Europe) ended in a European win except for two draws. Unless I’ve missed some match that is.
Anyway, this makes it pretty daft that the US and Mexico are in 4th and 5th in the rankings with only two European teams above them. If the best CONCACAF usually lose when playing UEFA teams, then surely the CONCACAF teams should be below at least half of the UEFA teams
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFA_World_Rankings
Posted by on Jun 27, 2006 @ 12:47 PMKensei, yes, the English clubs were able to draw upon some of the best foreign talent. So were the Spanish clubs and every other club in post-Bosman Europe. Real Madrid, Europe’s most successful team in the last 10 years (and at least joint richest club) had a self confessed policy of signing the best attacking players from around the world until very recently.
You also argue against Garibaldi’s point. Garibaldi says English clubs can’t attract the best foreign talent whereas you say English success in the Champions League is because of it.
You can’t both be right. If Garibaldy is correct, and the English clubs can’t attract foreign talent, the success I described in my earlier post is due to domestic players, so Kensei is wrong.
On the other hand, if Kensei is right then it is because the best foriegn players come to England, thereby negating Garibaldy’s points. So guys, which is it?
Irish Anglophobia cracks me up sometimes. Can’t even resist self-contradiction in order to beat up anything and everything English.
Posted by on Jun 27, 2006 @ 01:09 PMSpain, England and Italy all suffer from the same problem - they pick their international team based on fickle performances in their domestic leagues, broadcast to the baying masses every weekend. It is the form and class argument, and the end result is there for all to see.
Just because some show-pony like Joe Cole finally manages to get his finger out of his arse and have a reasonably good season (by his own underwhelming standards) on Match of the Day - there is unbearable pressure to have in included in the side.
Brazil have more footballers playing at the top level than any country in the world but they don’t pick the team based on form. Every dog has its day, and they’d have a different 11 out every game if they adopted the approach that England do. The good/great French side virtually picked itself for the best part of a decade. Regardless what David Ginola, Cantona or Nicholas Anelka did, they weren’t getting a call-up, as it would have upset the team structure. England don’t have such thing, and it shows. Same with the Dutch. Spain have chopped and changed down through the years but Aragones appears to have a settled 11 this time.
Posted by on Jun 27, 2006 @ 01:20 PMKensei,
“… being able to call upon some of the best foreign talent”
Martin’s made my point for me - how many of Barca’s winning side were Catalans?
Garibaldy,
Something that tends to get overlooked in the argument on foreign talent in the Premiership is the money-work ratio. The Premiership is larger than its other rivals so more games. It is also percieved as a “tougher” league (i.e. more physical). If I’m Overpaid Footballer X (if only), I think I’d rather play in a shorter league for the same amount of money and not have to go to Bolton in the League or Grimsby in the Cup on a midweek night.
Top players who stayed in the PL at their height:
Henry (recently) or Bergkamp
Giggs or Scholes (usually mentioned by fellow pros, like Zidane, as getting into most sides in Europe)
Gerrard (much as you don’t rate him) or AlonsoMartin,
I can’t see where you’re getting the Anglophobia thing from - Garibaldy’s points are largely spot-on about England thus far.
Posted by on Jun 27, 2006 @ 01:23 PMRingo,
The problem with sticking to a structure is that form is vitally important for the vast majority of players. Brazil have looked largely poor so far and it was only when Parreira wised up and dropped Adriano (due to his form) that Robinho got a start. Result: livelier performance up front and four goals.
Aragones did something similar with Raul, again based on his domestic form, and it has resulted in some excellent performances from Torres and Villa.
I can see an argument for keeping some players on the pitch, regardless of form, because they can do something magical in the 91st minute to win a match, but you can count those players on one hand. Beckham, for all the value of that freekick goal, is not fully justifying his place at the minute. At least he’s not alone.
Posted by on Jun 27, 2006 @ 01:30 PMThe Anglophobia is demonstrated by one Irish commentator (Kensei) criticising England for having too many foreign players, another (Garibaldy) for having too few, all the’re points have in common (along with virtually all Irish commentators) is the fact they used to blast England.
You guys take any viewpoint about English sport in particular and immediately turn it into a criticism. Kensei by implitly stating that the English teams success is due to foreigners, Garibaldy by suggesting can’t attract foreign talent. Either point may have objective merit but it seems that no point about England on this board may be made without including a subjective prod at the neighbours.
The best one was a couple of weeks ago where a commentator suggested that a scandal at a Dublin maternity hospital in the 50’s was down to English Common Law.
Posted by on Jun 27, 2006 @ 01:34 PMMartin,
Blasting England and the Premiership is hardly the preserve of Irish or indeed any foreign commentators. Nothing said in either of the two posts mentioned hasn’t already been raised in the British media over the last twenty years as, it should be noted, it has in the Spanish and Italian media about their respective teams as well.
Posted by on Jun 27, 2006 @ 01:48 PM
