Glen Hoddle - The future of England Football

Discussion in 'Association Football Discussion' started by BoyBlunder, May 30, 2013.

Page 3 of 4

  1. Cevno IV Narang

    Considering majority of foreign players(Including other british players) join the clubs at the age of 16, that's hardly any impediment in terms of developing players from 8 to 16 where you have a fair idea of someone's overall potential.

    Infact most clubs would prefer local talent as they are more loyal and patient vis a vis foreign ones. But ultimately the higher up the table the club is tougher it is, to find that level of player given a lesser number of potentially available Kids.

    And buying other English players at 16 has a way higher compensation for the earlier club vs getting a foreign player as This whole system is there to protect smaller clubs.

    FA have removed that rule though with many restrictions from this year IIRC, anyway.
     
    Last edited: May 31, 2013
    Cevno, May 31, 2013
    #41

  2. Furball G Furball

    They're not 'never going to win the league', it'll just be very difficult.

    Dortmund won 2 league titles despite generating less than half the revenue of Bayern, and reached the Champions League final with a first XI that cost €36m to buy and a wage budget less than Aston Villa's.

    There's enough inefficiencies in the market for a really good coach with a real eye for talent to exploit; the trouble is those coaches are about as rare as hen's teeth.
     
    Furball, May 31, 2013
    #42

  3. Cevno IV Narang

    Dortmund still are only competing with 1 club with more money to spend though.

    Arsenal are competing with 3 at least and they are then competing for the same players with 4th pick whereas Dortmund might have 2nd pick in their country. So it is even tougher.

    Champions league run on the other hand is a different proposition as in Arsenal have made a run there before reaching the finals while being behind 2/3 teams in England and so have many other teams with lesser revenues across the continent.

    Edit - Though having said that, this is not pertinent to the discussion in this thread much at all.
     
    Last edited: May 31, 2013
    Cevno, May 31, 2013
    #43

  4. Cevno IV Narang

    Anyway, speaking of England's mid term future -

    Something like -

    GK - Hart (Butland)

    RB - Clyne (Wisdom/Walker)
    CB - Smalling (Caulker)
    CB - Jones (Keane)
    LB - Shaw (Rose)

    DM - Chalobah (Rodwell/Henderson)
    CM - Wilshere ( Hughes)
    CM - Cleverley (Barkley)

    LW - Ox (Zaha)
    RW - Walcott (Sterling/Ince)

    ST - Welbeck (Sturridge)

    Off the top of my head, Has pretty good potential there. Probably missing 5/6 other players too and others who develop late.

    And then there is a good batch in the u19's and below with Powell,Crowley, Roberts, Baker,Pearson, Colkett, Akpom, Ibe etc..

    The biggest impediment will be the factors i outlined on the first page. Enough good players, but got to see which of these become great.
     
    Last edited: May 31, 2013
    Cevno, May 31, 2013
    #44

  5. PienaarColada DH Mulray

    Ross Barkley will be a regular.

    Jack Rodwell, too, probably.
     
    PienaarColada, May 31, 2013
    #45

  6. BoyBlunder BOY Blunder

    I don't see Welbeck getting ahead of Rooney anytime soon. Case for Cahill centre of defence over Smalling too. Alternatively moving Jones to DM
     
    BoyBlunder, May 31, 2013
    #46

  7. Uppercut CB Faldo

    But why do you think the national side was even worse in the 70s and early 80s, when there was no Premier League, the top teams were almost entirely British and the clubs were often dominating Europe?
     
    Last edited: May 31, 2013
    Uppercut, May 31, 2013
    #47

  8. BoyBlunder BOY Blunder

    Lilleshall
     
    Last edited: May 31, 2013
    BoyBlunder, May 31, 2013
    #48

  9. Uppercut CB Faldo

    But that doesn't really add up either. England were quite a lot worse for the 15 years before it was established than they were for the 15 years it existed.
     
    Uppercut, May 31, 2013
    #49

  10. Furball G Furball

    Because the best clubs in that era were the clubs with the best Scottish players.
     
    Furball, May 31, 2013
    #50

  11. Uppercut CB Faldo

    So would you say England would have been much better in that era if Scottish players had been banned from playing in the English league?
     
    Uppercut, May 31, 2013
    #51

  12. Furball G Furball

    Nah, their clubs wouldn't have been as good in Europe.
     
    Furball, May 31, 2013
    #52

  13. Uppercut CB Faldo

    Ah, well yeah that's definitely true. But then what was the problem with the England team?
     
    Uppercut, May 31, 2013
    #53

  14. Furball G Furball

    Regressing to the mean after the statistical outlier of 1966.
     
    Furball, May 31, 2013
    #54

  15. Uppercut CB Faldo

    They were especially bad then because they were especially good in 1966? That's not really how regressing to the mean works.
     
    Uppercut, May 31, 2013
    #55

  16. BoyBlunder BOY Blunder

    Unless the standard of English football should really be significantly lower than what we expect it to be
     
    BoyBlunder, May 31, 2013
    #56

  17. Furball G Furball

    No, the 70s and 80s was their true level :p
     
    Furball, May 31, 2013
    #57

  18. Uppercut CB Faldo

    There was a book about it. Why England Lose. Based on their model they've performed to about par, although they might have preferred it if their wins had come at better times.

    It is still worth asking why they haven't done better, though.
     
    Uppercut, May 31, 2013
    #58

  19. Furball G Furball

    How do you measure "better?" Major tournament wins? Luck plays far too great a role in those. The World Cup is 7 games long over 5-6 weeks. Peak, opponents get injuries, a lucky 45 minutes, bad refereeing, easy draw and you can walk away with the trophy/get a lot further than you expected.

    England qualify for pretty much every major tournament they enter (they've failed to qualify for 2 in my lifetime) and win the amount of games they'd expect to. Unfortunately in a major tournament you're going to eventually come up against the likes of Germany, France, Brazil, Italy etc who England shouldn't really expect to beat once you take population and economics into consideration.

    Look at who's knocked England out of major tournaments:

    1986: Argentina
    1988: Netherlands, Soviet Union
    1990: West Germany (penalties)
    1992: Denmark, Sweden
    1994: DNQ
    1996: Germany (penalties)
    1998: Argentina (penalties)
    2000: Portugal, Romania
    2002: Brazil
    2004: Portugal (penalties)
    2006: Portugal (penalties)
    2008: DNQ
    2010: Germany
    2012: Italy (penalties)

    There's a bit of a pattern.
     
    Furball, May 31, 2013
    #59

  20. Uppercut CB Faldo

    That's pretty much what they found, but more formally. England do have the advantage of having been playing the game longest, though. And to be fair, they probably shouldn't be losing every knockout tie against a team of that standard.
     
    Uppercut, May 31, 2013
    #60
Page 3 of 4

Share This Page