Advertisement
What is wrong with British football teams?
I'd been intending to write this week that if the Australian national team could model itself on Scotland's recent feats then, as Socceroo fans, the world would be a better place.
The potential similarities, I'd decided, were impressive.
A bunch of battlers, with few star players but playing as a team, were punching well above their weight and seemed destined to qualify for Euro 2008 ahead of France(!) and maybe even Italy(!!).
Then it all went wrong.
After beating France twice, the Scots lost 2-0 to Georgia(!!!), to rupture their Euro 2008 qualification hopes and, damn them and Tennant's Lager, ruin my literary celebrations.
Then, if you're Scottish, weep at the reality. Your boys blew it.
Still, it could be worse for the Scots. They could be English.
England's campaign has been doomed ever since Steve McClaren, way down the list of preferred candidates to succeed Sven-Goran Eriksson as coach, took charge of the team.
Sigh.
It's possible Guus Hiddink could have been coach instead of McClaren except for the fact the former Socceroo boss can't stand the Brit media and the England FA botched an initial approach.
Instead, (who would have thought it?!) Hiddink was behind England's downfall.
Unfortunately for McClaren the damning result in Moscow had nothing to do with an admittedly dubious penalty awarded to Russia.
Watch the retreat from Moscow here.
While you do that, wave at our old pal, penalty-mad ref Luis Medina Cantalejo, the same guy who pointed to the spot when Fabio Grosso took his last minute tumble against Australia.
As Hiddink explained after the game, it was McClaren's tactics that were just as wrong as the referee's decisions. Confident words, even after McClaren had tonked Russia 3-0 last month at Wembley.
So here's the thing: what's wrong with these continually under-performing and underwhelming British teams?
Don't even get me started with Wales, who with as many Premier League stars as Australia, have not qualified for an international since 1958.
And we thought 32 years of Australian exile was tough.
Scotland have been consistent heartbreakers for their fans for generations but they have, at least, qualified for World Cups and shown guts when they've appeared.
A lasting memory of the 1998 World Cup was Scottish and Argentina fans drunkenly (but happily) dancing under the Eiffel Tower in Paris singing songs celebrating Maradona.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend, etc.
Archie Gemmill's cracker against Holland in 1978 remains one of the best ever goals scored at a World Cup.
Watch and wave your sporran here.
But, England, oh England.
After inventing the greatest game on earth and providing the platform for (let's start an argument) the world's best and richest league, St George is represented by a national team with no heart, no soul, and no clue.
The England team should be all about the spirit of Wayne Rooney, a pugnacious and tough but talented player who is completely mad in an admirable manner.
Instead, England fans get the football equivalent of David Beckham.
There's talent and occasional brilliance somewhere in there but it's mostly about transparent hype with no real substance.
There. I said it.
England need a circuit breaker before Steve McClaren and his FA bosses switch off the lights.
Time for a cup of tea and a Digestive biscuit.
Or maybe just a pint of bitter.
iain you've actually got it wrong the problem is that england dont play that fast premiership style, thats why the questions about Mclaren and previously Erikkson, england played slow paced but still didnt value possesion, England either need to play full-pelt a thousand miles an hour premiership style which blows away continental teams in the champions league, or they do play continental football and place high emphasis on possesion and technical qualitites which Steve Mclaren as good he was getting Boro to the UEFA Cup final he isnt the great expoent of classic technical football, England have 2 choices go British with who should of got the job in the first place in Martin O'Neil who has a history of getting teams over-acheiving (i.e. Leciester and Celtic) or you go classic european with a few options like Capello, Lippi or old jose who by chance is just out of the job and has worked in england and delt with the english press and managed english internationals (A & J Cole, Lampard, SWP, Terry) where there were questions thrown about last time that Alan Curbshley isnt up to the job because he hasnt managed english internationals and the superstars in the england team (i.e. Beckham at the time, Gerrard, Terry) so why not go Jose i hated him as a club manager at chelsea but that was just image, he could do wonders for England
Lets' face it, England is just not that good. It's all media hype about how good they are, and what have they won except for the WC a million years ago?
And what's with David Beckham? You go to Brazil and you will find more than 10 players who play better than him.
If anyone have noticed, each time when an English team plays a Spanish team in the Champions League, they have a very hard time playing against a Spanish team, that's because the don't have the technical skills and attacking flair the Spanish team has, there is simply not enough imagination and skills in an English team. Just look at Manchester United, most of their top players aren't even English (but Wayne Rooney is still a great player).
Ivan, if there is any team from Europe that underperforms more than England it has got to be Spain. OK they won Euro Champs in 1964 (so that makes it a million years ago plus 2). Most of the top players in La Liga are not Spanish either so I am not sure what exactly your argument is. When Real Madrid last won CL in 2002 it was Zidane who scored the winner and when Barcelona last won CL in 2006 it was Eto and Belletti who scored, none of them Spanish. And guess what Liverpool beat Barcelona and Chelsea beat Valencia in last years CL knock-out stages.......they may have a "very hard time playing against a Spanish team" as you put it but obviously not as hard as the Spanish find English teams. I love La Liga though and find even the lower teams matches more enjoyable and worthwhile to watch than two relegation bound teams in the EPL. Since both Barca and RM lost this weekend, just goes to show how good it can be.
I agree Andrew. It's a bit unfair to go on about the English Club Teams, which are producing some of the best Clubs in the world. Manchester United, Liverpool, Chelsea, and Arsenal are some of the best teams in the world. It's unfortunate that England can't replicate their club level success on the national scene; however, if you look to La Liga, which is in some ways as good of a league as the EPL, you find that the Spanish themselves cannot get the level of national success that their clubs get. In my humble opinion, La Liga is more of a balanced league (in terms of the top tier and the bottom tier) than the EPL, but the sectionalism there and the intense Domestic schedule seems to take a toll on the national front.
On the other hand look to Italy, and you find that their league has a more unique stress on playing Domestic players-maybe this is why they have more success on the national level. Just a conjecture, though I abhor Italian football
People have short memories. Last year Egland reached the QF of the WC (and went out on penalties). This was meant to be an absolute disaster.
Australia reached the round of 16 and this was seen as a resounding success.
Its all about perspective.
No one wins every time they enter a tournament. England have a pretty good record overall, (though Germany, Italy and Brazil obviously have a better one)
tech is everything. if you cant get it, then you wont have it. more things in the modern era require tech more than brute strenth, this is a technolodgical age so why not more technical football for a caveman to progress
When posting comments on blogs you agree to abide by our terms and conditions.
Comments that are offensive, defamatory, unsuitable or that breach any aspects of the terms will be deleted.
Advertisement
| member centre | network map | mobile | advertise with us | place a classified ad |
england have an entertaining and dramatic style of football. they excel at a dogfight and tend to play a very fast pace.
this makes the premier league quite interesting and exciting to watch. but not all leagues are the same. this is most obvious when england performs very badly against teams that value high possession and technical brilliance over full flowing attacking with plenty of gusto and plenty of shots
overall, england needs to change the mindset that attacking at all costs is more important than holding the ball, building pressure and grinding out a win. they do it in rugby, why not football?