8 ms·

Englander here. Tell me when you find out.

by ducatdusk 8y ago

nkg 8y ago
England's poor performance is a mystery to me.
- tonyedgecombe 8y ago
  I've often wondered if having so many strong club level teams is a disadvantage for the national team. Diverting resources and bringing in foreign talent may not help. Having said that I really no nothing about football :)
- narag 8y ago
  Maybe the fact that there is no UK national team? Edit: Frankly I don't care so much about karma, but this downvote is strange. I would have thought that this reason wasn't controversial at all. I've even heard british players say that. Anybody care to explain?
  - nkg 8y ago
    Not downvoting, but I think England on its own has what it takes to do well.
    - narag 8y ago
      Of course, but a joint team would minimize luck's role. England won World Cup once anyway, didn't it?
- jvln 8y ago
  England has an average team and only English don't agree with that. https://www.amazon.com/Soccernomics-England-Germany-Australia-Destined/dp/1568584814 https://www.amazon.com/Soccernomics-England-Germany-Australi...
analyst74 8y ago
The article hints that England's youth training did not encourage creativity, which makes sense. English players are known to be less skillful than their Latin American counter parts who grew up playing in the street. It also mentioned that they have revamped their training scheme to systemically encourage creativity, following Germany's experiments. And English youth teams have been winning in the past few years.
pvg 8y ago
A somewhat overlooked factor: Luck. International tournaments are won by single elimination games - in the case of the World Cup, four. Four wins in a row in a relatively low-scoring sport against the best the rest of the world has to offer. You have to be good but you also have to be a bit lucky. Unfortunately for England, they've rarely been particularly good and they've often been particularly unlucky. Another common factor among many World Cup winners is a top flight national club league that produces the core of the national team and drives significant tactical or other innovation. That would give you (in their respective heydays) Brazil, Argentina, Italy, Germany, Spain. The Netherlands is missing - bad luck. The Premiere league is commercially successful but isn't quite that sort of league. English clubs are regularly embarrassed by their top European competitors. There's not much incentive to fix this, though, since the league prints money as it is.
- mamon 8y ago
  The reason why English clubs are not successfull internationally is proably because their own league is so demanding, that they simply save their strength for national competition, ignoring Champions League altogether. And this even makes financial sense, because winning Premier League pays much bigger money than winning Champions League.
  - pvg 8y ago
    That doesn't sound very plausible to me. There's a big scramble for the top 4 every year.
mkempe 8y ago
How many players on this year's English team play in foreign leagues? compare to other competitive national teams. In recent years the only other European national team with players who don't (can't?) play outside their own country is Russia. Hypothesis: having some of a country's top players participating in leagues with different styles of play is helpful -- so as not to be stuck in and limited by an ever-repeating style and system of offense/defense.
- pvg 8y ago
  The core players of the last two World Cup-winning teams played in their home leagues. It helps a lot more to invent a style that confers an advantage. Foreign exposure in top leagues is useful to smaller (in footballing terms) countries making deep runs. Those countries never win the whole thing, though.
  - mkempe 8y ago
    I'm pointing out that not one England player selected for this World Cup plays for a club outside of their country. Here is where four key Germany players were in 2014: - Klose: Lazio - Özil: Arsenal - Khedira: Real Madrid - Schürrle: Chelsea (Not counting Kroos who moved to Real Madrid immediately after the World Cup.) As for Spain, five players had ongoing or recent foreign-league experience (mostly England!) when they won the World Cup in 2010: - Piqué: Man U 2004-2008 - Alonso: Liverpool 2004-2009 - Torres: Liverpool 2007-2011 - Fàbregas: Arsenal 2003-2011 - Arbeloa: Liverpool 2007-2009 - plus Marchena, shortly and anciently: Benfica: 2000-2001 (Not counting David Silva who signed with Manchester City just before the World Cup.)
    - pvg 8y ago
      You're in denial. Well, you're in being rude. Germany had 7 players from Bayern, 16 out of 22 from the Bundesliga. Spain 2010 is even more striking. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_FIFA_World_Cup_squads#Spain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_FIFA_World_Cup_squads#Spa... Both teams played a distinct national style. The style of the Premiere league is not very internationally competitive.

Englander here. Tell me when you find out.

nkg 8y ago

England's poor performance is a mystery to me.

tonyedgecombe 8y ago
I've often wondered if having so many strong club level teams is a disadvantage for the national team. Diverting resources and bringing in foreign talent may not help. Having said that I really no nothing about football :)
narag 8y ago
Maybe the fact that there is no UK national team? Edit: Frankly I don't care so much about karma, but this downvote is strange. I would have thought that this reason wasn't controversial at all. I've even heard british players say that. Anybody care to explain?
- nkg 8y ago
  Not downvoting, but I think England on its own has what it takes to do well.
  - narag 8y ago
    Of course, but a joint team would minimize luck's role. England won World Cup once anyway, didn't it?
jvln 8y ago
England has an average team and only English don't agree with that. https://www.amazon.com/Soccernomics-England-Germany-Australia-Destined/dp/1568584814 https://www.amazon.com/Soccernomics-England-Germany-Australi...

analyst74 8y ago

The article hints that England's youth training did not encourage creativity, which makes sense. English players are known to be less skillful than their Latin American counter parts who grew up playing in the street. It also mentioned that they have revamped their training scheme to systemically encourage creativity, following Germany's experiments. And English youth teams have been winning in the past few years.

pvg 8y ago

A somewhat overlooked factor: Luck. International tournaments are won by single elimination games - in the case of the World Cup, four. Four wins in a row in a relatively low-scoring sport against the best the rest of the world has to offer. You have to be good but you also have to be a bit lucky. Unfortunately for England, they've rarely been particularly good and they've often been particularly unlucky. Another common factor among many World Cup winners is a top flight national club league that produces the core of the national team and drives significant tactical or other innovation. That would give you (in their respective heydays) Brazil, Argentina, Italy, Germany, Spain. The Netherlands is missing - bad luck. The Premiere league is commercially successful but isn't quite that sort of league. English clubs are regularly embarrassed by their top European competitors. There's not much incentive to fix this, though, since the league prints money as it is.

mamon 8y ago
The reason why English clubs are not successfull internationally is proably because their own league is so demanding, that they simply save their strength for national competition, ignoring Champions League altogether. And this even makes financial sense, because winning Premier League pays much bigger money than winning Champions League.
- pvg 8y ago
  That doesn't sound very plausible to me. There's a big scramble for the top 4 every year.

mkempe 8y ago

How many players on this year's English team play in foreign leagues? compare to other competitive national teams. In recent years the only other European national team with players who don't (can't?) play outside their own country is Russia. Hypothesis: having some of a country's top players participating in leagues with different styles of play is helpful -- so as not to be stuck in and limited by an ever-repeating style and system of offense/defense.

pvg 8y ago
The core players of the last two World Cup-winning teams played in their home leagues. It helps a lot more to invent a style that confers an advantage. Foreign exposure in top leagues is useful to smaller (in footballing terms) countries making deep runs. Those countries never win the whole thing, though.
- mkempe 8y ago
  I'm pointing out that not one England player selected for this World Cup plays for a club outside of their country. Here is where four key Germany players were in 2014: - Klose: Lazio - Özil: Arsenal - Khedira: Real Madrid - Schürrle: Chelsea (Not counting Kroos who moved to Real Madrid immediately after the World Cup.) As for Spain, five players had ongoing or recent foreign-league experience (mostly England!) when they won the World Cup in 2010: - Piqué: Man U 2004-2008 - Alonso: Liverpool 2004-2009 - Torres: Liverpool 2007-2011 - Fàbregas: Arsenal 2003-2011 - Arbeloa: Liverpool 2007-2009 - plus Marchena, shortly and anciently: Benfica: 2000-2001 (Not counting David Silva who signed with Manchester City just before the World Cup.)
  - pvg 8y ago
    You're in denial. Well, you're in being rude. Germany had 7 players from Bayern, 16 out of 22 from the Bundesliga. Spain 2010 is even more striking. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_FIFA_World_Cup_squads#Spain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_FIFA_World_Cup_squads#Spa... Both teams played a distinct national style. The style of the Premiere league is not very internationally competitive.