There is an inclination deep within the England-inclined football writer’s soul to write the definitive “Why England Always Lose” post/article/column, similar to the drive for all US MFA graduates to write the “Great American Novel.” This is generally because, like the “secret of America,” the reasons England suck are considered ambiguous, mysterious, cultural, vague, poetic.
I’m not that writer, but mostly because I don’t think the source of the English national team’s perpetual woe can only be viewed through a glass, darkly. If you can manage to wipe away the fanatical, iconoclastic patina from the usual quarters (anti-England people, anti-foreigner people, idiots), the reason England never win anything becomes obvious.
First, it must be said that England aren’t that bad insofar as they’re generally able to qualify for tournaments and get out of the group stage. Their performance in knockout matches is utterly atrocious however, and hasn’t shown any sign of improving over the last forty-six years.
One could reasonably argue that England had terrible luck in the 1990s (West Germany pens, Germany pens), but as the naughts have dragged on, the gap in technical ability between the English national team and its continental counterparts has yawned. This is not some vague impression, but is grounded in empirical fact. As of two years ago for example, England had 2,769 coaches with a UEFA license, as compared to France’s 17,588, Spain’s 23,995, Italy’s 29,420, and Germany’s staggering 34,970.
The English club academy model is severely antiquated compared to that of Germany’s for example, and is only now the focus of improvement by the much-maligned and much-misunderstood Elite Player Performance Plan. Ironically, the plan received vociferous opposition from many of the same scribes decrying England’s player development track in the wake of yet another disappointing tournament for the mens national team, because it allows Premier League clubs to buy youth players from lower league teams, depriving them of a much-needed source of income.
Lost in the hysterical opposition to EPPP is the fact it will also stop big clubs from choosing to buy cheaper overseas players for their youth teams, and provide much better incentives for big clubs to give every opportunity for talented English players to succeed.
It also does away with the “90 mile radius” rule, which prevented domestic academies from selecting players from around the country. It will allow for residency schools and increased coaching time for young, elite footballers.
The fruit of these efforts will likely be seen a decade from now, but even those changes may not be enough to produce a genuinely competitive national team in that time frame. For example England, like Canada, is only now understanding the importance of emphasizing enjoyment rather than competition at youth level, and to ensure all players are given a chance to develop their skills. And EPPP will yield no positive effect unless English coaches are held to a higher licensing standard by the FA (I’ve yet to see any provisions for this in the FA literature that directly requires strict, UEFA coaching standards for top graded academies).
As for the argument that England players can’t be that bad if they play as stars for the best teams in the best league in the world, one does not need to resort to anti-England hysteria to point out that an English-based league will naturally have an English-biased player selection policy, and that playing alongside elite global talent will make a footballer seem like a world beater, and generally make them better players than their skill would otherwise allow.
With some exceptions (Ashley Cole, Steven Gerrard, Joe Hart), England is full of talented but non-exceptional players in relatively elevated positions. Milner plays alongside David Silva, Lescott alongside Vincent Kompany, Ashley Young with Nani…the list goes on. Skilled as these English players are, they are miles behind similar players in Germany, Spain, France, and yes, Italy. If for example the Polish league were as popular as the Premier League, chances are their national team would do marginally better in international tournaments, too.
This morning, the anti-England people are resorting to hyperbole to decry how incredibly awful the team are and how they will never improve because, prima facie, they’re England. Meanwhile the ostensibly pro-England people are penning the same tired op-eds about not playing for the three lions on the shirt. The rest will stick their heads in the sand.
But this isn’t rocket science, and what’s more galling for fans of England is that their nation is perhaps the best poised of any to take advantage of a football-ingrained culture to make the necessary changes to radically improve the national team. Simply shrugging and saying “that’s now how we do things here” is easy for the cynical English pundit, but it’s also stupid. Football culture is not an immovable rock. If perpetural underachievers Spain can do it, so can England. If they want to.
Aside from crossing, over laps, set pieces and the occasional fake shot trickery, british players have NO IDEA HOW TO PLAY FOOTBALL. If they have NO PACE, STRENGTH, HEIGHT, QUICKNESS ETC. THEY ARE DEEMED WORTHLESS.
england’s players can compete physically, BUT SUCK AT FOOTBALL SO WHAT’RE THEY SUPPOSED TO DO???
SCOTT PARKER?? U FO’ REAL BRO? HE’S USELESS.
HIS COUNTERPART ON ALL TOP NATIONALITIES:
Spain: Busquets/Xabi Alonso
Italy: De Rossi/Motta
France: M’villa/Diarra
Germany: Sweinsteiger/Khedira
Netherlands: De Jong/Van Bommel/Strootman/Van der vaart
england: SCOTT PARKER HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Stop applauding players for “HARD WORK” AND “ETHIC”. YOU THINK NO ONE ELSE HAS THAT??? I’D TAKE INTELLIGENCE AND FOOTBALL IQ ANY DAY.
The problem is…most other teams have this AND PACE AND HEIGHT AND STRENGTH SO WHATCHYA GONNA DOOO???
I guess that’s how england rolls. They like their big and strong men. *cough* milner. Useless.
And it’s not even england develop good defenders by good programs and such. They just get better BECAUSE THEY DEFEND AGAINST CONSTANT ROUTE 1 FOOTBALL EVERYDAY IN THE PREMIER LEAGUE AND GET UNDRESSED BY FOREIGN PLAYERS, OF COURSE THEY’RE GONNA GET BETTER.
Please, leave the internet to the adults.
Well put, Richard. That’ perfectly captures how I see things.
At what point does 40+ years of mediocrity simply become “England just isn’t all that good” instead of holding onto past glories? Sadly, the expectations for that team are above and beyond their skill level.
To put it harshly, “thanks for inventing this fine game, but we’ll take it from here.”
I’ve heard a number of people ask “Why can’t the England players play for England in the same way that they do for their clubs?”
When of course that is exactly what they do.
The Premier League isn’t a possession based league so there is actually quite a high reward in playing the ball forward as quickly as possible because you know even if you lose it you will get it back very soon.
That’s not true at international level.
It’s not true at CL level either but English clubs have adapted to that because they have (as the article says) a number of non-English players who are comfortable keeping the ball.
And those overseas players don’t just make their Englsih counterparts look good, they actually maximize their impact beacuse having one or two direct players in a team that is also good in possession can be very effective.
England just haven’t the players to get the right balance.
THIS.
england is in the same class as sweden, russia, australia, usa, etc. british players look so clueless when they have the ball hahahah.
You know the phase “too many chiefs, not enough indians”? Well I think England has got nothing but Indians.
Gerrard is getting older and is not as effective.. asides from that, they don’t have the players in the middle of the park who are supposed to soak up possession and keep the ball. Sure they have the hard-hat types that get stuck in like nobody’s business, but they can’t do anything with the damn ball once they have it.
I was incredibly impressed with England’s defending and organization against Italy but absolutely horrified at anything they did when they had the ball. The attack was stale and predictable.
Just has to be more of a premium put on skill and less on direct play. As someone pointed out, this is somewhat problematic as what works in England is different than what works internationally.
You’re right: Indians do suck at soccer.
Spot on, Richard. Being a fan of German football and the bundesliga, the biggest difference I see is the promotion of youth. I credit a lot of the premier league success on the high level of imports. Take City for example, if you look at their most important players from last season, all imports: Agüero, Kompany, Silva.
I think the english game has sacrificed their national team for the best(arguably) domestic league in the world. The statistic of domestic players in the prem is between 30-35%, where as i think the Bundesliga is around 55-60%. And if you at the rosters of the Bundesliga teams, more than half of the players on the teams have come from the academies.
England also likely suffer from not having any of their top players based outside England. Of course Germany, Spain and Italy pick mainly domestic-based players for their national team, but they also generally have a small collection of guys playing abroad. I think Germany benefits from having Ozil and Khedira playing in Spain, just as having Torres and Silva playing in England likely brings something to the Spanish. Something intangible, no doubt, like adaptability but something nonetheless.
The rest of Europe exports its footballers to each other and with England it’s all still a one-way flow. That’s probably not the reason they haven’t won anything in 40-whatever years but it’s worthwhile as another entry in the ‘problems to address’ list.
When two “blokes” named Ashley missed those two penalties, I was reminded of an rant that was going around a few years ago…and it was spot on.
http://www.markjp.dsl.pipex.com/articlewhatswrongwith.htm
england will not win anything in the next 50 years at least.
Absolute shite. Unless they start capping brazillians.
Now talk about the implications for Canada. It seems to me that the model for us is right before our noses. We have the best system in the world for producing hockey players. We need only adapt it to soccer. Discuss.
brazil plays samba, spain plays tiki taka, england players (especially YOUNGsters) need to play football like its art. short players with good technical ability. stop being so pragmatic.
It doesnt have to do with tall, or short, big or small. Its the coaching system. WHERE THE HELL DID ENGLAND THINK THEY WERE GOING TO GO WITH ROY HODGSON!!!! It is a change of mentality, like telling your boys to go out and play football.
The fundamental of the game pass and move has been forgotten for defend and hoof. This English team, didnt even play as good as they would have played in a pointless friendly game. No pressing whatsoever, no initiative, Hodgson is to blame. The players he selected was all for his so called discipline, what the fuck!!!!!
He needs youth, he needs speed, guile, creativity and he needs to know how to read a fucking damn game.
Why the fuck would you keep Ashley Young, all through the 120minutes? I mean someone like Adam Johnson, Oxlade, heck even Phil Jones could do this team no harm.
The mentality Hodgson instilled was the root for England’s early exit and he should be blamed a 100% for it.
Fuck him
And to add to this, FUCK the English FA for this ridiculous appointment. I mean they had Harry Redknapp, to choose as their future manager. But they didnt, WHY? Only God knows the stupendous dimwits that run the ENGLISH FA.
It is clear that some commenters just didn’t get the message.