Liverpool FC Forum

by **kingycrouch** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 12:06 am

i reckon we should sign al forign players like arsenal and just ahve gerrard crouch and carrargher as english man and get rid of fowler next season the fat useless :censored:

haha

by **gabbyh** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 12:07 am

OK, I'll add my tuppence worth from a different perspective, because unlike Stu, I don't know what the real meaning of technical ability is. :oops:

To put it in an extremely simplistic way, England have won the World Cup once and as far as I know, Germany, Italy, France, Argentina and Brazil have won it more than once.
Why?
Surely it can't be all down to the luck of the draw, bad decisions and more luck? My God, England and every one else have had it then cos Lady Luck does not like us. She prefers the aforementioned teams!
The aforementioned teams have players who all look comfortable when they have the ball at their feet. More often than not they can pass with precision and have a tactical awareness and so can think on their feet, they do not always have to go to the sidelines to get instructions from their manager/ coach and if they do, they understand the instructions and can carry them out, ie they have intelligence. Usually aforementioned teams are also blessed with coaches/managers who pick their own teams and do not allow the press/ joe public to pick it for them. Aforementioned teams are also blessed with more than one decent player per position and their manager/coach does not squeeze all their good players into the team out of position because he does not want to damage precious egos. Aforementioned teams also recognise the individual ability of their players and use them for the good of the team. Aforementioned teams also have managers/coaches who recognise that a preponderance of world class players do not always make a world cup winning side, they build their winning team on those few individuals and make do and mend with the rest, usually because they stress the importance of playing as a team.
Italy have always been known as a defensive team, they are as renowned for that as Germany are for never giving up and grounding out the results, France are renowned for flair and Argentina and Brazil are a joy to watch but can be caught out defensively.
There are many variables involved in winning the world cup. Unfortunately, England never seem to have enough of them covered. For some reason, Germany France Italy Argentina and Brazil seem to have the National Governing Body of Football who not only have the nous to know what these variables are but the nous to have a system in place that covers them. ie Grass root football thrives in these contries and it has nothing really to do with the amount of money thrown at it, but the systems in place to take advantage of and use the talent available.

by **Lando_Griffin** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 1:38 am

0asis wrote:Read my other post, you know the reply to Ace. And I'll be disrespectful to who I choose, I'm not exactly treated with respect on here, but that's a matter neither here or there.

To be absolutely honest, Oasis, I think you can be a right tw*t at times, and you're the sort of person who'd get slapped in a pub if you said what you do on here. Adding a smilie after insulting someone is a bit smarmy, and I wouldn't do it personally.

However - you are quite correct when you say that English players on the whole lack the technique of their Italian counterparts.

The Premiership is DEFINATELY the most entertaining league in the World.
It has NEVER been the league where the best football has been played, though. That title is currently held by Spain's Primera Liga.

I want the Prem to be the best, but if we take the blinkers off, it's f*cking OBVIOUS that we're MILES behind Spain and Italy for pure ability.

We knocked out Juventus with 3 English players - Gerrard, Carra and Carson. The rest were foreign.

Liverpool are fantastic, and we achieved our CL win through a hybrid of English spirit and Spanish technique.

Does anyone here honestly believe we'd have made it on either of those things alone?

by **Lando_Griffin** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 1:47 am

Oh, and while I'm at it:

England will ALWAYS be Football's Tim Henman until the tw*ts at grass-roots level realise that skills are what's important - NOT athletic ability.
WHat the f*ck is the point of getting a 10 year old who's average at football, but outstanding at sprinting to become a footballer, rather than a bleeding sprinter?

This country has it all wrong, and although I may not have some stupid, worthless UEFA coaching badge, even I can see that until we adopt the futsal of Brazil, and stop having result-obsessed coaches incharge of the kids, we'll forever be a nation of also-rans.

We invented Football and Cricket, and we're sh*te at both.

There's one common footballing chant that sums-up British sport:

"We're sh*t, and we know we are."

Stop the rot - spend money, Blair, and follow examples that work, rather than employing meatheads to educate our kids in long-ball play and tactical ineptness. :no

by **48-1119859832** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 9:46 am

Bad Bob wrote:Oasis...

Rave all you want about Italy's supposed "technical ability" but that's not why the won the World Cup. They won because they had the best defense in the competition, which carried them through to the final (much like our CL run). Before ZZ's penalty, Buffon had only conceded an own goal all tournament. They defended like lions and took their chances, that's how they won. Another reason they won? Most of their players play in the positions that they play for their clubs--especially in the centre of the park's "engine room". Pirlo and Gattuso for Italy operate a lot like Pirlo and Gattuso for Milan, except instead of having Kaka to work with, they have to tolerate that waste of space Totti (who's shear anonymity means that he doesn't hinder their game a jot). Cannevaro and Matterazzi were a new partnership but their still accomplished central defenders for their clubs. A final reason? They had a rub of the green (U.S.A. game, Lucas Neill, Germany) and they made the most of it, which is what champions do.

My point? They weren't 'technically superior' to England, they simply did the simple things much better. If England had sorted themselves out tactically, gelled as a unit and got some luck, they could have put together a run and had a crack at the trophy (Hell, France looked dead in the water and every bit as hapless as England until Ribery caught the Spanish flat-footed and then they just went from strength to strength after that).

On another note...

"Technical ability," is a term that gets bandied about lots--too much!--because no one (except Stu ) knows precisely what the feck it means! Intricate passing? Superior dribbling? Bicycle kicks in the 6 yard box? What are we talking about here?

So, let's look at Italy's superior "technical ability" last night, shall we? Their goal came from a thumping header off a corner. Seems to me that that's the kind of goal you'll find week in, week out in the "bog standard" English topflight. Intricate passing? Nope. When they did have possession--which was very rare since they kept giving France (particularly Vieira and Makelele) the ball back--they hit an awful lot of long, diagonal balls to the likes of Grosso, Toni and Zambrotta. God, you'd think we were watching an English league match! Even Pirlo, whom everyone is drooling over all of sudden, hits his fair share of balls over the top. I'm not having this "Italy's technically superior to England" argument. Illustrate what you mean by "technical" and maybe we can have a discussion.

Techincal attributes, is passing, shooting, heading, crossing, technique, dribbling and first touch. It's the common knowledge that Seria A & La Liga are vastly more techincal leagues than the Premiership, and that's why those two leagues are better for football ability. However the most entertaining is the Premiership, but that means very little everytime England crash out of major tournements.

Italy won because all of the reasons they say but they won it because they are a techincally great side and knew what to do with the ball when they had it in their feet, England have never really shown that, for example this World Cup, England lacked ideas and intelligence on the ball, they chased most of the posession. You're right Bob, they did the simple things better, but they are far more techincal than English players, and that's why teams like Argentina, Brazil, Italy, France and Germany are winning the world cup more than once and England aren't.

The fact is English youth need to start mixing the foriegn game with the English game, they need to be able to express themselves with the ball, make mistakes, learn how to keep posession for long periods of the game and use the ball properly.

by **Bman** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 10:25 am

0asis wrote:
Bad Bob wrote:Oasis...

Rave all you want about Italy's supposed "technical ability" but that's not why the won the World Cup. They won because they had the best defense in the competition, which carried them through to the final (much like our CL run). Before ZZ's penalty, Buffon had only conceded an own goal all tournament. They defended like lions and took their chances, that's how they won. Another reason they won? Most of their players play in the positions that they play for their clubs--especially in the centre of the park's "engine room". Pirlo and Gattuso for Italy operate a lot like Pirlo and Gattuso for Milan, except instead of having Kaka to work with, they have to tolerate that waste of space Totti (who's shear anonymity means that he doesn't hinder their game a jot). Cannevaro and Matterazzi were a new partnership but their still accomplished central defenders for their clubs. A final reason? They had a rub of the green (U.S.A. game, Lucas Neill, Germany) and they made the most of it, which is what champions do.

My point? They weren't 'technically superior' to England, they simply did the simple things much better. If England had sorted themselves out tactically, gelled as a unit and got some luck, they could have put together a run and had a crack at the trophy (Hell, France looked dead in the water and every bit as hapless as England until Ribery caught the Spanish flat-footed and then they just went from strength to strength after that).

On another note...

"Technical ability," is a term that gets bandied about lots--too much!--because no one (except Stu ) knows precisely what the feck it means! Intricate passing? Superior dribbling? Bicycle kicks in the 6 yard box? What are we talking about here?

So, let's look at Italy's superior "technical ability" last night, shall we? Their goal came from a thumping header off a corner. Seems to me that that's the kind of goal you'll find week in, week out in the "bog standard" English topflight. Intricate passing? Nope. When they did have possession--which was very rare since they kept giving France (particularly Vieira and Makelele) the ball back--they hit an awful lot of long, diagonal balls to the likes of Grosso, Toni and Zambrotta. God, you'd think we were watching an English league match! Even Pirlo, whom everyone is drooling over all of sudden, hits his fair share of balls over the top. I'm not having this "Italy's technically superior to England" argument. Illustrate what you mean by "technical" and maybe we can have a discussion.

Techincal attributes, is passing, shooting, heading, crossing, technique, dribbling and first touch. It's the common knowledge that Seria A & La Liga are vastly more techincal leagues than the Premiership, and that's why those two leagues are better for football ability. However the most entertaining is the Premiership, but that means very little everytime England crash out of major tournements.

Italy won because all of the reasons they say but they won it because they are a techincally great side and knew what to do with the ball when they had it in their feet, England have never really shown that, for example this World Cup, England lacked ideas and intelligence on the ball, they chased most of the posession. You're right Bob, they did the simple things better, but they are far more techincal than English players, and that's why teams like Argentina, Brazil, Italy, France and Germany are winning the world cup more than once and England aren't.

The fact is English youth need to start mixing the foriegn game with the English game, they need to be able to express themselves with the ball, make mistakes, learn how to keep posession for long periods of the game and use the ball properly.

I like to see contrasting skills from different teams, and while your saying these teams are technically better than us maybe true. This does not ultimately mean there going to beat us every time we play them, infact you put down Germany are better technically yet they play a similar game to the English.

Bad Bob was right in saying England didnt do the simple things well, there passing was horrendous. Now whether your calling that bad "Technically" or just plain bad passing its still the same thing.
As style goes English football can compete with our european counterparts or with S.Americans.

Another reason why England didnt do well in the WC , which is a strong point of the English game. Is they never played HIGH tempo. Not once did they play a style thats unique to the premiership. Whether its too hot to constantly play at that sort of pace may well be a factor. But most of the games England played was at a 'typical' Italian pace. And they didnt know how to control the game by playing a very alien way to them. This was a massive factor to Englands demise IMO.

When I think at the styles of play, and people say the Italians and Spanish are far superior, I think back to when Liverpool beat Juve at Anfield in the quarters of the CL. Even with all our"foreigners" in the team we played a very English game that night. High tempo quality movement and passing, the Italians were shell shocked and didnt know what had hit them. A great display of " English" football that night was on hand to see.

by **2520years** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 10:55 am

Big Niall wrote:The premiership is fast and furious and very different to how the game is played elsewhere.

Also, the foreigner rule is illegal. You could say only 1 or 2 non EU players allowed. All talk about english or british is pointless as it is against the whole point of the EU to discriminate within it.

Plus there were few foreigners in the English leagues in teh 1970s and England were terrible then. The foreigners have been good for the game.

Niall has hit the nail on the head. It became illegal to restrict employment opportunities from people within the EU. The FA had no choice but to scrap the two or three foreigners rule (I can't remember how many it was). However, it wouldn't be illegal to insist on five homegrown players in the squad, and at the moment it's legally okay to restrict employment for people outside the EU.

Foreigners have been good for the game here too. Look at the calibre of players in the England squad now. We used to be lucky if we had one or two world class players. Now, without opening debate about who's world class, most people would agree we've got double or treble that number. If Sven had got his tactics right we'd have walked into the semi-finals (at least) and everyone would be saying how healthy the English game is. It is healthy, look at how English teams are doing in Europe...the national team just needs to live up to its potential and everyone will be happy.

by **48-1119859832** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 12:09 pm

England can have 23 great players who do well in the English league week in, week out but until they learn how to keep hold posession, pass the ball around, dictate play, play as a unit, be more intelligent in their movement, they will never be more than a semi-final team. England need to change the way the play and become much more intelligent on the pitch. Niall is spot on with what he says.

by **48-1119859832** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 12:23 pm

Bman wrote:I like to see contrasting skills from different teams, and while your saying these teams are technically better than us maybe true. This does not ultimately mean there going to beat us every time we play them, infact you put down Germany are better technically yet they play a similar game to the English.

Bad Bob was right in saying England didnt do the simple things well, there passing was horrendous. Now whether your calling that bad "Technically" or just plain bad passing its still the same thing.
As style goes English football can compete with our european counterparts or with S.Americans.

Another reason why England didnt do well in the WC , which is a strong point of the English game. Is they never played HIGH tempo. Not once did they play a style thats unique to the premiership. Whether its too hot to constantly play at that sort of pace may well be a factor. But most of the games England played was at a 'typical' Italian pace. And they didnt know how to control the game by playing a very alien way to them. This was a massive factor to Englands demise IMO.

When I think at the styles of play, and people say the Italians and Spanish are far superior, I think back to when Liverpool beat Juve at Anfield in the quarters of the CL. Even with all our"foreigners" in the team we played a very English game that night. High tempo quality movement and passing, the Italians were shell shocked and didnt know what had hit them. A great display of " English" football that night was on hand to see.

I like seeing different and contrasting abilities in every team and whilst I agree Germany are somewhat similar in how we play, the fact that they don't have a team full of big names like you're Gerrard's, Owen's, Beckham's, Lampard's, Terry's and so on, they work as a team and now what to do with the ball and use it to full effect. The passing is sublime, they are creative upfront and most importantly they look comfortable on the football, you sense there is a deep understanding with Germany that everyone knows what they are doing and there is a great sense of intelligence in their play, and it's the same with other teams like Argentina, Brazil, France, Italy, Portugal and so on.

England didn't do the simple things no, they just hit long balls like a teenager would do playing sunday league football for his local team in the county championship. Passing is the basic of football and it's very important and if England can't even do that to a high and effective standard it really does speak volumes for grass roots football in this country. Ssometime England don't need to play a high tempo, just keep the ball, pass about, make intelligent runs, get into space and use the ball properly and you're sorted. There is no need in a hot climate (which is an excuse) to be running about tiring yourself out, in some games you need a high tempo and in others you do not. England need to be able to play in more than one formation effectively and need to be able to mix their play up and that's something they can't do because from an early age, children and teenagers are not allowed to express themselves with the ball and spend time on the ball, it's all get it out you're own half by any means possible. Hoof it up to the centre forward, they are not taught how to use the ball properly and they are not taught about postioning and so on.

England are taught to play the English way, and that simply doesn't work in today's football. It might of worked in 1966 but times change and English football needs foriegn players to help English football evolve and get with the times. It's obvious that the English game doesn't work otherwise England would of been able to win more than one World Cup, England have always had good players but teams like Argentina, Brazil, Italy, France in recent times and Holland of the 70's as well as Germany have always had great players, that's been the difference.

by **stmichael** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 12:23 pm

Lando_Griffin wrote:Oh, and while I'm at it:

England will ALWAYS be Football's Tim Henman until the tw*ts at grass-roots level realise that skills are what's important - NOT athletic ability.
WHat the f*ck is the point of getting a 10 year old who's average at football, but outstanding at sprinting to become a footballer, rather than a bleeding sprinter?

This country has it all wrong, and although I may not have some stupid, worthless UEFA coaching badge, even I can see that until we adopt the futsal of Brazil, and stop having result-obsessed coaches incharge of the kids, we'll forever be a nation of also-rans.

We invented Football and Cricket, and we're sh*te at both.

There's one common footballing chant that sums-up British sport:

"We're sh*t, and we know we are."

Stop the rot - spend money, Blair, and follow examples that work, rather than employing meatheads to educate our kids in long-ball play and tactical ineptness.

classic rant as ever lando

i've been saying for a while that the philosophy of us as a sporting nation has been wrong for years. we accept failure way too easily. i mean brian barwick came out the other day and said that sven had been "a tremendous success" as england manager. that just sums it up for me.

i agree that it starts at grass roots. when i was a kid i played footie from when i got home from school until dinnertime nearly everyday. i also played three times at a weekend. nowadays you're not even allowed to play any ball games on most streets or on most public areas.

also, at schools these days, there's so much emphasis on numeracy and literacy that there's not the facilities and opportunities available for the kids after school to get into various sports.

by **Good Bob** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 12:35 pm

England didn't fail because they weren't "technically gifted" enough. England failed because they were not good enough. BIG DIFFERENCE!

They didn't have the fitness, the aggression, the determination, the quality throughout the pitch and the attitude. They certainly didn't have the manager and they didn't have the tactical system.

England are taught to play the English way, and that simply doesn't work in today's football. It might of worked in 1966 but times change and English football needs foriegn players to help English football evolve and get with the times. It's obvious that the English game doesn't work otherwise England would of been able to win more than one World Cup, England have always had good players but teams like Argentina, Brazil, Italy, France in recent times and Holland of the 70's as well as Germany have always had great players, that's been the difference.

The biggest pile of :censored:

i've ever heard.

Don't sit there and say the likes of Owen, Rooney, Gerrard, Gazza, Shearer, Ferdinand were not great players. Don't sit there and say that because someones from a certain league or a certain country they play a certain way because its absoloutely :censored:

rubbish and the most naive and stupid arguement ever.

by **48-1119859832** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 12:43 pm

stmichael wrote:

i've been saying for a while that the philosophy of us as a sporting nation has been wrong for years. we accept failure way too easily. i mean brian barwick came out the other day and said that sven had been "a tremendous success" as england manager. that just sums it up for me.

The Quarter finals for a country that invented the sport is absolutely embarrassing, I mentioned on here before that the English mentality is far too weak and there is an attitude of "nevermind, try again next match", which is the wrong mentality to have especially with country that expects like England. It's different if you're from Solvenia who don't expect at all.

i agree that it starts at grass roots. when i was a kid i played footie from when i got home from school until dinnertime nearly everyday. i also played three times at a weekend. nowadays you're not even allowed to play any ball games on most streets or on most public areas.

It's also sunday league managers who make their team play ridiculous tactics, such as hoof the ball up the pitch so that a centre forward can hopefully get on the end of it and score. When I used to play, the manager would sub a player if he dared tried to express himself with the ball or spend more than a second on the ball, it's ridiculous, sunday league matches don't matter, it's about a learning experience for the youngsters to improve the key skills they need and the players that do show a great style of play that is alien to the English way, never get scouted by scouts, they are over looked by a big physical presence and lots of pace. :no

by **Bman** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 12:52 pm

0asis wrote:
stmichael wrote:

i've been saying for a while that the philosophy of us as a sporting nation has been wrong for years. we accept failure way too easily. i mean brian barwick came out the other day and said that sven had been "a tremendous success" as england manager. that just sums it up for me.

The Quarter finals for a country that invented the sport is absolutely embarrassing, I mentioned on here before that the English mentality is far too weak and there is an attitude of "nevermind, try again next match", which is the wrong mentality to have especially with country that expects like England. It's different if you're from Solvenia who don't expect at all.

i agree that it starts at grass roots. when i was a kid i played footie from when i got home from school until dinnertime nearly everyday. i also played three times at a weekend. nowadays you're not even allowed to play any ball games on most streets or on most public areas.

It's also sunday league managers who make their team play ridiculous tactics, such as hoof the ball up the pitch so that a centre forward can hopefully get on the end of it and score. When I used to play, the manager would sub a player if he dared tried to express himself with the ball or spend more than a second on the ball, it's ridiculous, sunday league matches don't matter, it's about a learning experience for the youngsters to improve the key skills they need and the players that do show a great style of play that is alien to the English way, never get scouted by scouts, they are over looked by a big physical presence and lots of pace.

Oasis just out of interest where were you born ?

Because I remember how you wanted Mexico to win there matches, yet laughed at Englands performances. thats all

by **stmichael** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 12:57 pm

0asis wrote:It's also sunday league managers who make their team play ridiculous tactics, such as hoof the ball up the pitch so that a centre forward can hopefully get on the end of it and score. When I used to play, the manager would sub a player if he dared tried to express himself with the ball or spend more than a second on the ball, it's ridiculous, sunday league matches don't matter, it's about a learning experience for the youngsters to improve the key skills they need and the players that do show a great style of play that is alien to the English way, never get scouted by scouts, they are over looked by a big physical presence and lots of pace.

It seems to me that we have the ability to produce technically gifted players but cannot produce playmakers or those who can make more creative decisions on their own. I think this is mainly due to the coaching development and style in which the sport is taught at younger levels.

The nearest guy we've got to a playmaker would probably be Joe Cole, but he's never going to influence a game playing wide left for England.

by **Bad Bob** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 12:57 pm

Good Bob wrote:England didn't fail because they weren't "technically gifted" enough. England failed because they were not good enough. BIG DIFFERENCE!

They didn't have the fitness, the aggression, the determination, the quality throughout the pitch and the attitude. They certainly didn't have the manager and they didn't have the tactical system.

That's spot on for me. England had the players to compete and, had they found a starting 11 that suited their play, gelled as a unit, had some luck and--most importantly--had the proper mentality, they could have very well taken a tilt at the title.

As it was, Sven rotated, they lacked cohesion, they did even simple things poorly, they lacked real belief and crashed out to Portugal in the QF. Note though that had they won that game it could so easily have been them in the final on Sunday instead of France. Some people have been going on about how sh!te England were against Portugal but they were still a couple of penalties away from going through. France looked horrendous until the second half against Spain and then it came together for them and they went on a run. The difference? France found their belief after a shaky start to the WC--the swagger was back by the end of the Spain game. England never found that belief and were rightly sent packing.

At the end of the day, it's a tournament--seven games from opener to WC final. The team that hits their stride at the right time, stays free of key injuries and suspensions, has some luck and has the mental toughness to see it through, will get to the final. Neither Italy nor France were fancied to win during the group stages. Both had to work hard to get out of the first knock-out game but they managed to do it and got the required momentum to push on.

So, for me "technical" ability is only a very small part of the equation. At the end of the day, it's about playing simple, effective football--airtight defending and creativity going forward--not about how many triangles you can play or how many step-overs you can muster. Spain were a tremendously talented squad full of intelligent players who were good on the ball. The French beat them soundly in the end. And Stu's right, England have technically gifted players as well (just as Italy have hoofers--Gattuso's a great player but no craftsman, same's true of Matarazzi) so let's not make this a sterotyping exercise in "national footballing character".

Liverpool FC Forum

Only five foreigners - Lennart johansson

Who is online