As an outsider it's quite hilarious to see English people so negative about their own national team. And when someone does an article slating them you get 100+ comments throughout the day with people spouting old fashioned nonsense about the supposed myriad of 'reasons' why England are in decline.
The fact is, England were never really world beaters other than one home based tournament in 1966. That's not me criticising you guys. In fact I think you guys are and always have been and probably always will be a solid top 8 side. Sometimes you will underachieve (2010) and sometimes you will overachieve (1990).
On your day you can beat anyone and also on another teams day you can lose to a very poor team.
There is no decline because to say that you would have to believe you were some amazing team beforehand. Hell, you didn't qualify for a single World Cup between 1970 and 1982. And that was when your club sides full of English players were cleaning up in Europe.
For me there are some things which you could do to improve your chances of winning a World Cup. Firstly, the fans should remember it's just a cup. It really doesn't matter if you guys go out in the Quarter finals because other big countries will get knocked out then too. So don't put so much pressure on the team to succeed because in a tournament with as many as 5-6 very good national sides it's very hard to measure success when certain factors 'on the day' come into effect unlike a league season where the best team generally always wins.
Also, the FA should REALLY put a winter break into place. Something i've seen England suffer from over the past 10-15 years has been a great first half and then a poor second half. Surely that has to do with stamina and that must come from not having a month long break in the middle of the season like other countries get?
As for the whole argument about kids hoofing the ball from a young age, well sure, that happens to SOME kids but the majority of Premier league clubs (where these English national players are going to come from) have modern and progressive training plans for their young footballers. It's not a case of some 8 year old walking into Evertons youth system and being told to hoof it etc.
With St George's being built and the likes of Gareth Southgate out there making changes (size of goals and size of pitches is something he's already changed) the future looks bright. Look at Spain in the 80's and 90's. Some good players but nowhere near as many as there are now. They took steps to solve that problem and now England aren't just talking about it. They've actually already built the complex and it's already started. Nothing annoys me more on this site when people talk as if England are still in the dark ages and aren't doing anything about it. It's been done so be patient!
But going back to my original point, England are a massive footballing country and will generally always make it to World Cups and generally always get out of their group. After that anything can happen. Injuries, ref decisions, coming up against fresher teams, luck of the draw etc and those factors will decide where England finish.
But for fans to have this general apathy and use ridiculous cliches like 'the players have no passion' etc does the national side no good at all. The fans have to continue to believe that Englands luck will get them from the usual quarters to a bit further each time they're in a tournament because one day it will happen again and hopefully by that point your apathy won't have desensitized the moment.
Too negative about England.
posted on 20/6/13
England's footballing peers are Sweden. They should stop comparing themselves to the likes of Germany and Italy and start comparing to the Swedes. Things will look a bit better if they do that and maybe they'll be happier.
posted on 20/6/13
Agreed Red Cog
Like I said in the OP, England were terrible in the 70's. Didn't even make a World Cup and yet there must have been close to a 90% rate of English people playing (with the rest being Scottish etc)
posted on 20/6/13
Dunc
To be fair to Roy, he only came in just before the Euros and didn't have a chance to build a certain style. He just had to go with what he had and many players were injured (Wilshere, Cleverley and Cahill) or suspended (Rooney).
Give him next years world cup before properly judging him.
posted on 20/6/13
The mentality has changed now though with England.
Between 96 and 2010.....we went into tournaments thinking it could be our year with a bit of luck. Those days are well and truly over.
NOBODY actually believes we have a cat in hells chance in Brazil 14 and France 2016 and they are right to think so....we don't. We'll be there (if we make it) to make up the numbers.
posted on 20/6/13
Good article Robbster
We are drama queens with our excessive expectations. We don't have a right to be world champions or close contenders every time. However, there is an element of justified grievance in that we know we could do better if our game were run more intelligently. The main issue is the pitiful youth development and culture surrounding it - whereby numerous countries that are actually less football-mad than we are churn out more technically accomplished players. (And RC is quite right that this is the crux of the lack of home-grown players in the Premiership.) Your point about a winter break is another example. England aren't among the best few teams in the world but our players are better than e.g. the performances of the last WC implied.
One thing:
"your club sides full of English players were cleaning up in Europe"
...we shouldn't understate the importance of Irish, Scottish and Welsh players during that era when English clubs were dominating Europe. Liverpool's great teams, to my memory, were fantastic British teams but less than 50% of the players were eligible to play for England. In this respect, the decline of Scottish football has been more marked than that of English.
posted on 20/6/13
Between 96 and 2010.....we went into tournaments thinking it could be our year with a bit of luck. Those days are well and truly over.
---------------------
Things aren't looking great now but balances of power fluctuate quickly. In 1988 England were abysmal. In 1990 we were unlucky not to make the final (where we'd have had a decent chance of winning). In 1992 we were epitomised by Carlton Palmer. In 1994 we failed to qualify. In 1996 we were again unlucky not to reach the final.
Right now England look weak and unconvincing. But among the emerging generation Wilshere and Will Hughes could turn out to be our Xavi and Iniesta. Smalling and Jones could become a world class defensive partnership with an understanding honed at their club. Luke Shaw could turn into one of the world's best attacking right backs. The reforms to youth coaching and relaxation of restrictions on elite clubs recruiting youngsters from all over the country could start to bear fruit within a few years. Nothing is inevitable. Our past isn't an unbroken golden age and our future may not be so bad.
posted on 20/6/13
I find the most imbecilic arguments in football to be the most 'durable' and the old 'foreigners blocking English talent'
----
or maybe its durable because there's merit in the notion.
I'm not talking decline as in failure to win an international tournament. There's only 5 per decade so there aren't many to be won by a generation of players.
But merely in terms of technical ability - english players just can't keep hold of a football. The composure levels are diabolical.
How could the decline of English players in the Premier league not lead to a drop in quality. If they're not playing at the top level then they certainly won't compete.
posted on 20/6/13
Metro
Back to RC's point about correlation / causation. Artificially reducing the quality of the league through quotas mean we will have more but worse English players getting more experience in a league of diminished quality. Perhaps it's actually better to have fewer players getting experience playing at a higher level among better players. That argument can work both ways.
What I don't think anyone can argue against, and what is surely the fundamental thing that needs to improve, is that if we start to coach players more effectively from a much younger age, the quality of players competing for opportunities in the Premier league will be raised.
I'm not against mild measures which encourage clubs to include home-grown players in their squads. But the key developmental phase is much much earlier and that's where there is a chance to make much more progress.
posted on 20/6/13
and last i checked, only 36% of players in the Prem were English - a third
Italy at 48% is half their league
Germany and Spain have improved greatly in recent years and their leagues both boast over 60% of homegrown
posted on 20/6/13
Metro_1
The key distinction is that Germany and Spain have extremely good youth development systems.
Do either of those leagues have quotas for domestic players? I don't know the answer to that but I'd guess they don't need them because the quality of home grown players is so high it makes economic sense.