VS stronger nations
Hart
Walker Smalling Cahill Baines
Cleverley Rodwell Wilshere
Sturridge Welbeck Rooney
VS weaker nations
Hart
Walker Smalling Cahill Baines
Cleverley Wilshere
Walcott Rooney Young
Welbeck
in my humble opinion.
Time for the FA to get together with Mr Cameron and enforce a rule that says, there must be a minimum of 5-6 players on the field, that qualify to play for the country they're playing in. Throughout the UK.
============
Will help absolutely nothing.
Englands most consistent and arguably best player over the last 3 or 4 tournaments has been Ashley Cole. Probably the only truely world class player England have had.
He grew up in a team where he was often the ONLY English player.
Making teams play 6 English players will not make them better. It will make English clubs worse, meaning the better players will suffer.
And "hoof-ball" will be the best option for more, not less clubs.
Jack Wilshere, Kieran Gibbs, Theo Walcott and Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain have shown that if you are good enough a player you will get a chance in even the most foreigncentric of teams.
There have already been changes implemented this year for an improved development of kids to aid a more technical future of English player. This is where you will change Englands philosophies.
6 Englishmen forced on teams? Awful arguement.
6 and 5 won't help. Some English players look like, and probably even do, keep possession better at club level due to playing with foreign players that can.
If you force them to play English players, who evidently aren't good enough, you're probably making the players worse than if they played with more talented players.
The only advantage would be if the played foster for England. But if all clubs had this rule then it wouldn't make a difference as not all of them would be in the squad.
If you use the Ashley Cole argument, I could use the last 2 semi finals England reached were when our top teams were indeed made up of mostly Englishmen and our top clubs did more recruiting from the lower leagues.
Ashley Cole argument? AWFUL!
So if we reach the semi final this year then all will be good in the world?
Home advantage took England a long way in 96, and in 90 a total of one win in 90 minutes and some very poor performances along the way.
1990 was preceded by arguably the worst ever England performance at a championship, and followed by a near equally poor performance in 92 and non qualification in 94.
Liverpool signed the best available Englishmen over the last couple of seasons. The end result? 8th?
And the Ashley Cole arguement rubbish? Well i counter that with look at Steve Sidwell, Shaun Wright-Phillips and Scott Parker at Chelsea. In a bid to add some English to their squad Chelsea went out and bought some of the best performing English men from lesser clubs.
Did that make these 3 players better, or did all 3 of their careers stall. 2 have never got back to their pre-Chelsea form, the other had to drop back down to relegation battles before getting a second chance.
Exacty DJ.
Carroll, Henderson, Milner, Downing, Parker can play all the games they like, it won't make them quality footballers.
We need to coach skill. It's the only way we'll be able to go toe to toe with these top nations.
We buy into our own hype as well. People having believing for years that Rooney, Gerrard and Lampard are world class footballers, when they aren't, and are continually shown that in the world stage.
Parker and Gerrard don't know what a short pass is. Young doesn't know what any sort of pass is. Welbeck doesn't know how to role a ball two metres either. Milner doesn't know what football is.
You always have a go at those who pass the ball sideways.
OP
Man City - Hart, Lescott, Richards, Milner, Barry,
Man Utd - Ferdinand, Jones, Smalling, Scholes, Carrick, Welbeck, Rooney, Young.
Arsenal - Gibbs, Wilshere, Walcott, Oxlade-Chamberlain
Spurs - Walker, King, Parker, Lennon, Defoe.
Chelsea - Cole, Terry, Cahill, Lampard, Sturridge
Liverpool - Johnson, Carragher, Kelly, Henderson, Downing, Gerrard, Carroll.
All the top teams have 5 or 6 regular starters, apart from Arsenal who still have 4 England internationals.
And you are still moaning about the England team. What will forcing teams to start with 6 Englishmen improve? If David Bentley started making up the numbers for Spurs will he suddenly be world class? Or if Kyle Bartley was forced to be picked for Arsenal would he suddenly turn into a Paolo Maldini clone?
Or will Arsenal, Spurs and the rest suffer for having to pick players not good enough, with no improvement for England?
(apologies for not doing Everton and Newcastle)
Really DJ? So sooner or later, more and more English players playing together in more than just ONE team would not help?
I'm not saying 'kick the foreigners out' I'm saying consider making it so that there has to be more English players playing in the club matches.
Our squad in 96 was considerably better than it is now. That's only coincidence? Did I say everything would be right?
How do you expect our players to be successful at International level if they spend half their time warming benches?
Yes if they're good enough they'll play, but there's certainly an arguement to say our own players are being overlooked.
How does your Liverpool arguement make a difference?
Until the majority if clubs in the premiership play with the 6-5. You cannot prove or disprove the arguement.
But hardly the ideal comparison. That would be like saying Celtic won the European cup with 11 Scots in it.
I think 4-5 non English men in the team could help our players, but the ratio has now become too great.
So we bring in your 6+5. Arsenal go out and sign Karl Henry, Emile Heskey and Titus Bramble to make up these numbers.
Are these 3 players now technically good enough? Will England now keep better possession because Arsenal field an XI with K.Henry, Heskey, Bramble, Bartley, Gibbs and Walcott?
In the 90's though we just seemed to has a better pool of talent than we do now. But even then, they weren't as great as the top top players around the world, and the weakness of the premier league back then is an example of that.
It's no coincidence that the premier league has become a dominant league due to the huge influx of foreign players.
It goes deeper than 6+5, it goes all the way down to how children are coached, because the players just aren't good enough.
20 teams that have to have 6 Englishmen in their teams, means they will eventually be recruiting from lower leagues.
I agree it would not pay instant dividends but you could not convince me it would not ultimately help matters, it has too.
In the 90s England fielded a midfield of Andy Sinton, Carlton Palmer, Neil Webb and Tony Daley (v Sweden Euro 1992)
Please tell me again that in the 90s England produced better players.
DJ why do you assume I'm saying it'll pay instant dividends?
20 teams that have to have 6 Englishmen in their teams, means they will eventually be recruiting from lower leagues.
=============
So players of Championship quality moving to the PL will make England players better? Or make the PL Championship standard?
Youre using a Manager who refused to play Chris Waddle and Andy Cole etc to support your argument. Well done. You must be so proud.
It won't pay instant nor long term dividends.
Unless kids are coached to play a more technical game you will not see any difference. You could force teams to play 11 Englishmen, it would still have the same results for the national team.
Youre using a Manager who refused to play Chris Waddle and Andy Cole etc to support your argument. Well done. You must be so proud
========
Oh, he should have played Bristol Citys Andy Cole...
Yes and clearly you did not read my OP, just jumped on one Suggestion. Hence I've dug my heels in....
DJ, we had some very average players in the 90's, but we had some very good ones as well.
Think about all the decent strikers we had that didn't really get much of a look in for England, such as Fowler and Cole, and we had some good midfielders and defenders.
Like I said though, they were good players, and some improvement on what we have now, but they still weren't world beaters, and it's only coincidence that there were a few more decent players, rather than because we had to play them.
Sign in if you want to comment
England and possession, what's the answer?
Page 1 of 2
posted on 19/6/12
VS stronger nations
Hart
Walker Smalling Cahill Baines
Cleverley Rodwell Wilshere
Sturridge Welbeck Rooney
VS weaker nations
Hart
Walker Smalling Cahill Baines
Cleverley Wilshere
Walcott Rooney Young
Welbeck
in my humble opinion.
posted on 19/6/12
Time for the FA to get together with Mr Cameron and enforce a rule that says, there must be a minimum of 5-6 players on the field, that qualify to play for the country they're playing in. Throughout the UK.
============
Will help absolutely nothing.
Englands most consistent and arguably best player over the last 3 or 4 tournaments has been Ashley Cole. Probably the only truely world class player England have had.
He grew up in a team where he was often the ONLY English player.
Making teams play 6 English players will not make them better. It will make English clubs worse, meaning the better players will suffer.
And "hoof-ball" will be the best option for more, not less clubs.
Jack Wilshere, Kieran Gibbs, Theo Walcott and Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain have shown that if you are good enough a player you will get a chance in even the most foreigncentric of teams.
There have already been changes implemented this year for an improved development of kids to aid a more technical future of English player. This is where you will change Englands philosophies.
6 Englishmen forced on teams? Awful arguement.
posted on 19/6/12
6 and 5 won't help. Some English players look like, and probably even do, keep possession better at club level due to playing with foreign players that can.
If you force them to play English players, who evidently aren't good enough, you're probably making the players worse than if they played with more talented players.
The only advantage would be if the played foster for England. But if all clubs had this rule then it wouldn't make a difference as not all of them would be in the squad.
posted on 19/6/12
If you use the Ashley Cole argument, I could use the last 2 semi finals England reached were when our top teams were indeed made up of mostly Englishmen and our top clubs did more recruiting from the lower leagues.
Ashley Cole argument? AWFUL!
posted on 19/6/12
So if we reach the semi final this year then all will be good in the world?
Home advantage took England a long way in 96, and in 90 a total of one win in 90 minutes and some very poor performances along the way.
1990 was preceded by arguably the worst ever England performance at a championship, and followed by a near equally poor performance in 92 and non qualification in 94.
Liverpool signed the best available Englishmen over the last couple of seasons. The end result? 8th?
posted on 19/6/12
And the Ashley Cole arguement rubbish? Well i counter that with look at Steve Sidwell, Shaun Wright-Phillips and Scott Parker at Chelsea. In a bid to add some English to their squad Chelsea went out and bought some of the best performing English men from lesser clubs.
Did that make these 3 players better, or did all 3 of their careers stall. 2 have never got back to their pre-Chelsea form, the other had to drop back down to relegation battles before getting a second chance.
posted on 19/6/12
Exacty DJ.
Carroll, Henderson, Milner, Downing, Parker can play all the games they like, it won't make them quality footballers.
We need to coach skill. It's the only way we'll be able to go toe to toe with these top nations.
We buy into our own hype as well. People having believing for years that Rooney, Gerrard and Lampard are world class footballers, when they aren't, and are continually shown that in the world stage.
posted on 19/6/12
Parker and Gerrard don't know what a short pass is. Young doesn't know what any sort of pass is. Welbeck doesn't know how to role a ball two metres either. Milner doesn't know what football is.
You always have a go at those who pass the ball sideways.
posted on 19/6/12
OP
Man City - Hart, Lescott, Richards, Milner, Barry,
Man Utd - Ferdinand, Jones, Smalling, Scholes, Carrick, Welbeck, Rooney, Young.
Arsenal - Gibbs, Wilshere, Walcott, Oxlade-Chamberlain
Spurs - Walker, King, Parker, Lennon, Defoe.
Chelsea - Cole, Terry, Cahill, Lampard, Sturridge
Liverpool - Johnson, Carragher, Kelly, Henderson, Downing, Gerrard, Carroll.
All the top teams have 5 or 6 regular starters, apart from Arsenal who still have 4 England internationals.
And you are still moaning about the England team. What will forcing teams to start with 6 Englishmen improve? If David Bentley started making up the numbers for Spurs will he suddenly be world class? Or if Kyle Bartley was forced to be picked for Arsenal would he suddenly turn into a Paolo Maldini clone?
Or will Arsenal, Spurs and the rest suffer for having to pick players not good enough, with no improvement for England?
posted on 19/6/12
(apologies for not doing Everton and Newcastle)
posted on 19/6/12
Really DJ? So sooner or later, more and more English players playing together in more than just ONE team would not help?
I'm not saying 'kick the foreigners out' I'm saying consider making it so that there has to be more English players playing in the club matches.
Our squad in 96 was considerably better than it is now. That's only coincidence? Did I say everything would be right?
How do you expect our players to be successful at International level if they spend half their time warming benches?
Yes if they're good enough they'll play, but there's certainly an arguement to say our own players are being overlooked.
How does your Liverpool arguement make a difference?
Until the majority if clubs in the premiership play with the 6-5. You cannot prove or disprove the arguement.
But hardly the ideal comparison. That would be like saying Celtic won the European cup with 11 Scots in it.
posted on 19/6/12
See my last post.
posted on 19/6/12
I think 4-5 non English men in the team could help our players, but the ratio has now become too great.
posted on 19/6/12
On a regular basis.
posted on 19/6/12
So we bring in your 6+5. Arsenal go out and sign Karl Henry, Emile Heskey and Titus Bramble to make up these numbers.
Are these 3 players now technically good enough? Will England now keep better possession because Arsenal field an XI with K.Henry, Heskey, Bramble, Bartley, Gibbs and Walcott?
posted on 19/6/12
In the 90's though we just seemed to has a better pool of talent than we do now. But even then, they weren't as great as the top top players around the world, and the weakness of the premier league back then is an example of that.
It's no coincidence that the premier league has become a dominant league due to the huge influx of foreign players.
It goes deeper than 6+5, it goes all the way down to how children are coached, because the players just aren't good enough.
posted on 19/6/12
20 teams that have to have 6 Englishmen in their teams, means they will eventually be recruiting from lower leagues.
I agree it would not pay instant dividends but you could not convince me it would not ultimately help matters, it has too.
posted on 19/6/12
In the 90s England fielded a midfield of Andy Sinton, Carlton Palmer, Neil Webb and Tony Daley (v Sweden Euro 1992)
Please tell me again that in the 90s England produced better players.
posted on 19/6/12
DJ why do you assume I'm saying it'll pay instant dividends?
posted on 19/6/12
20 teams that have to have 6 Englishmen in their teams, means they will eventually be recruiting from lower leagues.
=============
So players of Championship quality moving to the PL will make England players better? Or make the PL Championship standard?
posted on 19/6/12
Youre using a Manager who refused to play Chris Waddle and Andy Cole etc to support your argument. Well done. You must be so proud.
posted on 19/6/12
It won't pay instant nor long term dividends.
Unless kids are coached to play a more technical game you will not see any difference. You could force teams to play 11 Englishmen, it would still have the same results for the national team.
posted on 19/6/12
Youre using a Manager who refused to play Chris Waddle and Andy Cole etc to support your argument. Well done. You must be so proud
========
Oh, he should have played Bristol Citys Andy Cole...
posted on 19/6/12
Yes and clearly you did not read my OP, just jumped on one Suggestion. Hence I've dug my heels in....
posted on 19/6/12
DJ, we had some very average players in the 90's, but we had some very good ones as well.
Think about all the decent strikers we had that didn't really get much of a look in for England, such as Fowler and Cole, and we had some good midfielders and defenders.
Like I said though, they were good players, and some improvement on what we have now, but they still weren't world beaters, and it's only coincidence that there were a few more decent players, rather than because we had to play them.
Page 1 of 2