because football is our national sport, just like the aussies are getting criticised atm because their cricket team are not what they used to be, we spend so much money on our academies and have the best facilities in the world and we still cant produce enough world class players

Hmmm if you look at the vast sums of money that is floating around in the English game and the salaries that are paid to young and upcoming players, you'd think that we would produce more talented footballers more often and not once every 10 years. Thats where my frustration comes from personally.

I think it's because as a nation we have stagnated since the inception of the premier league. We have one of the best leagues in the world, but a by product of that is an average national side.

Earl Brutus - We have one of the most exciting leagues but not technically great. We do have plenty of red cards, flying tackles, last ditch tackles, on pitch fights between player, managers shoving each other around etc. This gets translated into the best league in the world.

I mean im just watching the highlights now, how many times did Joe Hart flap? Must have been 5 or 6 times. Thats criminal for someone who is "meant" to be the best goalkeeper in England.

English clubs have a pretty decent record in europe reaching the latter stages though so it must be a bit ok.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Because of the amount of money invested. Size of the country is irrelevant really. The population of Argentina is smaller than England but look how much better their players are.

Same with Uruguay, Holland, Spain, Portugal and Italy

Aren't Germany, Brazil and France the only 'major footballing nations' with bigger populations?

dunno if this has been asked tonight, Why didn't Fraser Forster get even one half tonight.
very poor management from Hodgson

Well ok mick, I havent looked at your link but i'll assume we've been in the top 50 for the last 19 years, which in itself is an achievement.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

The ranking isn't really a fair reflection of the state of English football though. Look at our ranking now.

Interesting question.

I think the reason we did well at the Olympics and have done so poorly in world football is down to our approach, the culture of sport in Britain.

We place emphasis on recruiting the bigger, more athletic footballers disregarding natural talent and flair at an early age. Whilst this approach is great for building athletics and rugby teams it's not so good at uncovering the English Messi

It also helps that we're a rich country when it comes to Olympic sports - rowing, cycling, horse riding, sailing.. all require expensive equipment and/or facilities.

Just my two cents

MMD, sums up the flaw in the rankin sytem.

Bale's, can't disagree with that. There were vast amounts of money pumped into olympic sports and it's no surprise we did so well.

China did the same thing before they held the olympics and look at the effect.

Money isn't a guarantee of success in sport but it sure helps. It's just the amount of money we invest in football isn't reaping the benefits because we're coaching it wrong.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Germany made ehancements in technical development and is why they're reaping the rewards as they weren't producing the quality the once had.

If England want to improve as a footballing nation we won't get anywhere by promoting players like Andy Carroll. This is the problem, strength over skill is the mentality.

If that changes and we start producing better footballers we will improve as a footballing nation.

lex i've only read bale's most recent comment. maybe you're referring to an earlier comment but i totally agrree with what he said in the one i read

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

les maybe bale isn't english though. i'm all for having a go at them when it's warranted but i don't see where you're coming from her mate

ps i mostly always agree with your posts