Sane’s return to fitness adds to City rotation risk out wide

It's not just an English issue, it's a UK and even a Republic of Ireland issue. I'll tell you why.

If you're born in one of the five nations and then become a pro footballer and by extension an international footballer then you're playing your club football in two scenarios: The SPL (I know McGinn and the Dundee Utd striker got international recognition whilst in their Champ) or the English pyramid.

Both are fantastic entertainment in their own way, but they don't reflect the wider footballing world. The emphasis is on pace, power, passion and getting stuck in. They all (understandably, given our climate and muddy winters) come before all emphasis on technique, skill and ball retention.

Scotland haven't qualified for a tournament since 1998. They're getting some decent players come through in say, Gilmore, but the lad's played two games and they're proclaiming him to be world class. 10 years ago the same hype was projected for Josh McEachran.

Agreed, though, for me. the climate shouldn't be given as a reason/excuse that professional footballers cannot pass the ball and keep the ball better. More indoor facilities, all weather pitches available today. Every player should be two-footed, maybe not ambidextrous feet in front of goal, but confident beating a player on either side. Improving their skills, rather than a huge emphasis on winning games is important up to the end of primary schools. A lot of the emphasis for British and Irish football is a tentative not getting beaten attitude rather than taking risks and expressing themselves, letting the ball do the work and learning from mistakes made in winning, drawing or losing. A man who never made a mistake never made anything.

I agree with all you've said.

The reality (and why I'm so staunchly passionate about it) is that the penny isn't dropping and instead of getting exasperated I think you have to trace why a scenario is the way that it is. Why are the Latin/South American/German/Dutch and now Belgian countries better than us and have been historically? Why is that we favour brawn over brains? I think a lot of it lies that in the midst of our winters, the pitches cut up and it gets bitterly cold/wet, which naturally and generally lends itself to a pace and power brand of game. Meanwhile the interconnected continent are learning off each other and playing small sided futsal all year round whilst encouraging a culture of skill, passing and moving.

Passion is not enough.

This is from 20 years ago. Interesting throughout, but reaply listen to Johann Cruyff's insight

https://youtu.be/OTvw-oMBkfo

Interesting comments, I just wanted to add my thoughts.

The first non-Latin/southern European team to win the European Cup? Celtic. A team that showed much skill. Go back in time and the 'Scottish Game' was all about making the ball do the work. Sounds Barcelona-esque.

England's success in European football during the late 70's until the Heysel disaster. A time when there weren't that many foreign imports to the English game.

Perhaps we can blame Charles Reep? https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-one-mans-bad-math-helped-ruin-decades-of-english-soccer/

English football has had great progressive coaches in the past and moved footballing ideas forward. Look up Peter McWilliam, Jimmy Hogan, Herbert Chapman, Vic Buckingham, Arthur Rowe, Bill Nicholson.

In 1953, after England lost 6-3 to the legendary Hungarian side with Puskas and co, their coach declared: "We played football as Jimmy Hogan taught us, when our football history is told, his name should be written in gold letters.”

Ever heard of Jimmy Hogan?

What I'm saying is that a lot of the ideas we now associate with the great Dutch and continental sides started in Britain. The question is; why weren't they more widely adopted here?

Interesting post, thank you.

Indeed, Celtic were the first British winners of the European Cup in 1967 and all with lads born in Glasgow iirc. A year prior was '66 and a year after Celtic Manchester United also became the first English champions.

The Scots (from what I've read) were ahead the of English when it came to developing pass and move back in 1870s Victorian Britain.

Much of this is club football and not international football though. Internationally either side of '66 England and Scotland still struggled in the Euros and WC (though the Euros was a different format).

Yes, English sides in terms of Villa, Forest, Liverpool (plus the likes of Ipswich and Spurs in other European comps) were excellent at club level with a British core up until Heysel, but again, internationally it was one semi final in 1990 where out knockout victories were against Cameroon (two pens) and Belgium (without players anywhere near the calibre of Hazard and KDB).

Those names are of great interest and I shall delve further. I'm sure tactically they were very progressive.

In 1954 Wolves beat Honved in a one off fixture to which the English press proclaimed Wolves to be the champions of the world. The English press in the shadow of us inventing the game, along with the mentality of the British Empire (and later on '66) getting way too ahead of itself, a recurring theme.

I was trying to separate two points: player development and skill level in Britain from success as a national team. Certainly both England and Scotland should have had more success in the past than they did, given the success at club level.

I personally think we are heading in the right direction now, St George's Park is an excellent development. And let's not forget we recently won both the U17 and U20 World Cups. Now, please, can we translate that success to the senior team! Easier said than done.

Yes I see what you were trying to say. It can be somewhat complex given historical, English, Scottish v British and club v international themes all separate and yet all simultaneously intertwined.

Ultimately, it's the same trap though. Excellent players at club level domestically and on a European stage? Check. Excellent youth players? Check. And yet it's the same outcome, every generation. I think we're ultimately on the same page: English and British football should have and should do much better on an international stage and yet we've got one major final on home soil to show for it. Why? The success you speak of is actually a smokescreen. We look good at club level, we look good at youth level, but ultimately it won't prove to be good enough, because we already think we're good enough.

Yes I can see that mentality problem. I'm just re-listening to the podcast I linked to above on Charles Reep, worth checking out.

The site you've linked is an excellent read, thank you.

I'm not sure if I've articulated this well enough, but it's the same theme that if something works at club domestic level in England/Britain then we automatically assume we should simply transfer the method to international football. It's the same theme with Diesel's argument below ie I've seen Liverpool play a certain way and we should ultimately encourage a similar method at England. Makes rational sense on the surface, but it never works.

Except if you listen to the podcast, it talks about how Reep's statistical approach was adopted successfully by Wimbledon in the 80s and Graham Taylor at Watford. And then transferred to the international stage once he became England manager. How Reep's tactical approach was promoted by the FA and the English Centre of Excellence through its publication of "The Winning Formula".

Reep's idea?

"Football is a space invasion game. If the team can’t bring the ball forward to invade the space in opponent’s half or defending third, they can’t score."

Therefore, his philosophy is that the player should always try to play the ball forward whenever possible. He argued direct play embodies a positive attitude and possession play (movements with high numbers of consecutive passes) embodies a negative attitude.

Most goals achieved by less than 3 or 4 passes.

The problem is Reep's idea was wrong! He'd made an error. He'd misinterpreted the data. While 3 or 4 passes might work for players with limited ability (Wimbledon, Watford), technically superior players score more goals with more passes.

So we should translate club ideas to the international stage - but the right ones! I would say Liverpool and City have the right ideas and we should adopt those ideas.

But we don't possess the necessary players with the technical ability to play like City/Liverpool, not with a team of 11 Englishmen.

Ultimately, tactics and ideas

aren't of much use until we start having some imagination and creativity in our play as well as the ability to retain the ball.

Sorry late reply, I completely agree that we should find the right tactics to suit the players. My point was really that having adapted tactics suited to less technical players in the late 80's/90's (Reep's ideas), and arguably taken English football backwards by doing so, I think it's quite right to look to change that now.

Do we have enough technical players to play like Liverpool or City (or Spurs under Poch) at senior international level? No. But we are not far off, in my opinion. We should aim to do the best we can with what we have available. Are we better than the best international sides? No. But we are moving forward, we are trying to develop more technical players. Expectations for winning a major tournament should be low, for now, but we should continue to develop technical players needed to succeed in the future.