Why are our footballers so technically inept?

[Harv]

computer games and Englands wealth are to blame

[Nic83]

There is one reason that stands over the rest and that is simply training. English sides spend too much time on the phsyical side of things, fitness training etc, while other countries spend the MAJORITY of training on ballskills, 1 and 2 touch, and formations, defense vs attack, tactics etc..

[Nic83]

A good example is QPR.

Since that Italian gut took over, he came in claiming he was going to stop a lot of the fitness crap and concentrate mainly on ballskills and playing the beautiful game.

Look what's happened since. QPR are playing some wonderful stuff and picking up results

[Neil Young]

Nope! :bird:

Check the original story on Sky Sports' website...the foul-mouthed tug that he is! He's nutt'n but a tug!

So much for his new calm image...

I withdraw my assertion.

[Neil Young]

A good example is QPR.

Since that Italian gut took over, he came in claiming he was going to stop a lot of the fitness crap and concentrate mainly on ballskills and playing the beautiful game.

Look what's happened since. QPR are playing some wonderful stuff and picking up results

Pavarotti?

[Jazzmaster]

this paragraph is basically shyte: that ROI side had a number of really good technical players: likes of sheridan/houghton/sheedy/staunton/mcgrath/townsed/whelan - even niall quinn was technically good in a similar way to crouch. Aldo didnt score all those goals with bad technique mate!

they didnt just lump it and "feed off the big lad" like england did last night - they usually worked it around and tried to create a good opportunity to put in a decent ball to the "big lad". most of the long ball charlton's side played went into the corners to try and pull out central defenders from sides playing 3-5-2. Those boys - unlike england yesterday, undrstood the formation they were playing and made it work for them. England did just lump it up to the big man and it was too predictable for a side a s good at the croats. 3-2 flattered england.

I'm sorry but you'll find that i'm right on this one. Ronnie Whelan even said last week on LFC tv when asked about his role in the Irish team that he didnt have much of the ball because Jack insisted that it be lumped up to Cascarino of Quinn at the front. I'm not saying that the players individually didnt have technical ability; they did; but the strength of the Irish team was playing long balls to big players and putting the opposition under pressure when we didnt have the ball. Its wasnt particularly attractive, but many teams did not wish to face the Irish team us cos it was an uncomfortable game for the more 'technical' sides.

Then when the opportunities arose, there was good players to feed off the opportunities that the system provided.

Thus when McClaren plays crouch up front ON HIS OWN, it shows not only that he was negative and played for the point, but incredibly naive in his selection also.

[Frank Leroux]

I'm sorry but you'll find that i'm right on this one. Ronnie Whelan even said last week on LFC tv when asked about his role in the Irish team that he didnt have much of the ball because Jack insisted that it be lumped up to Cascarino of Quinn at the front. I'm not saying that the players individually didnt have technical ability; they did; but the strength of the Irish team was playing long balls to big players and putting the opposition under pressure when we didnt have the ball. Its wasnt particularly attractive, but many teams did not wish to face the Irish team us cos it was an uncomfortable game for the more 'technical' sides.

Then when the opportunities arose, there was good players to feed off the opportunities that the system provided.

Thus when McClaren plays crouch up front ON HIS OWN, it shows not only that he was negative and played for the point, but incredibly naive in his selection also.

Surely we're not at the point of comparing the bizarre, social-experiment that was Charlton's time with us with the English national team? Jesus, don't go down that route. Charlton, both as a player and manager was all about percentages (sound familair...) - hence his lump it into the oppositions half, put'em under preshy'a and see what happens. This was great against England, Italy, Holland, etc where there was no expectation and we dragged the opposition down to our level.

God forbid, though, that we had to run the game. Egypt and Leichtenstein come readily to mind. He had no plan B.

Do we really think the time has come for the English national team to revert to type (of the 1970's) and play a game that will get them probably as far as they're getting at the moment but less attractively?

[Frank Leroux]

and rightly so imho. at least he puts his money where his mouth is.

Nah. He should have let his feelings be known internally within the camp. Got us to the semi's (as I was sure we could have realisitcally reached with him playing) and then kicked up the fuss. Much more effective, I would have thought, for everyone involved.

[Jazzmaster]

Surely we're not at the point of comparing the bizarre, social-experiment that was Charlton's time with us with the English national team? Jesus, don't go down that route. Charlton, both as a player and manager was all about percentages (sound familair...) - hence his lump it into the oppositions half, put'em under preshy'a and see what happens. This was great against England, Italy, Holland, etc where there was no expectation and we dragged the opposition down to our level.

God forbid, though, that we had to run the game. Egypt and Leichtenstein come readily to mind. He had no plan B.

Do we really think the time has come for the English national team to revert to type (of the 1970's) and play a game that will get them probably as far as they're getting at the moment but less attractively?

No No im not saying that at all. Im highlighting the fact that McClaren did not know what type of game to play, technical or otherwise. Im only using Charlton's Irish team as an example of what one can achieve with good organisation, something that England clearly did not have.

[alunevans]

Why?

Numerous reasons, all of which go back to kids football.

Here's some things that'd help.

Invest in indoor stadia for kids footy. Winter footy on **** outdoor pitches turns it into a bog and then technical ability is secondary to the big lurch who can boot the damn thing as far as possible.

Play indoors on high quality pitches.

Make the pitches smaller so they are to scale. Make the goals smaller too so that you have to fashion a goal.

When kids football has score lines that are 2-1 or 1-0 instead of 12-8 then it'll be a sign that we're on the right track. A big kick will often result in a goal because the keeper is defending some stupid sized goal so it just flies over his head.

So thats two occasions where the big kick is beneficial.

The big pitches give a third incentive to boot from the back. My observations seemed to show that the hefty kids played at the back because it was safer to just boot it away from the danger zone and then see what happened after that.

Play with a heavier ball to encourage pass and move football. I believe the Brazilian kids tend to play with a smaller heavier ball which encourages ball skills and passing rather than hoofing.

Finally, review whether age based games are appropriate for children who will develop physically at different rates.

An Under 12 team will often be a mix of lads who look like they're 14 and lads who look like they're about 10. As well as those in the middle.

The grocks go at the back and welly it and nothing is really set up to encourage more technical play.

Whether it should be based on height or weight or whatever I'm not sure, but age in my view is not the best way to categorise kids because their physical developments happen at different points.

It'd be better to try to ensure that kids who are similarly physically developed are playing in teams with and against each other instead.

All of this would help hugely in my view, but some of it would also take financial investment in grassroots football that will probably never happen.

[tommyg]

I also think that the culture and tradition in itself influences how the game should be played significantly.

There seems to be something like, put to an extreme: England - honest, tough tackling macho stuff. Spain - Skill and artistry and diving.

Touch tackling and aggressiveness appears to be more lauded more than skill in England, and it is considered a human right to **** anyone who is skillful and dribbles a lot.

A combination of it would be nice...

very true, the kid who shows flashy skills in the playground is quick to get axed down...and learns not to do it again

[Frank Leroux]

No No im not saying that at all. Im highlighting the fact that McClaren did not know what type of game to play, technical or otherwise. Im only using Charlton's Irish team as an example of what one can achieve with good organisation, something that England clearly did not have.

Fair enough.

[Shaggy]

technical ability is secondary to the big lurch.

It's the Crouch abuse filter again!

As for one of your other points, Al…

I thought full-size pitches/nets for youngsters had been dispensed with? Or is that just for kids within the academies?

[fred_plasticine]

Nah. He should have let his feelings be known internally within the camp. Got us to the semi's (as I was sure we could have realisitcally reached with him playing) and then kicked up the fuss. Much more effective, I would have thought, for everyone involved.

as far as i remember he had made his feelings known internally time and time again before it all happened.

[cobain]

To me, the last REAL techincal player England had was Steve McManaman. And at the same time, he was the last RIGHT MIDFIELDER WE had.