BBC How can the England national team be made great again?

[Domestic_Ginger]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/23955843

The five sub headings are as follows:-

'Pick players for skill, not size' Physical attributes are scouted over technique.
'Let the Premier League control the England team' Because the FA is amatuer
'English football needs a revolution, not evolution' Not what the conclusion to this point is; Danny Mill's insight?
'Give lower league clubs an incentive to develop youth' Because young players are bought for peanuts by larger clubs.
'Give English youth a chance at the top' Give our boys more games!

Article on the bbc website. Anyone have any insight, any ideas?

[kalniel]

Mandate all football be available to terrestrial broadcasters. Would solve a bunch of other problems too and let more people enjoy it

[Galant]

Point 3 - Revolution not Evolution - was, I think, meant to point out that change needs to be brought quick and hard, not slowly over time - someone needs to just get on and do something - executive decision.

One commenter asked a poignant question - has the England national side ever actually been great, if so, when? Rather significant when attempting to figure out what great is supposed to look like now. Maybe the article should be - how can the England national side become a perennial contestant at the highest level?

I think the points about skill are valid but I think that change, and many others, need to be made mentally. The impression I get from English footballing culture is that they are too arrogant and proud of their argy-bargy, well 'ard status. also think there might be too much emphasis on money from a young age. It seems that a lot of the mentality steers players towards status symbols of success and achievement. Consider Spain. Financially the country is a wreck. Much less money to throw around. Even their league is naff. The distance between Real Madrid and Barca, and the rest of the teams is massive, it's barely even competitive. Yet, Spain is producing successful football teams and players, and, in other sports too. Southern American teams too - much less money - much more passion.

You could argue sample size to an extent - a bigger population from which to draw talent. I don't think that's the biggest factor though. I think the weather might play into it - more sunshine hours, kids are out playing. I think the attitude too. Honestly. They're out playing football - the only thing a lot of them have to do. In not great conditions, learning to control and move the ball. Their passionate about it. It's simple but it's passionate. I think England has passion but it's quickly drained out of the kids to an extent. Money, organisations, and lot of other distractions, plus a culture that is more about individual status than love of the game.

I honestly do not believe England will produce a properly successful football team until there is a big change in the culture and mindset. They'd rather say f-off to the world "this is how we do it" and then break off into a chorus of "Ingerland, ingerland, ingerland", than actually do what needs to be done - especially because the top level management are rich and being made richer and they have zero incentive to do anything.

There has to be a grass-roots-level change in footballing culture, maybe even an independent movement of players and teams, before anything will change at the top.

[bytejunkie]

make coaches badges free. the FA makes enough money from tv to do it. it'd singlehandedly sort out the quality of kids.

teach coaches to make football lessons more fun that xboxes. it'd get more kids into the system.

then abolish the rules about academys brought in last year. this whole academy / development squad bollocks has been a big fail. it means the best kids only have a chance if they are picked up by big clubs, cos smaller clubs struggle to run an academy unless they sell their best kids on. the kids that go to big clubs then stagnate, becasue they dont get the opportunitoes.

make the winner of one of the tv packages for premier league football, show under 21s league football. establish an under 21's league, make it cheap to watch and you might just grow some interest in it. keep kids in it til they're 22 and it'll be a spectacle. its a lesson from college football in the states we don't seem to be able to learn.

finally, make the england team a little more like the national rugby and cricket teams. 6 games a year and a weeks training around each isn't enough. make them train and play together for twice as much. the big clubs have deep enough squads to lose them for more matches. pay them less for club and more for turning out for country. that might build a team of winners who gel well.

just a few ideas none of which will happen.

[bytejunkie]

Mandate all football be available to terrestrial broadcasters. Would solve a bunch of other problems too and let more people enjoy it

yes. all football to be free. then the money leaves football. soon we will be the estonia of the western europe football world. thats the way to do it. said noone ever.

[Noxvayl]

yes. all football to be free. then the money leaves football. soon we will be the estonia of the western europe football world. thats the way to do it. said noone ever.

I don't find the amount of money spent on football to be acceptable, it is insane to argue that football requires that sort of money. Allowing football to be broadcast by multiple stations at the same time would finally provide consumers with a worth while service. I don't know when it became acceptable to artificially restrict supply of your content.

[Splash]

then the money leaves football

Some might argue that the amount of money available in the Premiership is a big reason that England are underperforming on the bigger stages: too many clubs spending way beyond their means to attract players from the foreign leagues means that the kids coming through really struggle to get a regular game in the top leagues. Football is too expensive for the fans, too: I saw a ticket for an Arsenal game for upwards of £90 last week. Not a box, or anything posh.

Maybe we need to reinvent ourselves along the lines of the German model? I'd argue that it's where the most exciting football is being played at the moment, and that is reflected in their national team.

And for the record: yes, I believe that at the very least all international games should be shown on a free to air channel. By all means have Sky show them too, but make it available to all.

[kalniel]

yes. all football to be free. then the money leaves football. soon we will be the estonia of the western europe football world. thats the way to do it. said noone ever.

Not free, just not awash with money. Less money = more likely to grow home players than just buy in, more team spirit than seeking super stardom etc. It's win-win. The only losers are the money men.

[bytejunkie]

sorry, but i can't see that working. the way to build a national team capable of winning something isn't going to be to take money out of the english leagues so that there are more english players available for selection. its to maximise the potential of the crop of players and increase the quality.

a bit like the spanish and germans have done. interesting stats on talksport this morning. 10 times as many coaches in spain. 5 times as many in germany. belgium has the same number of qualified football coaches as we do.

look at the number of premier league could bes who drop down one or two leagues to get a game. the bit thats missing is the finishing of the talents. the coaches.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012%E2...a#League_table
Kev, I dont call that an overly exciting league. 25 point gap between 1st and 2nd place? admittedly i dont watch any german football. but if i were to choose a match, itd be a spanish match over a german match.

fwiw, i'd love the german model of fan owned clubs to be adopted. thats good.

[Domestic_Ginger]

Bayern Munich financially are streets ahead. The Dortmund team was put together on a shoestring and those two were the best in Europe last year; completely outclassing Barca and RM in the semis. Okay the RM v BD was a bit closer than I remember.

http://www.uefa.com/uefachampionslea...350/index.html

100% agree with Kalniel's idea. Sky is evil and is about to destroy Rugby and cricket as well; BT coming along looks like a brilliant idea. Terrestrial TV solves a number of issues:-

o Allows an introduction of younger people into the game. Kids who's parents don't have sky. Since the premiership was introduced I just watched Italian football on 4 until it finished.

o Remove the highlight culture we have. I don't watch full games just highlights on MoTD and even then I forward through the talkie bits on iplayer. This follows on from what Galant mentioned about technique and skills need to be focused on as opposed to the playground games were the smallest kid has to be in goal while the bigger kids belt the ball at him. This is a cultural thing and less of a dependence on coaching; I suppose one would follow the other.

[bytejunkie]

not a bad read.

http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.u...land-1-6020903

[Kai]

At least you still have team , when was the last time Scotland made a WC , back in 98 ?

Thank god, I've got Italy as backup

[snedger]

Well, we won't win another World Cup with the advent of goal line technology.
Hint: we have never been as great, as we've been lucky - if home advantage is luck, rather than biased officiating.
No progress can be made before the inevitable burst of the SKY/Premier League bubble. FA have already started the process by slapping the hand that feeds them.
Tbh I don't want to be any part of seeing deeply scuzzy behaving people doing well - and that's players and fans.
England lost 0–1 to Ukraine on my NSS app today, might mirror with a bet

[Top_gun]

Fully agree with Kalniel over more football on terrestrial tv. What ever happened to the big match, Saint and Greavies....

Not sure about using England's milestones in 1996 as a measure of greatness. England's best ever team played during the 1970s world cup.

Football is a winter game and therefore the world cup should be played in that season. England style football is not suited to summer conditions.

England's footballers have to learn to adapt to different tactical positions. Playing 442 is too predictable. In fact England done well in 1986 and 1990 tournaments where injuries to certain personnel ensured Bobby Robson had to rethink his tactics. Also, as Scholes pointed out before in his England career, certain players would rather play Roy of the Rovers type passes rather than playing a simple ball to feet.

I think England has some very good players but their tactics does not seem to fit them.

English football does produce exciting young talent. Look at Bale who went to Real for a world record fee. Ross Barkley is a technically gifted player. I think the real problem lies with premiership clubs where they are not as willing to blood their youngsters as a bad run of results could cost a manger his job. Good players can't become great players by keeping the bench warm.

[iNeedAUsername]

Get Harry Redknapp, seriously. Roy sucked at Liverpool, who thought it'd be best to give him the England job. He has no tactics, all he does is pick the best players from the top 6 PL teams and shoves them on the pitch.

[pp05]

When we think of Holland, Germany or Spain we know what they're about. They have a signature, an identity on the pitch. England need a blueprint, at present they're a bit of this and a bit of that.