Delph for England

[Dave]

Because you gave an opinion not backed up by anything scientific. That's all Martinez has, an opinion. And you. And me. Doesn't make it right just an opinion and no more or less valid than any other opinion.

They're all valid opinions, it's just that the interview with Martinez (while chock full of valid opinion), doesn't really make any reference to this discussion that you and I are having.

[Louzie0]

Well done Delph, England at last.
Superb.
What an accomplishment.
Now go do that voodoo that you do so well,

UTV!

[paul_e]

To carry on the conversation from yesterday a little, England do better at youth level (right up to U21) than at senior level.  The main reason for that is that traditionally players have been picked for their physical suitability to a role and then given the basic skillset to complete that role.  So we get, for example, strikers who are mega fast, fairly composed and can time an arced run into the box well to be picked out by a 40yard punt.  At lower age groups the defenders just don't have the positional experience to handle those runs, and generally don't have the recovery pace to get back.

The main area where you see the difference is close control, far too many players who come through the English system struggle to bring a ball down and keep it under control, particularly when there are defenders near.  As I've pointed out before, this is almost entirely down to the amount of time they spend with the ball at youth levels.  I read something from one of the coaches who worked with, I think, Capello where he talked about it, basically the number of touches per player in a training session is about a third of the equivalent sessions in spain and italy.

This happens because we're too competitive at youth level and the focus is on winning by whatever means available.

The first change I'd make is to make 11-16 level split into 2 games, 1 with normal rules the other with 5-7 a-side, small pitches and the ball staying below head height, actually force teams to win by keeping possession and moving off the ball.  That eliminates height and pace from the game, add in very strict rules about tackling/challenges which protect the smaller players and strength gets removed as well.

[peter w]

Although I agree in part this is not borne out of any proven statistics. When we were dominant in Europe are football was even more direct and physical than it is today but it didn't translate to the international stage. Also, when looking at football coaching you have to look at the prevailing football culture in countries.

Also, football academies in England are a far-sight different nowadays from many years ago with a different slant on the Charles Hughes book of (stats led) getting the ball forward as quickly as possible.

England usually tend to get to the quarter-finals stages and rarely go further, but it's also very rare England are beaten by lower 'ranked' teams but supposedly technically superior. look at Chile and germany as examples. The football they play is fast and physical. There are elements of skill there too but they do not stand out as being technically better than us. Just better teams with better players. That happens.

There is the coaching there when in the club set-ups and the win at all costs is usually for parks football but is still wrong. I don't agree with moving height and pace off the ball because that is exactly the counter-attacking tactics of the best team in the world.  Similarly I wouldn't play one touch football for young players when training. Two or three touch is more beneficial as it teaches players to get used to the ball and be comfortable with the ball.

Watching younger players for England and technically they are fine. They do lnock the ball out of defence and can pass and trap a ball. All aspects of the game that they should learn. Pace and athleticism is also a vital part of the game and there have not been mamny successful modern teams that do not have both in abundance. Barcelona and Spain were so good because of a very high work ethic and fitness levels to get the ball back as soon as they lose it and to keep passing and moving to get teams to lose their shape. That is not just technique but a lot of hard work.

We need to work out how to combine fast flowing football with pace and athleticism to win at the highest levels. I disagree the problem is with youth coaching but how those players are then integrated into senior teams and then its a win at all costs mentalities, with little time given for a player to make mistakes and develop.

[dcdavecollett]

Shanks changed Liverpool from a direct up-and-at-'em team to a more technical outfit after a home defeat to a team from Czechoslovakia(?) who passed his side to death at Anfield.

Shankly realised that a new, more patient approach was needed; Paisley carried this on and reaped the full benefits later in the decade.

[dave.woodhall]

Shanks changed Liverpool from a direct up-and-at-'em team to a more technical outfit after a home defeat to a team from Czechoslovakia(?) who passed his side to death at Anfield.

Shankly realised that a new, more patient approach was needed; Paisley carried this on and reaped the full benefits later in the decade.

Ajax in 1967, I think.

[gervilla]

Doesn't it go : called up, tapped up and off he goes.
I hope not but with him being in the last year of his contract we need to move fast and sign him up for another 3-4 years.
I always fear the worst when our players get called up for England duty.

[olaftab]

However the England camp is now clean of superstars like Gerrard, Neville, Scholes, Lampard and Terry the main tappers!

[dcdavecollett]

No, Dave.

The Ajax thrashing was in 1966/7. Shankly blamed that defeat on fog in Amsterdam!(sic)

The Damascene conversion came after a defeat in about 1973, I think.

[dave.woodhall]

No, Dave.

The Ajax thrashing was in 1966/7. Shankly blamed that defeat on fog in Amsterdam!(sic)

The Damascene conversion came after a defeat in about 1973, I think.

He left in 1974 so I doubt it. I've just been reading something about how he saw the Ajax game as a great revelation but it may be wrong.

[Monty]

Shankly was never without the idea that football was largely done better in Europe. Like everyone else, he was greatly affected by the Hungarian victories of the fifties, but unlike many English, whose wounded pride caused them to desperately proclaim Wolves' bog-assisted defeat of Honved in 1955 as proof that England still ruled the footballing waves, Scots like Shankly, Busby and Stein felt no cringe in recognising the superiority of the new ways. (Of course, these were old ways to the Scots - the previously dominant nation, Uruguay, played a passing style still called 'La Scosia' after the pattern-weaving style invented and exported by Scotland in the 1880s. This is one reason Villa won fecking everything in the 1890s/1900s - our Scottish influence was borne out in the style, and the rest of England plodded in our wake.)

Ajax was important too, as was the new success of Feyenoord, and losing to Red Star Belgrade right at the end of his time in charge confirmed him, Paisley et al in their ideas, but the ground was really already broken by the early 50s.

Edit: on England, the main problem now is probably not technique (although it's still surprisingly lacking sometimes) but mentality tactical intelligence. The English players thriving for good tacticians at club level generally do so because they've been gently deprived of complex tactical responsibility - Gerrard under Benitez, Rooney under Ferguson (and his assistants), Walcott, Sturridge etc all essentially have or had free roles, and expensive imports like Xabi Alonso, Mikel Arteta, Luis Suarez etc pick up the slack tactically and go in the right spaces when needed. The great exceptions are the Chelsea players, Frank and The Two Twats Terry & Cole, but the bulk of the England team are nowhere near Spain, Holland, Germany, Italy or Argentina for tactical intelligence.

[Gregorys Boy]

Good news for Delph.  Had his best season yet for us last year and has made a decent start to this one.  If not for the lack of options for England then I doubt he would have made the squad, but he has his chance now, and what else are friendlies for anyway?

[dcdavecollett]

Thanks, Monty.

Red Star Belgrade it was.

[UK Redsox]

Colback's out of tomorrow's game with an injury.


Would it be a good idea for a Mod to amend the thread title ?

[PaulWinch again]

Yes to what does Delph have to do to get a new contract.