Roy Keane - new assistant manager (CONFIRMED)

[Dave]

Would you say Ian Wright is thick?   Never in a million years.

I've never seen him say or write anything on screen or in print that makes me think he is anything other than extremely thick.

I'd be more than happy to see evidence to the contrary, but I've not seen anything yet.

[pauliewalnuts]

Duncan fletcher, Braisford and Woodward, the 3 names you mention and not one a ex footballer

Newby, cricketers are a million times more interesting and knowledgable about their game than footballers, maybe because generally they come from a more educated background, I don't know
But the difference between ex cricketers and ex footballers is immense

Isn't that something of a generalisation?

I am thinking of Darren Gough, who can barely handle even the basics of the English language and is every bit as stupid as any ex footballer you'll find working in the media, and Phil Tuffnell, who seems to get by just by bouncing around and gurning a lot.

[The Laughing Policeman]

From what I understand from reading the last page and a bit all we have to do is get rid of the current bunch of FA suits, get in a bunch of suits that have kicked a football and England will win the World Cup.
It doesn't really matter that last season only 34% of last seasons PL players were qualified to play for England and most of them simply weren't good enough to play for the national team.
Until we sort out that problem even the best international coach in the world  would struggle to get a winning England squad together.
Until we have a PL where the balance of foreign and  English players is addressed we will continue to struggle on the international stage.
I wish I knew how to achieve that and I'd apply for the job of FA Chairman.

[Villa in Denmark]

Duncan fletcher, Braisford and Woodward, the 3 names you mention and not one a ex footballer

Newby, cricketers are a million times more interesting and knowledgable about their game than footballers, maybe because generally they come from a more educated background, I don't know
But the difference between ex cricketers and ex footballers is immense

Isn't that something of a generalisation?

I am thinking of Darren Gough, who can barely handle even the basics of the English language and is every bit as stupid as any ex footballer you'll find working in the media, and Phil Tuffnell, who seems to get by just by bouncing around and gurning a lot.

I'm not sure how much it contributes to the perception problem, but it definitely isn't "cool" to appear to intelligent as a footballer.

Look at the shit Graeme Le Saux used to get for daring to read a newspaper that didn't involve tits, patronising editorials and a bulging sports section that told you no more than listening to final score.

[Monty]

There is a hangover from when football was the working man's game, and the working man was 75% of the country. The country is now mostly not the working class, like much of Europe, but the footballers are still overwhelmingly (and disproportionately) from poor and working class backgrounds. Now, it's obviously great that the poorest of the poor can still dream of making it and transcending their surroundings through the sport, but why do the players of the national sport not represent the makeup of the country?

I really have no idea. I don't buy into 'poor kids are hungrier for success' sort of stuff, because other countries have players - better than ours - from all sorts of backgrounds. Is it middle class parents being sniffy about football? Is there an accent divide? Is the root just anti-intellectual? Either way, it's no surprise really that we lose to Uruguay, with their Walesish population, because we have about the same population of footballers.

[Villa in Denmark]

From what I understand from reading the last page and a bit all we have to do is get rid of the current bunch of FA suits, get in a bunch of suits that have kicked a football and England will win the World Cup.
It doesn't really matter that last season only 34% of last seasons PL players were qualified to play for England and most of them simply weren't good enough to play for the national team.
Until we sort out that problem even the best international coach in the world  would struggle to get a winning England squad together.
Until we have a PL where the balance of foreign and  English players is addressed we will continue to struggle on the international stage.
I wish I knew how to achieve that and I'd apply for the job of FA Chairman.

Ultimately there was a choice to be made 20 odd years ago when the PL came into being along with the Sky money that accopmanied it.

Option 1.  Invest  a significant proportion of the newfound riches in grassroots coaching, education of a whole new generation of coaches so that teams are no longer "coached" by enthusiastic parents etc.  All the things that have been talked about for so long without a great deal appearing to happen.  (Things might have moved on since I left 6 years ago)

Option 2.  Throw most of the money at the clubs and start the unholy chain of events over the last couple of decades where we now have the richest 3 or 4 teams hovering up the most promising talents from around Europe and the rest of the world which
a) depletes the talent base of these players home Leagues, denying them at the least some earning potential in future years.
b) makes it even more difficult for even highly talented home grown youngsters to get a start at the bigger clubs.

The whole thing is driven in the wrong direction if you want a national team with half a chance of not looking like complete idiots at WC and EC finals, let alone genuinely challenging, and has no chance of changing for as long as the stated purpose of the Premier League is to be the most successful and popular league tournament  according to Mr P. Scudamore, presumably measured by how much cash they can screw out of the various media rights packages.

And to what end?
The clubs (other than the very top ones) don't get any richer.
True competition (a chance of challenging for the league) is all but dead for the majority of Clubs.
The fans generally feeling more disenfranchised

But the players and their agents are doing very well thank you very much.
Presumably Scudamore and the others that help run all of this do OK in perfomance bonuses in the same way certain bankers do very well out of performance related pay and to hell with the consequences of how they've achieved their targets.

I'm in no way claiming that the FA of 30-40 years ago was any more focused on national success.

From what I can see we appear to have gone from a bunch of largely self serving numpties massaging their egos with their positions on various committees and access to various dignitaries to a bunch of commercially astute self serving and somewhat ruthless individuals who massage their egos with their positions on various committees and access to various dignitaries, whilst using their commercial savvy to secure not inconsiderable financial benefit for themselves.

[claret and blue blood]

So where is Keano hiding,is he avoiding our calls as he's realised he's dropped a bollock ?

[Malandro]

There is a hangover from when football was the working man's game, and the working man was 75% of the country. The country is now mostly not the working class, like much of Europe, but the footballers are still overwhelmingly (and disproportionately) from poor and working class backgrounds. Now, it's obviously great that the poorest of the poor can still dream of making it and transcending their surroundings through the sport, but why do the players of the national sport not represent the makeup of the country?

I really have no idea. I don't buy into 'poor kids are hungrier for success' sort of stuff, because other countries have players - better than ours - from all sorts of backgrounds. Is it middle class parents being sniffy about football? Is there an accent divide? Is the root just anti-intellectual? Either way, it's no surprise really that we lose to Uruguay, with their Walesish population, because we have about the same population of footballers.

good points made.

[MoetVillan]

The population thing is a red herring, R5 and ITV have both been guilty of saying in a country of x million they should have achieved y.  If that is the case why havent China and India had a world cup lock out.  Players have to be competing at the highest levels?  England and Chile at different ends of the spectrum counter that.  Belgium shows you dont have to have a group of players playing in your own countries league, etc etc.  All excuses.  You just have to win six games, with no fear of any opposition, complete confidence in each other and a bit of luck

[Meanwood Villa]

The population thing is a red herring, R5 and ITV have both been guilty of saying in a country of x million they should have achieved y.  If that is the case why havent China and India had a world cup lock out.  Players have to be competing at the highest levels?  England and Chile at different ends of the spectrum counter that.  Belgium shows you dont have to have a group of players playing in your own countries league, etc etc.  All excuses.  You just have to win six games, with no fear of any opposition, complete confidence in each other and a bit of luck

Amen to that. There's a tendency to over-analyse things when we get knocked out.

[mattjpa]

3 pages of not Roy Keane news...

[pauliewalnuts]

The population thing is a red herring, R5 and ITV have both been guilty of saying in a country of x million they should have achieved y.  If that is the case why havent China and India had a world cup lock out.  Players have to be competing at the highest levels?  England and Chile at different ends of the spectrum counter that.  Belgium shows you dont have to have a group of players playing in your own countries league, etc etc.  All excuses.  You just have to win six games, with no fear of any opposition, complete confidence in each other and a bit of luck

Whilst I don't think population is a deciding factor, isn't the point re China and India that those are two countries where  football isn't the major sporting activity, or where it doesn't have the level of participation or cultural dominance that it has in many countries?

The countries England should really be measured by are the likes of France or Germany - similar populations, similar levels of football participation, similar access to facilities yet much more successful than us for almost 50 years now.

Ultimately it comes down in large part to how many good players a country has to choose from. Our problem is that we don't produce enough.

I'd love to see a comparison of, say, how many German, French and English players featured in the top Europan leagues week in, week out last season. I suspect it wouldn't reflect too well on England.

It doesn't have to be your own league, either, just the top levels of the game. I bet Belgium, for example, have not far off the same number of players turning out in the PL, Bundesliga, Spanish league, Serie A and French league week in, week out as we do.

Anyway, we digress. Where is Roy Keane?

[fbriai]

Sorry to continue the digression away from Roy Keane-related news, but this is an interesting discussion.

Paulie's point about top-flight representation across Europe is a good one.

I think that there is also the fact that for some players, the World Cup represents easily their best chance of putting themselves in the shop window. Look at Uruguay's and Costa Rica's players. We know that the majority of them wouldn't play regularly ahead of the players in the England team were they in the Premier League or those in the Italian team were they in Serie A. But, for those few games in the World Cup, they are able to step up a little. Look how much the Uruguayan players wanted that game last week. Look at Pereira refusing to be substituted. A lot of them don't play in front of huge crowds and earn fortunes week in, week out. For them it is maybe even a once in a lifetime opportunity.

I think there is also the fact that, as opposed to a sport like rugby, football lends itself to occasional upsets more readily. You know in rugby beforehand that a team like New Zealand will hammer a weaker team. Whereas, in football, if you are well organised, fit and know how to defend properly, then you can give anyone a game. If you are lucky enough to get a goal on the counter-attack then you might even beat them, too. Think of Greece winning Euro 2004 or the effect Pulis had on Palace last season. All he did was get them organised and make them difficult to beat and they ended up finishing in mid-table. The equivalent in rubgy just couldn't happen.

No teams get whipped 8-0 at the World Cup anymore, as to qualify they have to be, at the very least, solid enough to beat opposition that is, as a minimum, organised. As a knock-on effect, this increases the possibility of upsets in the actual group stages, as the level at what were the weakest teams now play has improved.

[Lucky Eddie]

If 75% of the country is no longer working class, what is it?

[LeeB]

If 75% of the country is no longer working class, what is it?

Fucked.