The En-ger-land Thread

[Tooj 17]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/24637383

 

Clarke Carlisle: FA commission 'fundamentally flawed'

Clarke Carlisle says the FA commission set up to improve the fortunes of the England national team is "fundamentally flawed" because of its "elite" nature.

The make-up of the 10-man panel has been criticised for lacking diversity.

The outgoing Professional Footballers' Association chairman fears minority areas will not be addressed fully.

"It's a brilliant idea and it has the potential to do good, but with the current constitution of the commission, it is fundamentally flawed," he said.

"These are all guys that we know. These are all guys that have been doing it for 20 years. Where's the new ideas? Where's the new blood? And where's the representation for sectors of the industry that aren't elite?"

Greg Dyke, the chairman of the Football Association, defended the make-up of the panel after Heather Rabbatts - the FA's only female board member - made her concerns public.

All 10 members are male, and the panel was all-white until Manchester United defender Rio Ferdinand was added alongside England manager Roy Hodgson on Sunday.

Dyke revealed that he had attempted to bring in ethnic minority representation by including Carlisle, who played more than 500 professional games for nine clubs before retiring in May.

Instead, it was decided that Hartlepool's Ritchie Humphreys - Carlisle's successor as PFA chairman - should be the representative for current players.

Also involved are FA vice-chairman Roger Burden, former England boss Glenn Hoddle, ex-England defender Danny Mills, League Managers' Association chairman Howard Wilkinson, Football League chairman Greg Clarke and Crewe director of football Dario Gradi.

In September, Dyke set England targets of reaching the Euro 2020 semi-finals and winning the World Cup in 2022.

And the group will examine how to increase the number of England-qualified players appearing for the country's top clubs.

On Tuesday, it was announced that the Premier League, the UK government and the FA have committed to a new £102m fund to be spent improving grassroots football facilities.

Carlisle is a supporter of the commission's aims, but is worried that issues concerning minority sections of the sport, such as increasing the number of young British Asians playing football and expanding the women's game, may not be tackled fully without the inclusion of experts in those areas.

Speaking to BBC Radio Lancashire, the 34-year-old continued: "I think the representation of this commission should be far fewer people that we know. It should be people who have been working in these areas of football that we need to address, who have the professional knowledge and understanding."

When asked if he would like to be included on the panel, Carlisle added: "There is nothing that I could contribute more than what Ritchie Humphreys will.

"In the context of the future of England's national team, I would contribute far less than Rio Ferdinand will because he's been there for many years.

"They're two current players on there and I don't feel you need any more than that. You need that relevant player experience, but you also need to cover every other facet of the game."

[Tom 14011]

All 10 members are male, and the panel was all-white until Manchester United defender Rio Ferdinand was added alongside England manager Roy Hodgson on Sunday.

 

Just as well it's a commission for the men's national team I suppose.

[PaddockLad 17281]

If the concern is theres not enough young players of sufficient quality coming through then all the comissions in the world wont solve that. I think international football has been historically completly cyclical. English clubs had been out of European competition for half a decade when they got to the WC semis in 1990. Holland were great in the 70s, probably the best despite not winning anything, but failed to reach the WC finals in 82 or 86. Whether the financially doped Premier League is having an affect or not is difficult to say tbh, but theres not the kids playing football that there was 30 or 40 years ago in this country. "Lack of qualified coaches"?... its not stopped England producing lots brilliant players in the past, when I imagine there were even less...it sounds like they're groping around in the dark looking for ideas, when the solutions they desire may well not be out there, regardless of who's on a comission.

[Tom 14011]

I know but - for instance - if Germany have 40'000 professionally qualified coaches and England have 6000 - who's got a better chance of turning out better players?

 

We have to look forward not backwards.

[Park Life 71]

I know but - for instance - if Germany have 40'000 professionally qualified coaches and England have 6000 - who's got a better chance of turning out better players?

 

We have to look forward not backwards.

The coaching here is insanely detailed and well planned.

[Tom 14011]

Exactly - I pointed towards this in a post about the England national team - which was quite long and detailed, basically comparing us with other nations around Europe etc etc but I can't be arsed to find it.

[PaddockLad 17281]

When Germany had their so called "revolution" around 2000 ish, I bet they had 10s of thousands more coaches than England had then too.A large part of Holland's social culture is based around small football clubs with dozens of ordinary blokes who are qulified coaches but theyve won as much as Greece have. If England had had a one off tournament win in the last 30 years like Greece did would we be talking like this?... the 70s are regarded as a bit of a golden age of English football but they failed to qualify for the WC in 74 and 78, whereas Scotland qualified for both. What was going on then? Engalnd failed in 2008, they qulaified this time with a lot of the same players. I suppose what I'm trying to say is theres no rhyme or reason to it.

 

I don't know the answers, and neither does Greg Dyke, hardly a surprise. So this is his only idea, to put it out to a commitee. Which will write a lengthy report that wont stop premier league clubs going abroad and spending a couple of million on ready made slightly above average players in their early 20s instead of devloping them themelves. So it will fail. If the clubs are right when they say that the English talent isnt out there, then thats another thing, and one that is for me pretty cyclical. There'll be some better players along in a few years..

[The Fish 10857]

When Germany had their so called "revolution" around 2000 ish, I bet they had 10s of thousands more coaches than England had then too.A large part of Holland's social culture is based around small football clubs with dozens of ordinary blokes who are qulified coaches but theyve won as much as Greece have. If England had had a one off tournament win in the last 30 years like Greece did would we be talking like this?... the 70s are regarded as a bit of a golden age of English football but they failed to qualify for the WC in 74 and 78, whereas Scotland qualified for both. What was going on then? Engalnd failed in 2008, they qulaified this time with a lot of the same players. I suppose what I'm trying to say is theres no rhyme or reason to it.

 

I don't know the answers, and neither does Greg Dyke, hardly a surprise. So this is his only idea, to put it out to a commitee. Which will write a lengthy report that wont stop premier league clubs going abroad and spending a couple of million on ready made slightly above average players in their early 20s instead of devloping them themelves. So it will fail. If the clubs are right when they say that the English talent isnt out there, then thats another thing, and one that is for me pretty cyclical. There'll be some better players along in a few years..

 

Nothing to do with Carson, Bridges, Wright-Phillips and Wes Brown?

 

England have had the players to compete with the best teams in the world, but we haven't had (don't have) the coaching. We need to invest more money in coaching at grass roots and youth levels. We're a nation that has a huge pool to draw from, yet we still have players in the National Squad that are "raw talents". How the fuck are they raw at the age of 21?! When Spain and Germany blood their kids, they look like they've been playing at the top level for years!

[PaddockLad 17281]

Nothing to do with Carson, Bridges, Wright-Phillips and Wes Brown?

 

England have had the players to compete with the best teams in the world, but we haven't had (don't have) the coaching. We need to invest more money in coaching at grass roots and youth levels. We're a nation that has a huge pool to draw from, yet we still have players in the National Squad that are "raw talents". How the fuck are they raw at the age of 21?! When Spain and Germany blood their kids, they look like they've been playing at the top level for years!

The point is there's not enough talent at the moment coming through...go back a decade, would you have said the same thing?

[The Fish 10857]

The point is there's not enough talent at the moment coming through...go back a decade, would you have said the same thing?

 

I think the issue is that the talent is there, but it's not coming through. I'd blame the instant gratification nature of modern football. The big clubs aren't playing the younger players because they haven't the basics to play at the top level sorted yet. They would have if they'd had proper training.

 

I don't buy that Germany, Spain, Holland or whomever just have kids being born with better natural talent. The way Spain play has to be coached into you, the comfort on the ball, playing with your head up, looking for the extra pass that turns a 1/2 chance into a certain goal. That's not a common trait, it's taught.

[PaddockLad 17281]

So the coaches who brought through manu's own golden generation, and the likes of Redknapp,Lampard, Ferdinand, Terry and Rooney etc knocked it on the head a decade ago? If your claiming the international game has moved on from what England have traditionally done on the pitch then I'd agree completly. Thing is this comission is being set up to address the basic culture of the way kids are coached in this country, and I'm stating that you don't have to go back too far to see that despite having next to no qualified coaches in the 80s and 90s we still produced world class players. I acknowledge that the game abroad has moved on, but to me its not only top class coaching that's produced that, its also a generation of top class players from Spain and Germany, and as I've tried to show, that can be down to something as simple as luck.

[Howmanheyman 33245]

So the coaches who brought through manu's own golden generation, and the likes of Redknapp,Lampard, Ferdinand, Terry and Rooney etc knocked it on the head a decade ago? If your claiming the international game has moved on from what England have traditionally done on the pitch then I'd agree completly. Thing is this comission is being set up to address the basic culture of the way kids are coached in this country, and I'm stating that you don't have to go back too far to see that despite having next to no qualified coaches in the 80s and 90s we still produced world class players. I acknowledge that the game abroad has moved on, but to me its not only top class coaching that's produced that, its also a generation of top class players from Spain and Germany, and as I've tried to show, that can be down to something as simple as luck.

I'm inclined to go along with this. Coaching will only get you so far, if you're not a top notch footballer you're not going to become one because some guru in a tracksuit tells you to 'snatch the pebble from my hand' whilst calling you 'Grasshopper'. Good coaching will help but only to a small degree in my honest opinion.

[The Fish 10857]

So the coaches who brought through manu's own golden generation, and the likes of Redknapp,Lampard, Ferdinand, Terry and Rooney etc knocked it on the head a decade ago? If your claiming the international game has moved on from what England have traditionally done on the pitch then I'd agree completly. Thing is this comission is being set up to address the basic culture of the way kids are coached in this country, and I'm stating that you don't have to go back too far to see that despite having next to no qualified coaches in the 80s and 90s we still produced world class players. I acknowledge that the game abroad has moved on, but to me its not only top class coaching that's produced that, its also a generation of top class players from Spain and Germany, and as I've tried to show, that can be down to something as simple as luck.

 

See I can't dismiss it as luck. I believe that international football has moved on and part of that forward motion is intrinsically linked to better coaches. Look, the Spaniards have had a Golden generation and won shit, we had one and won shit all. The Germans are (I believe) enjoying a Golden generation now and are perennial challengers. It's my opinion that the difference between their Golden Generations and our own is that they've coached these raw talents better than we have.

 

I don't believe we're producing less quality young players (we can still field a 1st sixteen that could be there or thereabouts when the competitions come around, if based solely on talent) I just think we're either coaching their talent out of them or not coaching the basics into them.

[Tooj 17]

I've seen jobs advertised at Premier League clubs for youth coaches and the wages are a pittance and no way could you support a family on them. That's probably a bit factor why we don't have that many compared to our compatriots abroad.

[Tooj 17]

The fact that Stuart Pearce was our U-21 manager recently shows how out of touch the FA are and how behind the times we are in comparison to some nations on the continent in our outlook on the national game that such a dinosaur has any part to play in the development of our young players.

[Howmanheyman 33245]

Probably easier to coach it out of them than coach something into them that nature didn't give them. I wonder what coaching Peter Beardsley, George Best, Pele, Maradona, Tino etc got?

[desmondTUTU 0]

 

See I can't dismiss it as luck. I believe that international football has moved on and part of that forward motion is intrinsically linked to better coaches. Look, the Spaniards have had a Golden generation and won shit, we had one and won shit all. The Germans are (I believe) enjoying a Golden generation now and are perennial challengers. It's my opinion that the difference between their Golden Generations and our own is that they've coached these raw talents better than we have.

 

I don't believe we're producing less quality young players (we can still field a 1st sixteen that could be there or thereabouts when the competitions come around, if based solely on talent) I just think we're either coaching their talent out of them or not coaching the basics into them.

 

I believe there are players who are naturals and players that practice until perfect and everyone else somewhere in between.

 

Coaching only goes so far for some

[The Fish 10857]

Probably easier to coach it out of them than coach something into them that nature didn't give them. I wonder what coaching Peter Beardsley, George Best, Pele, Maradona, Tino etc got?

 

But consider the player Tino could have been if he'd been taught the basics of the game? Apart from Tino (and arguably Beardsley), the players like those you've mentioned are anomalous; they've so much talent that they could have played football for Trinidad and Tobego and would have been considered top class. I look at players like Joe Cole, how good could he have been with better coaching, or Young, or Carrick?

 

Put it this way, the way the FA are set up, it's only after his peak that Scholes was considered one of the games best midfielders. Why weren't we forming a team around him? Well because we are English and must play with two wingers, with a pairing of a big man and little man up front.

 

 

I believe there are players who are naturals and players that practice until perfect and everyone else somewhere in between.

 

Coaching only goes so far for some

 

and No Coaching means there will only ever be so far the majority can get to.

[Howmanheyman 33245]

 

But consider the player Tino could have been if he'd been taught the basics of the game? Apart from Tino (and arguably Beardsley), the players like those you've mentioned are anomalous; they've so much talent that they could have played football for Trinidad and Tobego and would have been considered top class. I look at players like Joe Cole, how good could he have been with better coaching, or Young, or Carrick?

 

Put it this way, the way the FA are set up, it's only after his peak that Scholes was considered one of the games best midfielders. Why weren't we forming a team around him? Well because we are English and must play with two wingers, with a pairing of a big man and little man up front.

 

 

and No Coaching means there will only ever be so far the majority can get to.

Playing with wingers, 4-4-2, whatever, isn't the coaching issue is it? That's the tactics employed by whatever manager. I think that's a separate issue that we maybe need to look at.

[desmondTUTU 0]

 

But consider the player Tino could have been if he'd been taught the basics of the game? Apart from Tino (and arguably Beardsley), the players like those you've mentioned are anomalous; they've so much talent that they could have played football for Trinidad and Tobego and would have been considered top class. I look at players like Joe Cole, how good could he have been with better coaching, or Young, or Carrick?

 

Put it this way, the way the FA are set up, it's only after his peak that Scholes was considered one of the games best midfielders. Why weren't we forming a team around him? Well because we are English and must play with two wingers, with a pairing of a big man and little man up front.

 

 

and No Coaching means there will only ever be so far the majority can get to.

 

But we don't have 'No coaching' ?

[The Fish 10857]

Playing with wingers, 4-4-2, whatever, isn't the coaching issue is it? That's the tactics employed by whatever manager. I think that's a separate issue that we maybe need to look at.

If the prevailing tactics promote that outdated style of play, the coaching the kids receive will reflect it. So defenders will be encouraged to hoof the ball for the wingers to chase, tall strikers will have focus put on their heading and what not. I know what you're saying, but I think that the biggest difference between our countries crop of kids and theirs, is their staggering number of coaches compared to ours.

 

 

But we don't have 'No coaching' ?

 

Given the paucity of qualified coaches, there will be many many kids not getting coaching. So they are getting No Coaching.

[PaddockLad 17281]

If the prevailing tactics promote that outdated style of play, the coaching the kids receive will reflect it. So defenders will be encouraged to hoof the ball for the wingers to chase, tall strikers will have focus put on their heading and what not. I know what you're saying, but I think that the biggest difference between our countries crop of kids and theirs, is their staggering number of coaches compared to ours.

 

 

Given the paucity of qualified coaches, there will be many many kids not getting coaching. So they are getting No Coaching.

 

But thats not the case when you look at the players who came through from the mid nineties as I said earlier. If theyre talented enough and want it enough they'll come through. That is what the comission is trying to address as they feel there aren't sufficient numbers of them coming through. There is a paucity of talent at the moment, just as there has been at various stages in most major nation's histories. The commission's primary aim is to sort this situation, and there seems to be an emphasis on coaching, which for me is missing the point somewhat when you look at the history of the players this country has produced. Its a trendy media thing to blame the coaching. Wallsend BC produced 4 England players in 20 years, since then not much, which suggests a lack of playing talent rather than a lack of coaching talent. Or are you suggesting the coaching has gone backwards? or if the coaching was better and we had a lot more of them we'd produce 100s more properly talented footballers? I think these are pretty loose assumptions tbh.

 

I look at players like Joe Cole, how good could he have been with better coaching, or Young, or Carrick?

 

I dont really understand what you're getting at here; Cole and Young for me were/are happy to tread water earning millions, neither of them appear to want to improve, especially Cole. Carrick, not blessed with real pace, he's made the very best of himself by becoming a brilliant passer of the ball, a shaper of games. Succesive England managers have ignored him in favour of picking players who had more individual ability than him but couldnt play effectively together, fan boys rather than managers, and iyam thats where the real problems with the England team lie, shite leadership and the millionaires in the dressing room not giving enough of a fuck for anything bar money.

[Howmanheyman 33245]

 

But thats not the case when you look at the players who came through from the mid nineties as I said earlier. If theyre talented enough and want it enough they'll come through. That is what the comission is trying to address as they feel there aren't sufficient numbers of them coming through. There is a paucity of talent at the moment, just as there has been at various stages in most major nation's histories. The commission's primary aim is to sort this situation, and there seems to be an emphasis on coaching, which for me is missing the point somewhat when you look at the history of the players this country has produced. Its a trendy media thing to blame the coaching. Wallsend BC produced 4 England players in 20 years, since then not much, which suggests a lack of playing talent rather than a lack of coaching talent. Or are you suggesting the coaching has gone backwards? or if the coaching was better and we had a lot more of them we'd produce 100s more properly talented footballers? I think these are pretty loose assumptions tbh.

 

I look at players like Joe Cole, how good could he have been with better coaching, or Young, or Carrick?

 

I dont really understand what you're getting at here; Cole and Young for me were/are happy to tread water earning millions, neither of them appear to want to improve, especially Cole. Carrick, not blessed with real pace, he's made the very best of himself by becoming a brilliant passer of the ball, a shaper of games. Succesive England managers have ignored him in favour of picking players who had more individual ability than him but couldnt play effectively together, fan boys rather than managers, and iyam thats where the real problems with the England team lie, shite leadership and the millionaires in the dressing room not giving enough of a fuck for anything bar money.

Again agree with a lot of this. Regarding the highlighted bit, can you imagine an England manager thinking, fuck Rooney, Lampard, Beckham, whoever, I want my team to play a certain way and evolve this way and this big name just doesn't fit. Can you imagine the coverage it would get? Can you imagine the big players friends and agents not whispering sweet nothings to journalists etc?

 

(Ok, get the hovis theme tune on).........As a kid I was a canny enough footballer as were a lot of my contemporaries, I know it's almost cliched but every fucker round our way would play football morning, noon and night. When the shit weather came in we'd just play in the street using gates for goals and yes, sometimes play with smaller balls even tennis balls at times. There was no plethora of pizza shops, no online gaming or any of that shit, more people got involved. Maybe it's rose tinted glasses but I'm guessing talent spotters had a larger choice to pick from? (You didn't see as many overweight kids either).

[PaddockLad 17281]

Again agree with a lot of this. Regarding the highlighted bit, can you imagine an England manager thinking, fuck Rooney, Lampard, Beckham, whoever, I want my team to play a certain way and evolve this way and this big name just doesn't fit. Can you imagine the coverage it would get? Can you imagine the big players friends and agents not whispering sweet nothings to journalists etc?

 

(Ok, get the hovis theme tune on).........As a kid I was a canny enough footballer as were a lot of my contemporaries, I know it's almost cliched but every fucker round our way would play football morning, noon and night. When the shit weather came in we'd just play in the street using gates for goals and yes, sometimes play with smaller balls even tennis balls at times. There was no plethora of pizza shops, no online gaming or any of that shit, more people got involved. Maybe it's rose tinted glasses but I'm guessing talent spotters had a larger choice to pick from? (You didn't see as many overweight kids either).

 

Remeber Arnold Muhren, Ipswich and manu?...he had a brother called Gerrie who played for Ajax and Seville, shouldve played in 74 WC but didnt go because his son was ill. Anyroads, he's interviewed for this book http://www.amazon.co.uk/Brilliant-Orange-Neurotic-Genius-Football/dp/0747553106 and he makes a very similar point to you; kids dont play on tarmac with tennis balls any more; think about what skills that develops...you're going to stay on your feet for a kick off, if you have good control of a tennis ball your control of a full size football will very likely be excellent. Think of all the summer holidays playing football like that, after school, during playtime etc etc...as far as I can make out you just dont see it as much these days. Lack of football coaches?...if you teach yourself the skills first, how to actually play 11 a side in whatever foramtion can be taught at a later date, but I really think theres a lot to be said for the general point here.

[The Fish 10857]

 

But thats not the case when you look at the players who came through from the mid nineties as I said earlier. If theyre talented enough and want it enough they'll come through. That is what the comission is trying to address as they feel there aren't sufficient numbers of them coming through. There is a paucity of talent at the moment, just as there has been at various stages in most major nation's histories. The commission's primary aim is to sort this situation, and there seems to be an emphasis on coaching, which for me is missing the point somewhat when you look at the history of the players this country has produced. Its a trendy media thing to blame the coaching. Wallsend BC produced 4 England players in 20 years, since then not much, which suggests a lack of playing talent rather than a lack of coaching talent. Or are you suggesting the coaching has gone backwards? or if the coaching was better and we had a lot more of them we'd produce 100s more properly talented footballers? I think these are pretty loose assumptions tbh.

 

 

I'm not saying it's gone backwards. I'm also not saying we'd create 100s more properly talented footballers. I'm saying it's stagnant and I'm saying if we had anything like the number of coaches that our contemporaries have, we'd be capable of getting the most from the talent we're already producing.

 

Wallsend BC may not be producing as much talent at the minute because of any number of issues and shouldn't be used as a indication of anything. It could be that the area has changed in it's ethnic make-up and if there was a Wallsend Cricket club, it'd be booming right now, it could be that the funding it's rival Youth Football clubs were getting has meant it was unable to compete with those that are more local to the kids, it could be that the apathy towards sport in this country (up until the Olympics) had more kids indoors playing FIFA than wanting to go to a fairly run down boys club (until 2011).

 

They're still producing quality footballers; Taylor, Forster, Campbell and that should be applauded. However, if they had more funding and more qualified coaches, would they change from 1 every 3-4 years to 1 every year? I don't know. I definitely think they stand a better chance, but it's no guarantee.

 

Also, coaching doesn't create Beardsleys, but it could take a player who's natural level is maybe the Championship and instil in him the basics so they're second nature and make him a Premiership player of note.

 

I'm not trotting out a trendy media cliche, it's just logical.

 

Say 2 areas each produce 30 kids capable of going to Oxford University, in one area there are 15 teachers, in the other there's 1. Logically, what's the likelihood of those 60 kids all going to Oxford? What's the likelihood that if you increased the number of teachers in the second area you'd increase the number of kids going to Oxford? The extra teachers aren't going to increase the pool they draw from, they're just going to better the chances for the students that they have.

 

I'm fully aware that there are loads of other factors that come into play, but surely if we get the foundation right, we can deal with those after.

 

 

I look at players like Joe Cole, how good could he have been with better coaching, or Young, or Carrick?

 

I dont really understand what you're getting at here; Cole and Young for me were/are happy to tread water earning millions, neither of them appear to want to improve, especially Cole. Carrick, not blessed with real pace, he's made the very best of himself by becoming a brilliant passer of the ball, a shaper of games. Succesive England managers have ignored him in favour of picking players who had more individual ability than him but couldnt play effectively together, fan boys rather than managers, and iyam thats where the real problems with the England team lie, shite leadership and the millionaires in the dressing room not giving enough of a fuck for anything bar money.

 

I meant that if Joe Cole and Young had received proper youth coaching they'd look for the pass before they looked for the goal and in so doing, become a far better player than they are (I may be being too harsh on Cole). If Carrick had been coached to find space with little movement he could have been a great regista; he certainly has the range of passing and vision. Yet too many of his coaches played him as/taught him to be a defensive midfielder, because they haven't the nous to do anything else.

 

I agree that the England national team suffers because of the media hype (and then Media witchhunt), the fanboy managers, square pegs in round holes, apathetic millionaire teenagers etc. But I don't think that's why the average English footballer is behind the average German of Spanish player. I don't think the Lampard and Gerrard conundrum is holding kids back. I don't think picking in-form but unfashionable players like Lambert will change a damn thing for the National side when the rest of English football is decades behind it's competitors.

 

I'm more bothered about the roots, trunk, branches and leaves of the English football system, than I am the gaudy plastic angel that balances askew at it's peak. Get them all right and the rest will be sorted eventually.

 

And with that I'm going to make a toasted cheese and pickle sandwich.