The 'English' Football Stereotype....

[tomc]

Spurs use an out-ball. Not just against AC Milan....in every game I've seen then play. It mostly goes out to their left for Crouch or Bale. They don't put it to the right for the simple reason that Lennon's about 4 foot 6 and maybe their midfielders are mostly right-footed and like to hit right to left? The CB Dawson hits a good ball r to l. I'm not knocking it, they just use it. As do a lot of teams who prefer not to try keeping possession in front of their penalty area. City tend not to use it. They look for David Silva who's usually in a central position and so they will keep the ball longer in front of their penalty area or pass wide and back inside. I don't mean 20 yards out but in the middle bit of the pitch. It is without doubt a more 'Italian' way of playing. The out-ball is, if you like, the opposite of Barca's 7 second rule that everyone's going on about. If you're under pressure within x seconds, put it into area y for player z. But it has its uses in that if you lose it, you lose it out by the line and mostly high up the pitch and if you keep it, you've turned the other team around.

Spurs mix it up. They also have players who can pass and move well and use them and some very quick lads.

I think the out-ball is probably what people have in mind when they talk about an English style. Generally it's not seen as much on the Continent, imo because referees are quicker to blow for contact so the tackling is less fierce and most teams prefer to adjust rather than try to win the ball back with quick challenges. They get a bit more time to pass it.

Interestingly, the team everyone's banging on about, Barca, places a lot of emphasis on winning the ball quickly. They do it less by tackling and more by crowding out.

 

[Dax777]

Spurs use an out-ball. Not just against AC Milan....in every game I've seen then play. It mostly goes out to their left for Crouch or Bale. They don't put it to the right for the simple reason that Lennon's about 4 foot 6 and maybe their midfielders are mostly right-footed and like to hit right to left? The CB Dawson hits a good ball r to l. I'm not knocking it, they just use it. As do a lot of teams who prefer not to try keeping possession in front of their penalty area. City tend not to use it. They look for David Silva who's usually in a central position and so they will keep the ball longer in front of their penalty area or pass wide and back inside. I don't mean 20 yards out but in the middle bit of the pitch. It is without doubt a more 'Italian' way of playing. The out-ball is, if you like, the opposite of Barca's 7 second rule that everyone's going on about. If you're under pressure within x seconds, put it into area y for player z. But it has its uses in that if you lose it, you lose it out by the line and mostly high up the pitch and if you keep it, you've turned the other team around.

Spurs mix it up. They also have players who can pass and move well and use them and some very quick lads.

I think the out-ball is probably what people have in mind when they talk about an English style. Generally it's not seen as much on the Continent, imo because referees are quicker to blow for contact so the tackling is less fierce and most teams prefer to adjust rather than try to win the ball back with quick challenges. They get a bit more time to pass it.

Interestingly, the team everyone's banging on about, Barca, places a lot of emphasis on winning the ball quickly. They do it less by tackling and more by crowding out.

The accuracy of the comments above is SHOCKING! Frenchblue! hats off to you mate. Please post more often.

 

[jay_mcfc]

Whilst the premier league teams might now play a slightly more continental style due to the influx of foreign players and managers the same cannot be said of the fans so their mentality has not changed as much or as quickly as the league has.

Manchester United might have dominated the premiership over the last 18 years but since Jose Mourinho took over at Chelsea United have very rarely played 442. They've also played wide midfielders rather than wingers and even when they do play wingers (Giggs, Nani, Ronaldo) they change their game and cut inside more times than getting to the byline and whipping a ball in. United have been the absolute masters at changing their game to suit the premiership over the years which has never been proven as much as it has this year. Compared to seasons gone by they are playing pretty scruffy football this season that is not easy on the eye but very effective. They're built from a solid platform and play 3 central midfielders that all sit in and get behind the ball but what they do is distribute the ball quickly and very effectively.

They are set up to be a counter attacking team and that is the big difference between us and them. Our fans have been cursing a lack of pace all season but in reality pace isn't the problem. Yes we can move the ball quicker at times and yes there are times when a situation arises that we don't counter properly. This is because our philosophy is to control games, dictate the tempo and break teams down through possession, patience and skill. It involves spreading the play (a lot), getting the full backs to push forward and the centre backs being able to play on the ground. Fans think that when Silva or Tevez create something that it is totally out of the blue and if it weren't for the individual brilliance of either of those we wouldn't have scored. Whilst it's true to an extent (both are capable of sheer brilliance) it usually comes on the back of the rest of our philosophy working properly.

Throughout this whole season so far it's probably only properly worked 7/8 times which I guess in the grand scheme of things is quite frustrating but for me it's because we're really struggling with getting the right balance. Our best games have been when everything works together (sounds very simplistic I know) but too many of our games the midfield hasn't linked with attack or even at times the midfield hasn't helped in defence enough (Wolves away springs to mind, or any game De Jong hasn't played for that matter). We still need a midfielder who can link defence to attack (Fabregas!).

The best team in my generation was the Arsenal unbeaten team and that says to me that playing football the right way can work. Arsenal have fallen down because of the players that left without being replaced by players anywhere near good enough to fill their boots. The main difference between them and us is tempo and that is the big issue most fans have with Mancini and the way we play. I hope that will come with better balance within the team which goes back to the player in the middle who links defence to attack. Had we had Fabregas playing where Barry plays this season we'd have been challenging for the league imo.

Soulboy said that English football works because we regularly have 3 teams in the Champions league quarters but does that really tell you anything? The three teams are usually Arsenal, United and Chelsea who are full of the best foreigners in the world and who don't really play in a very English way. The lack of success over the last 50 years of English teams in Europe apart from Liverpool is an embarrassment considering the players, clubs, managers and money in the league. The English national team is just one disaster after the other and that in itself is the biggest indication that English football will never be anything other than also rans. Give me a footballer over an athlete any day of the week.

 

[Soulboy]

Absolutely mate. I think it's full of sweeping generalizations and stereotypes about English football vs Continental football and it's exactly the kind of attitude which made me want to start this thread. You are trying to suggest that playing a 'continental' game or an 'english' game are finite positions, but they're not. A team can play with both. As I said in my original post, many teams do play that way. Bolton can play through the middle, from out wide, or go long. Same with Spurs. You say you're asked to play the Van der Vaart role but you'd rather play the Silva one. What's the difference? They are both excellent attacking midfield players who's forte is their range of passing and their vision. I suspect what you mean is that Van der Vaart is the 'little man' to Crouch's 'big man', but again, that's just a one dimensional view of a player who has a wide range of attributes which are utilized by Spurs...

I really hope that you're not offended by that post - its difficult to convey any emotion on a forum and I'm happy for you to set me straight if you think I'm misreading what you're saying.

You and Soulboy have said some strange things in this thread. Tottenham and Bolton do not in any way play a continental style just because they go through the middle. Continental style is all about patience, being strong and building from the back and hitting teams with sideways passing until the right option becomes available. Just because Bolton and Spurs are capable of stringing passes together, as all prem teams should, doesn't make them continental.

United nor Chelsea have not played 442 or used old fashioned wingers for years and as for some of soulboy's talk of English clubs 'success' in europe I'm flabbergasted! To top it off Barca shouldn't be the style to aim for?

And Billy, no Barca haven't learned to press press press from the English. They have a very famous 7 second rule and once the 7 seconds are up they sit in and get 11 men behind the ball if possible.

It's bedtime for me, I'll give more on this tomorrow.

Eh?

Then if you think those are my views you are very much mistaken!

I have never ONCE intimated that Bolton or Spurs play a continental type game. I'm really not sure how you concluded that. Can you extract the bit where I say that... I'm not saying your making it up, but that certainly wasn't my intention.

As for the way the rags play... my point was that the rags play with width. They always have done, they (under Feguson) always will do. That was my point.

The most successful team in English football plays with width. And pace on the flanks. And I thought it might be a good idea if we replicated that.

I never said the rags play 442. They do sometimes. They also play with one upfront / 5 in the middle, they sometimes play 3 up top and 3 in the middle, they have a whole variety of styles to call upon... but ALWAYS with pace and width.

I stand by that.

As for "succes" in Europe... we have 3 clubs in the last 8, we often have 2 or 3 clubs in the semi, we regularly have a team in the finals. Just because Barcelona are a one-off at the present time should not underscore what the English clubs continue to achieve. Fuck, even Boro and Fulham have made the UEFA Cup finals!

Oh, and as for me saying "strange things" ... could that just be a different opinion that yours?

It's a bit condescending to suggest that your view is the pre-eminent and everybody's else's is somehow "strange".

But nice try all the same!

;-))

One final point... Over the past 50 years, Liverpool have been Champions 5 times, the Rags 3 times, Forest twice and Villa once. Numerous other finalists.

There is also a host of Cup Winners Cup and UEFA cups to hang our hats on.

In fact, I very much doubt that ANY nation has so many winners of European trophies as the English leagues.

In Spain, Italy even Germany, you'll find that a handful or maybe even only 2 or 3 win the big prizes.

I think you're becoming fixated by the style and success (and bearing in mind the travesty of their beating of Chelsea a couple of years back, their record would look far less impressive...) of one team, and football is cyclical.

As in management, there is no one best way.

 

[jay_mcfc]

I have never ONCE intimated that Bolton or Spurs play a continental type game. I'm really not sure how you concluded that. Can you extract the bit where I say that... I'm not saying your making it up, but that certainly wasn't my intention.

That part of the reply was to do with Billy, not meant for you. The strange things you were saying were about not trying to copy Barcelona and how tactics are not important. It's funny how you say tactics are not important but then respect United so much...they have become a very, very tactical team. You don't win so many games 1-0 without them.

As for the way the rags play... my point was that the rags play with width. They always have done, they (under Feguson) always will do. That was my point.

Every team in the prem plays with width to some extent depending upon circumstances. If Adam Johnson was fit we'd have been playing with more of it but as it is it is down to the full backs to provide it. I have covered pace in my last post, it just isn't as important to us in the way we set up compared to other teams. I guess it comes down to whether you want to be a counter attacking team like we were under Hughes or if we want to play a possession game like we are under Mancini. Of course there is probably somewhere in the middle that is capable of both and my hope is that if Mancini is here next season he understands that at times a bit of pace and directness is needed and works well in England.

As for "success" in Europe... we have 3 clubs in the last 8, we often have 2 or 3 clubs in the semi, we regularly have a team in the finals. Just because Barcelona are a one-off at the present time should not underscore what the English clubs continue to achieve. Fuck, even Boro and Fulham have made the UEFA Cup finals!
One final point... Over the past 50 years, Liverpool have been Champions 5 times, the Rags 3 times, Forest twice and Villa once. Numerous other finalists.

There is also a host of Cup Winners Cup and UEFA cups to hang our hats on.

In fact, I very much doubt that ANY nation has so many winners of European trophies as the English leagues.

In Spain, Italy even Germany, you'll find that a handful or maybe even only 2 or 3 win the big prizes.

I was a bit hasty saying English clubs lack of success in europe is an embarrassment over 50 years, although I did say without Liverpool. But let's look at it another way; since the start of the premiership when the English league has widely been regarded as the best in the world, where the best players and managers want to work and where the most money is spent (apart from a couple of clubs around europe) English clubs have won the big prize 3 times. Arsenal and Chelsea who have spent hundreds and hundreds of millions on their squads yet still have not lifted the champions league. United have done it twice and Liverpool once and to me that is a poor reflection on the premiership. I might be going over board with this, other people might see the English clubs as being successful and I'm there to be shot at with it but I just think when you consider everything, English clubs in Europe are failures on the whole.

Back to Billy's initial point though, where he wondered if in the premier league outside the top clubs do they still play in a stereo typical English way and I would have to say yes. It has changed slightly in that one up top has become the norm and wingers (old fashioned ones) are a rarity but the irresponsible attitude to defending, end to end football and mistakes aplenty are still clear to see. It's what makes the premiership exciting but it's for these reasons that the English national team and the English players are seen as being technically poor. Everything that excites and entertains us in the premiership is everything that is wrong with the game there and until it changes the national team will continue to fail and the club teams will flatter to deceive in Europe.

I love the way Mancini is trying to make us play. It is entertaining and interesting in its own way but I think the ultimate question is will English supporters put up with it? Well, if it wins things they will and if it doesn't they won't but it's how much time they're prepared to give him before deciding we won't that is important. That is if the owners don't act before the fans think like that anyway.

 

[yerwot?]

great thread,fwiw i believe the lower leagues are more representative of english football.The prem teams that compete in europe have adjusted to the different refereeing,the two-legged ties etc,and play accordingly.From the championship down kick and rush rules,played by non-footballers,managed by older non-footballers who perpetuate the 'english stereotype'

 

[Deleted member 14625]

I've listened to people around the ground and some of my blue friends and am convinced that they would be happeist is we played schoolboy football where all 20 outfield players chased the ball all around the pitch in one big crowd.

That's exactly what Barcelona do. If it's good enough for the best team ever to chase and hunt the ball back in packs, then it's good enough for everyone to do. And I could have used quotation marks on my statement because that's exactly what Mick McCarthy said earlier on in the season as well.

 

[jay_mcfc]

That's exactly what Barcelona do. If it's good enough for the best team ever to chase and hunt the ball back in packs, then it's good enough for everyone to do. And I could have used quotation marks on my statement because that's exactly what Mick McCarthy said earlier on in the season as well.

No they don't!

 

[Deleted member 14625]

That's exactly what Barcelona do. If it's good enough for the best team ever to chase and hunt the ball back in packs, then it's good enough for everyone to do. And I could have used quotation marks on my statement because that's exactly what Mick McCarthy said earlier on in the season as well.

No they don't!

Of course they do. They are the best team in the world ever at surrounding the opposition player with the ball with 3 and 4 players at a time forcing a mistake and thus they get the ball back.

 

[jay_mcfc]

Of course they do. They are the best team in the world ever at surrounding the opposition player with the ball with 3 and 4 players at a time forcing a mistake and thus they get the ball back.

You make it sound like school boy tactics and it's the most simple thing in the world. Their 7 second rule is an art that is perfected at their training ground from the age of 4/5.