Young British players should be a priority

[bellsouth]

At the moment it's seems young British players only get a chance to prove themselves at Premier League level when there are no other options remaining, i.e. an injury crisis forces the club to play a youth player.
I know it seems extreme but if clubs were forced to field say 2 under 20 British players in their match day squad, we'd get to see what they're capable of. What's the expression, necessity is the mother of invention.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

This is also a myth for the record.

England are consistently one of the highest rated football nations and pretty consistently place in the last 16 of every major international tournament. The problem with English football has always been that the culture of English fans lacks patience and realism.

Hmm, what would you consider realism though? Are we a team that should aim to be up there with Spain, France, Italy, Germany, Portugal, Brazil and Argentina with a chance of winning major tournaments every now and again, or are we a team with the likes of Croatia or the Czech Republic who usually qualify and occasionally have a decent tournament, but generally don't threaten to win anything? Because the pattern for most of my lifetime is that England beat the teams they should beat and then get knocked out by the first decent team they face.

2016: 2nd in a group of Russia, Wales and Slovakia. Knocked out by Iceland in the quarters.
2014: Failed to get out of a group including Italy, Uruguay and Costa Rica.
2012: Won a group including France, Sweden and Ukraine. Knocked out in the quarters to Italy on penalties.
2010: just about got out of a group including USA, Algeria and Slovenia. Knocked out by Germany in the last 16.
2008: Didn't qualify.
2006: Topped group including Sweden, Paraguay and Trinidad and Tobago. Beat Ecuador in the last 16. Knocked out in the quarters to Portugal on penalties.
2004: 2nd in a group including France, Croatia and Switzerland. Knocked out in the quarters to Portugal on penalties.
2002: 2nd in a group including Sweden, Argentina and Nigeria. Beat Denmark in the last 16. Knocked out by Brazil in the quarters.
2000: Failed to get out of a group including Portugal, Romania and Germany. (Look how Germany responded to that compared to us, incidentally).

So thats:
2 times knocked out at the second knockout stage.
4 times knocked out at the first knockout stage.
2 times knocked out at the group stage.
1 time failed to qualify.
0 times in a semi.
0 times in a final.

This century, we've only twice beaten a team in the knockout stages of a tournament, and those teams were Denmark and Ecuador. Rankings are pointless, because the top teams so rarely actually play each other in a competitive match. I don't expect England to win every tournament, but you'd think with the size of the population and the footballing culture, we could expect the occasional final or semi-final. To be fair, we have been knocked out on penalties three times in the tournaments above, but surely that's part of the problem? One thing I've noticed since City became good is how much penalties simply come down to who has the technically better players, and nowadays, I'm pretty confident if we have a shootout against most other teams for that reason. We should be producing a lot better than we are. People blame the Premier League, but Spain, Italy and Germany all have strong domestic leagues and continue to produce teams that regularly challenge for international tournaments.

 

[mdj0520]

Hmm, what would you consider realism though? Are we a team that should aim to be up there with Spain, France, Italy, Germany, Portugal, Brazil and Argentina with a chance of winning major tournaments every now and again, or are we a team with the likes of Croatia or the Czech Republic who usually qualify and occasionally have a decent tournament, but generally don't threaten to win anything? Because the pattern for most of my lifetime is that England beat the teams they should beat and then get knocked out by the first decent team they face.

2016: 2nd in a group of Russia, Wales and Slovakia. Knocked out by Iceland in the quarters.
2014: Failed to get out of a group including Italy, Uruguay and Costa Rica.
2012: Won a group including France, Sweden and Ukraine. Knocked out in the quarters to Italy on penalties.
2010: just about got out of a group including USA, Algeria and Slovenia. Knocked out by Germany in the last 16.
2008: Didn't qualify.
2006: Topped group including Sweden, Paraguay and Trinidad and Tobago. Beat Ecuador in the last 16. Knocked out in the quarters to Portugal on penalties.
2004: 2nd in a group including France, Croatia and Switzerland. Knocked out in the quarters to Portugal on penalties.
2002: 2nd in a group including Sweden, Argentina and Nigeria. Beat Denmark in the last 16. Knocked out by Brazil in the quarters.
2000: Failed to get out of a group including Portugal, Romania and Germany. (Look how Germany responded to that compared to us, incidentally).

So thats:
2 times knocked out at the second knockout stage.
4 times knocked out at the first knockout stage.
2 times knocked out at the group stage.
1 time failed to qualify.
0 times in a semi.
0 times in a final.

This century, we've only twice beaten a team in the knockout stages of a tournament, and those teams were Denmark and Ecuador. Rankings are pointless, because the top teams so rarely actually play each other in a competitive match. I don't expect England to win every tournament, but you'd think with the size of the population and the footballing culture, we could expect the occasional final or semi-final. To be fair, we have been knocked out on penalties three times in the tournaments above, but surely that's part of the problem? One thing I've noticed since City became good is how much penalties simply come down to who has the technically better players, and nowadays, I'm pretty confident if we have a shootout against most other teams for that reason. We should be producing a lot better than we are. People blame the Premier League, but Spain, Italy and Germany all have strong domestic leagues and continue to produce teams that regularly challenge for international tournaments.

Not damocles, but I would suspect the realism aspect he is referring to is the lack of patience in young players at both club and international level. Take for example Sterling and Stones. 22, two of england's brightest talents and starting for what should and will be a title contender but many of the experts on here have decided neither will ever be good enough. Stones will be playing back up to Kompany, Ota, and whoever else, whilst Sterling is useless and will be shipped out as he wont be able to get near the team despite being one of our best players the majority of last season.

 

[Damocles]

Hmm, what would you consider realism though? Are we a team that should aim to be up there with Spain, France, Italy, Germany, Portugal, Brazil and Argentina with a chance of winning major tournaments every now and again, or are we a team with the likes of Croatia or the Czech Republic who usually qualify and occasionally have a decent tournament, but generally don't threaten to win anything? Because the pattern for most of my lifetime is that England beat the teams they should beat and then get knocked out by the first decent team they face.

2016: 2nd in a group of Russia, Wales and Slovakia. Knocked out by Iceland in the quarters.
2014: Failed to get out of a group including Italy, Uruguay and Costa Rica.
2012: Won a group including France, Sweden and Ukraine. Knocked out in the quarters to Italy on penalties.
2010: just about got out of a group including USA, Algeria and Slovenia. Knocked out by Germany in the last 16.
2008: Didn't qualify.
2006: Topped group including Sweden, Paraguay and Trinidad and Tobago. Beat Ecuador in the last 16. Knocked out in the quarters to Portugal on penalties.
2004: 2nd in a group including France, Croatia and Switzerland. Knocked out in the quarters to Portugal on penalties.
2002: 2nd in a group including Sweden, Argentina and Nigeria. Beat Denmark in the last 16. Knocked out by Brazil in the quarters.
2000: Failed to get out of a group including Portugal, Romania and Germany. (Look how Germany responded to that compared to us, incidentally).

So thats:
2 times knocked out at the second knockout stage.
4 times knocked out at the first knockout stage.
2 times knocked out at the group stage.
1 time failed to qualify.
0 times in a semi.
0 times in a final.

This century, we've only twice beaten a team in the knockout stages of a tournament, and those teams were Denmark and Ecuador. Rankings are pointless, because the top teams so rarely actually play each other in a competitive match. I don't expect England to win every tournament, but you'd think with the size of the population and the footballing culture, we could expect the occasional final or semi-final. To be fair, we have been knocked out on penalties three times in the tournaments above, but surely that's part of the problem? One thing I've noticed since City became good is how much penalties simply come down to who has the technically better players, and nowadays, I'm pretty confident if we have a shootout against most other teams for that reason. We should be producing a lot better than we are. People blame the Premier League, but Spain, Italy and Germany all have strong domestic leagues and continue to produce teams that regularly challenge for international tournaments.

That's a lot to unpack.

The first point to make is that if you finish 4th every single year, you're not underachieving in your quest to win the league. You're just probably about the 4th best team in the country. Similarly, if England get to the quarters every tourney then that's just probably our natural footballing position.

Second - Spain won a single international tournament before 2008 and it was the Euros in 1964. They never even reached a Final. France have 1 World Cup in 1998 and have reached a Final and 2 Semis outside of that. Portugal have been to 1 WC semi and failed to qualify 13 times. Argentina have their Maradona WCs and a Final appearance and other than that get knocked out in the Quarters.

Make no mistake that international football is dominated by Germany, Brazil and on occasion Italy. We are in the group just below that with Spain, France, Argentina and others that we'll often go to the Quarters and if we have a Golden Generation like the Barca/Spain or the Zidane France then we'll get a go at the late stages a couple of times. We underachieved with ours due to the same crap English mentality from the media and fans that we have all the time. The Czech's have qualified for the Quarters once since the 1960s and outside that either never got out of groups or didn't qualify at all.

We're Europa League finishers who push into the CL spots and might have a good league campaign if everything comes together, in terms of international football. We're perfectly fine in terms of historical results and we consistently produce extremely high quality players and in decent numbers.

Third - penalties is another one of those things that's oddly looked at by fans. Around 73% of penalties are scored and it almost literally doesn't matter at all who takes them. That's the same figure whether you're Aguero or Joe Hart.

the problem with the English national game has always been the panic around the English national game. In addition the culture is insular to a barbaric degree in football terms, it's anti-intellectual and the core philosophies that many revert to under pressure are overly cautious, 1930s football.

 

[ancoats]

This isn't true at all. Messi was coached professionally most of his life and has a monster like workrate. Football is a skill, like many skills you might have a genetic advantage over others to start off with but without proper nurturing and workrate it means nothing at all. Messi would be just another fat bloke in a pub saying how he was great for his under 11s and Barca once looked at him if he didn't have high quality coaching and a desire to succeed above most normal humans.

you can not coach and turn out a player like messi it just does not happen

messi was born and his brain and eyes see thing that other don't yes the fitness side of it and game management yes but the skills and vision that's impossible to teach and i seen a lot of talent coach out of kids with the english style getting forward quick and told your greedy on the ball all the stuff you see in modern football. its simple manchester city are after finding the new messi in the youth setup and scouts a cross the world are looking for the next big thing but does money buy that

for me the best way is to let the kids have a life up until they are 11/12 don't stop them from mixing in schools or on the streets and in the parks just plain fun and no pressure and get to know your friends kick a ball up against a wall jumpers for goal post stuff you will have the freedom of wanting the ball and getting the ball and then keeping it individual skills are coached out of kids that's wrong

 

[Damocles]

you can not coach and turn out a player like messi it just does not happen

How? Name one

messi was born and his brain and eyes see thing that other don't yes the fitness side of it and game management yes but the skills and vision that's impossible to teach

So is there like a football skill gene then? How does this work biologically?

And OF COURSE Messi was taught skill and vision.

 

[himalayan_blues]

How many citys u21 are in european championship? Have anyone got any idea. I dont think any in english side.

 

[The Footy Diary]

How many citys u21 are in european championship? Have anyone got any idea. I dont think any in english side.

Just Gunn in the squad.

 

[Steve68]

I certainly think if we have to have a backup or a third slot keeper (assuming Hart goes and Gunn is on loan) who will probably not play much, you might as well get a Brit veteran.

 

[Man_City_Loyal]

be the best situation I think for the future of our game.