retired_jabda

I have friend who have seen Damien Duff reading Match and Kenny Cunningham reading the World News in The Irish Times.

Footballers have the average intelligence of society, just happens they got crap education as they were training instead.

retired_velvet01

you can generally tell by the way people talk and their ability to string sentences together.

Plus I know for a fact that David James likes art and Reo-Coker reads 'the art of war'. So they must be intelligent. Must be.

I once met Frank Lampard and asked him "What do you think is further away, Florida or the moon?"

Lampard rolled his eyes and said "Helloooooooooo, can you see Florida...?????"

dreamer

He could well be the answer, let's be honest though, he's never going to be world class is he? He's not another Ronaldinho or a Fabregas, hopefully he'll be good enough to do a job though.

I think the problem is that our style of football is a bit backward, in the EPL we don't have such a position as an "attacking midfielder" and it seems as though that position is necessary in international football, just about every team has one other than us, but no English player will ever be able to play there because we don't train players for it, that's probably why we're technically inept compared to other nations, although not all Spaniards and Brazilians will play there, they train for it from a very young age because it's THE position all the kids want to play.

retired_elohiim1217

It's so easy to say that English players have poor technique, but it isn't true. How can a country of 60 million fail to produce skilful footballers when virtually every other country in Europe with a fraction of our population can produce all these flair players? The lifestyles don't vary that much throughout Europe.

It's much more a question of footballing culture and tactics. In general, English teams play a direct, fast and physical type of football that most of us fans love to watch because we were brought up on it. Do you think English defenders really can't play 10 yard passes to the midfield instead of launching another long ball at the target man? Of course they can, but the long ball is instinctive because they have been taught to play that way for so long. If all our teams adopted short passing games with lots of possession at the back and in midfield, a lot of fans would be screaming at their team to get the ball in the box.

People say that the errors come from poor technique, but I think more come from trying to play fast and direct all the time. It's much harder to pass accurately when you're trying to do it so quickly. Traditionally England have played the same way, but they're never going to win anything like that as it's too limited. There are times when such a direct approach will annihilate the opposition, but you have got to be adaptable and be able to slow the game down and keep possession too.

Club sides like Liverpool and Man United play differently in Europe than in the league, because they know they have to adapt in order to succeed. It's the same in international football, but when the manager tries new tactics or formations, he's normally had so little time to practise it that it doesn't work, then he gets crucified. A few examples:

Bobby Robson was criticised for using Mark Wright in the 1990 World Cup as a sweeper, or in a 5-3-2, and it was said it was the players' idea, but England had played rubbish before that and it worked as England then qualified from the group stage. Afterwards it only went down in history that England reached the semis and unfortunately lost on penalties, never that they tried different formations.

Graham Taylor played Gary Pallister on the left of a 3 man defence against Norway and England got soundly beaten and subsequently didn't qualify for the 1994 world cup. He was crucified for his poor tactics.

Terry Venables experimented with his 4-5-1 (before it was fashionable to call it 4-4-1-1) "Christmas Tree" formation with Shearer at the tip and was mocked for it. England had better strikers then than they do now, yet he considered playing Shearer up front on his own. He also more or less created the "Sheringham" role at Spurs and later for England. Prior to that, Teddy was a regular centre-forward for Millwall and Nottingham Forest. He was decent, and had all the attributes, yet when he was brought into the England team Venables was ridiculed and accused of only picking him because he played for Spurs. Teddy wasn't that rated at all then, yet Venable didn't get the credit for transforming his game.

Those are just a few examples of when England managers tried to change things tactically. Obviously sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't, but if they never try, then we will never find out. The problem is whenever it doesn't work, they are regarded as idiots for messing with the traditional 4-4-2. They are not given enough leeway for experimenting. Look at Germany - they don't have more skilful players than England, yet their tactical awareness means that they can regularly beat teams who look more composed on the ball.

England players do have the technique, but they are lacking in tactical awareness. This can be taught. You just have to read comments from the likes of Tony Adams, Steve Bould, Lee Dixon and Ray Parlour. They were already good international players before Arsene Wenger went to Arsenal, yet he made them better and developed them when they were already in their thirties. Their skill was already there, just not encouraged.

retired_C Mack

Actually, Alonso, imo, is the most technically gifted player in the world.

Bastian not really technical. He's like Lampard.

And England are missing Wayne Rooney you mean?

dreamer

Actually, Alonso, imo, is the most technically gifted player in the world.

Bastian not really technical. He's like Lampard.

And England are missing Wayne Rooney you mean? </BLOCKQUOTE>

Wayne isn't an 'in the hole' player in the same way that Ronaldinho is though really, he's a striker who comes deep, not an attacking midfielder who can operate as a striker.