Thread: The Problem with English Football

In another month, Sky television will bombard its viewers with advertisements declaring another incredible season from the 'most exciting' league in the world. The curtain-raiser for this season's English Premier League will be the F.A. Community Shield, to be contested by Chelsea and Manchester City. Then, a week later, the new season will begin with gusto. High-scoring games and last-minute goals will be enough to get pundits' hearts racing and paper over the glaring reality that English football is a country mile behind Spanish, the greatest football league in the world. The commentators and analysts, most of whom are British, will omit this fact as they incessantly remind us that no league in the world provides the excitement which the EPL does. To paraphrase Alan Shearer's comments after last night's European Championship semi-final, however, the reason why it is so exciting is because there are so many foreigners playing in it.

Granted, last night's Iberian derby between Spain and Portugal did not live up to expectation. It was mostly a dull affair until Spain capitalised on their opponents' tiredness in the two periods of extra time. They had two outstanding chances to win it. However, the level of football which Spain's players achieved after playing a full ninety minutes was nothing short of phenomenal. Their passing and movement in those last thirty minutes was a joy to behold, and Portugal simply could not live with them. It is this culture which will deny England and its so-called 'golden generation' any and all silverware in the coming years of national football.

Let's examine the Spanish way of playing. They use a style of football heavily influenced by the tiki-taka system pioneered by Johan Cruyff during his time as manager of Barcelona. It is characterised by short passing and exceptional movement. Josep Guardiola, having played this system under Cruyff, made it Barcelona's pre-eminent style during his managerial tenure at the club. It requires a player to spend hours training on passing, movement, technique, close control, and first touch. Then they learn how to pass and move so that someone is always available to receive the ball. Under Guardiola, Barcelona won six trophies in one season, a feat that had never been achieved before. Vicente del Bosque implemented this style after he took charge of Spain in 2008. Since then, they are unbeaten in almost twenty tournament games, are the reigning World and European champions, and have a chance this Sunday to become the first team in history to win three consecutive national titles.

The problem with this style of football is that it must be taught at grass roots. The reason why Spain make the tiki-taka system look so simple is because they have learned it from day one. Barcelona's youth team produce new Spanish talent by the bucket-load, and their style remains unchanged from the senior team all the way to the under-11s. These days Real Madrid tend to buy, rather than produce, their players, but their style of football (when they aren't playing Barcelona) is more similar to Barca's than, say, Manchester United's is. For this reason, teaching the system to Madrid players is infinitely easier than it is to teach England's players to learn a long-ball or counter-attack system when they have been part of a completely different one for the duration of the club season. If England ever hope to be successful, they have to learn their youngsters the technical side, rather than the physical one, of football.

During last night's semi-final, I watched Iker Casillas kick the ball long on numerous occasions, much to my displeasure. Long kicks, with the exception of cross-field passes, have no place in the tiki-taka system. On all but a few of the kick-outs, Portugal regained possession and immediately attacked the Spanish back four. I have for years been a vehement detractor of the long kick. It is the most pointless offence in the game. On average, teams who kick long win one out of every five kick-outs. The rest are returned to the offensive back four via a header, knocked out of play, or kicked straight to the defensive back four. In most Premier League games, teams can't string more than a half-dozen passes without resorting to long-ball tactics. Is it any wonder England were passed off the field by Italy?

Both Barcelona and Spain have shown that it is possible to win (and win well) by playing a system which monopolises possession. I have rarely seen Barcelona's goalkeeper (Valdes) kick the ball long. In fact, in some of the most tightest positions, I've seen their defenders play their way to safety. Pass, move, pass, move. Triangles. One-touch pass, move, one-touch pass, move. Triangles. At their best, Barcelona and Spain are so easy on the eye.

England need to realise that their technique is woeful. For all the hype surrounding Wayne Rooney, he wouldn't lace David Villa's boots. Steven Gerrard is renowned as one of the best midfielders in the world. Xavi Hernandez makes him look like a Sunday player. Frank Lampard is supposed to be one of the best attacking midfielders around. Andres Iniesta is a magician who would run rings around him. For every so-called 'great' England player, Spain have a better one whose technique is what you would expect of a Spanish player. Just take a look at their midfield: Xavi, Iniesta, Busquets, Alonso, Silva, Fabregas, Navas, Mata, Cazorla. It's a quite ridiculous list of talent.

Where do England go from here? They have got to work on their technique and passing ability. If you surrender possession to the Spanish so easily, you won't see the ball for ten minutes. So they need to implement the system at grass roots level. Not necessarily tiki-taka, but a system in which players move and pass the ball, always creating space to receive the return. It doesn't have to be as intricate as tiki-taka, but they have to find a way to keep possession. If they don't, they have no chance against the Spains and Germanys of the footballing world.

The problem with English football is that, when playing internationally, it tries to play a foreign game. The natural pace of English football is fast & furious, but managers somehow get it into their heads that "their" game is better, so they try to get England to play their game - First rule of war, fight your war not theirs - Play England's game, make them change the way they play so that it is they who are out of their depth; this is exactly how we played when we beat Germany 5-1 after being one goal down early in the game. By running at their defence, in numbers, they were discomfitted, it was not what they had planned for. Never play the way your opponent is comfortable with, it is axiomatic. If England turn up to their next game with the old W formation, 5 forwards, 3 half-backs and 2 full-backs, the opposition will be discombobulated and spend their time trying to figure out how to deal with such a formation; Englands next opposition will then approach the match prepared to meet a 2-3-5 formation, so you go onto the pitch with a 2-4-4 formation. The thing that always strikes me about football is, why after 10 years as professional footballers, they need to be told how to play the game...

So, Sam. Seen that Jordi Alba goal against Italy? Not even English midfielders seem at par with Spanish defenders who can play midfield and forward. But then again, England will always be England. They have to maintain their style, as Roy Hodgson have said. They just need to change their tempo a bit. Oxlade-Chamberlain, Walcott and Welbeck show good potential.

Besides, even if England does change their style, it would take them a great while to produce a Jordi Alba. Not even Leighton Baines, Ashley Cole or Jonny Evans could be at the level of the Spanish left-back.

Jordi Alba is a world-class left-back at just 23 years old. It isn't the first time he scored a goal like that, either. I remember him scoring an almost identical one for Valencia against Bilbao. Is it any wonder Barcelona snapped him up for fourteen million euro before the European championships started? Mind you, he was on Barcelona's books as a teenager and they let him go. They have a habit of doing that: Pique, Fabregas, and now Alba.

It just shows you the level of talent being produced by Spain. It also says a lot when Fernando Llorente, a man who scored thirty goals for his club last season, couldn't get a kick of the ball. I don't think Santi Cazorla did either, but what a brilliant player he is for Malaga. To say nothing, of course, of David Villa and Carles Puyol, two players who missed out through injury. If they had been fit, how much better would Spain have looked en-route to the final?

Oxlade-Chamberlain has potential. Those other two are a waste of time. Danny Welbeck is not a good footballer in my mind, despite the fact that Fergie seems adamant to play him instead of Hernandez at Manchester United. Walcott has moments of brilliance interspersed with long periods (I'm talking months) of inconsistency. Neither of them would hack it in La Liga, simply because they don't have the technique. Even Rooney, England's so-called 'Pele', hasn't as good a technique as they think he has. In the days of Ronaldo at Old Trafford, Rooney had one of the best passes in the game, married with a strong frame which was so difficult to push off the ball. He could retain possession in a group of three players, wriggle his way out, and find a team-mate with a raking forty-yard pass. He couldn't do that now to save his life.

I watched Iniesta in the final, with a great degree of admiration and a tint of jealousy. They say Paul Scholes was the complete midfielder? They haven't seen Andres Iniesta, then. His dribbling is on a par with Messi's, his close control that of Maradona, and his passing right up there with Xavi's. He guards the ball better than any midfielder I've ever seen, with the possible exception of Zidane. And he goes past professional 'athletes' like they were standing still. If I had to name my best eleven players of the last decade, the first name on that team sheet would be Andres Iniesta.

Until England start teaching their young ones to treat the ball as a friend, and not hoof it up the field every ten seconds, they will never create the likes of Iniesta or Xavi.

Originally Posted by Sam W

Oxlade-Chamberlain has potential. Those other two are a waste of time. Danny Welbeck is not a good footballer in my mind, despite the fact that Fergie seems adamant to play him instead of Hernandez at Manchester United. Walcott has moments of brilliance interspersed with long periods (I'm talking months) of inconsistency. Neither of them would hack it in La Liga, simply because they don't have the technique. Even Rooney, England's so-called 'Pele', hasn't as good a technique as they think he has. In the days of Ronaldo at Old Trafford, Rooney had one of the best passes in the game, married with a strong frame which was so difficult to push off the ball. He could retain possession in a group of three players, wriggle his way out, and find a team-mate with a raking forty-yard pass. He couldn't do that now to save his life.

Welbeck still is good in my book. He's still young, so anything can happen. Walcott is good at his peak, but on retrospect, I guess I'd have to agree with you. He's like Rooney. They're mystery boxes. They either contain a gift or a bomb... and in football, you simply can't afford bombs. Rooney was all hyped up. Gosh, even Welbeck played better than him, I think.

Originally Posted by Sam W

I watched Iniesta in the final, with a great degree of admiration and a tint of jealousy. They say Paul Scholes was the complete midfielder? They haven't seen Andres Iniesta, then. His dribbling is on a par with Messi's, his close control that of Maradona, and his passing right up there with Xavi's. He guards the ball better than any midfielder I've ever seen, with the possible exception of Zidane. And he goes past professional 'athletes' like they were standing still. If I had to name my best eleven players of the last decade, the first name on that team sheet would be Andres Iniesta.

On Iniesta being the best in midfield so far, I'd have to agree with you. He plays brutal play in the center, or in the left. He passing his spot on. He's like Pirlo + Scholes + a bit of Mascherano. He can hold, he can pass and he can dribble well.

Comparing Scholes to Iniesta, however, is a bit harsh, considering that Scholes is pretty old compared to Iniesta. I'm not saying this just because I'm a full-fledged red, but Scholes does incredible passing. His accuracy on that area may have dwindled a bit recently, but he's still good at it. Of course he can never do those wonderful dribbling plays made by Iniesta or Messi, but Scholes can hold the ball, he can pass the ball, and he can dribble it rather decently. On that standpoint, Scholes is the complete midfielder. Iniesta just had a lot more to offer on the side.

Originally Posted by Sam W

Until England start teaching their young ones to treat the ball as a friend, and not hoof it up the field every ten seconds, they will never create the likes of Iniesta or Xavi.

Now to this I totally agree. England playing long ball a la Dalglish's Liverpool combined with Chelsea's "stalwart" defending isn't exactly the right way to go. True, it brings a couple of wins, but the main principle should've been: Possesion = more chances = more goals = domination.

Last time England picked the 11 players and played them in their best positions we won a World Cup. Since which time managers have picked the 11 best players and put them on the pitch somewhere - It doesn't work. Greece won the European Championship with hardly a recognised player on the team, but the point is, they were a team, and the best team won. Pick the positions, then the players to fill them, that would be a good start, the passing game doesn't work if you are playing out of position and so are half your team-mates.

Originally Posted by TheFuhrer02

Welbeck still is good in my book. He's still young, so anything can happen. Walcott is good at his peak, but on retrospect, I guess I'd have to agree with you. He's like Rooney. They're mystery boxes. They either contain a gift or a bomb... and in football, you simply can't afford bombs. Rooney was all hyped up. Gosh, even Welbeck played better than him, I think.

Astonishingly, yes. In all fairness, though, Rooney had a stinker. I won't dispute Hodgson's decision to bring him along, but having missed the first two games because of suspension, he was never gonna be match-fit for the quarters. Rooney's a striker who needs to gradually build up his form. I've seen him score for five or six games in a row for United, go missing for a couple of weeks, and go on a tear for the next couple. He needs to play himself into good form and he just didn't have the opportunity to do that.

On Iniesta being the best in midfield so far, I'd have to agree with you. He plays brutal play in the center, or in the left. He passing his spot on. He's like Pirlo + Scholes + a bit of Mascherano. He can hold, he can pass and he can dribble well.

Comparing Scholes to Iniesta, however, is a bit harsh, considering that Scholes is pretty old compared to Iniesta. I'm not saying this just because I'm a full-fledged red, but Scholes does incredible passing. His accuracy on that area may have dwindled a bit recently, but he's still good at it. Of course he can never do those wonderful dribbling plays made by Iniesta or Messi, but Scholes can hold the ball, he can pass the ball, and he can dribble it rather decently. On that standpoint, Scholes is the complete midfielder. Iniesta just had a lot more to offer on the side.

I'm talking Scholes circa 1999/2000. He would have no problem featuring in this Spanish side of today. At the peak of his powers, Scholes was the best midfielder of his generation. Even Xavi and Zidane said as much. He could pass, shoot, retain possession, defend, but the only thing he couldn't do was tackle. Every time he went into a challenge, I cringed. Not just for the damage he might have done, but for the yellow card which was inevitable.

However, as good as his vision and passing were (and still are) I still think Iniesta shades it. Just look at the pass to Fabregas for the opening goal on Sunday. Inch-perfect. I'm not saying Scholes couldn't have made that pass, but that Iniesta could do it just as good. When you take into account everything else he brings to the table, I rate him as the best midfielder I've ever seen. Above even the great Zinedine Zidane.

Now to this I totally agree. England playing long ball a la Dalglish's Liverpool combined with Chelsea's "stalwart" defending isn't exactly the right way to go. True, it brings a couple of wins, but the main principle should've been: Possesion = more chances = more goals = domination.

It's anti-football in my book. Chelsea so-called 'stalwart' defending consists of parking a bus in front of the keeper and hoping for a breakaway goal. That's not football. That's almost thuggery.

Originally Posted by Sam W

He could pass, shoot, retain possession, defend, but the only thing he couldn't do was tackle. Every time he went into a challenge, I cringed. Not just for the damage he might have done, but for the yellow card which was inevitable.

Hahaha! Yeah. Seen those tackles many times. They looked really painful. It looked really awkward.

Originally Posted by Sam W

It's anti-football in my book. Chelsea so-called 'stalwart' defending consists of parking a bus in front of the keeper and hoping for a breakaway goal. That's not football. That's almost thuggery.

You got that right. Saw them fight against Barca in the recent CL. They were mean. It was effective, but that wasn't the way to play at all. On the other hand, Barca looked like they had no plan b. It was like pass-pass-pass-send to left/right wing-cross to CF-goal. There wasn't much, as if they panicked. The passing was great, but when Chelsea has 10 defenders, you have to have a second plan.

All this talk over football.

They should simply decide who is the superior team, then everyone can stop having their ear-holes bent over it.

Well, that's what followers do. Writers talk about writing. Artists talk about drawing and art. Football fans talk about football. Seems a logical progression.

If you don't want to weigh in with an opinion, that's your prerogative. It may, however, be a good idea to skip this thread and leave it to the football fans.

Since this is posted in a creative thread, I would like to point out that it seems exceedingly well written. Beginning, middle, end, points developed logically and supported with ample detail. I'm especially impressed with the introduction and the way it brings the general topic to the reader with a point of specific interest. I can't speak to authority of the argument and unfortunately my own interest in the topic is too little to make a close enough reading to find nits. Still, I wanted to post lest the fine exemplar this piece presents, of a sort of editorial article, becomes lost in an orgy of rabid fandom.

Thank you for the compliments, ppsage. I don't want this to turn into the kind of 'fanboy' arguments that are rife in football forums, either. I hope(d) for a calm discussion between football lovers.

Originally Posted by Sam W

Thank you for the compliments, ppsage. I don't want this to turn into the kind of 'fanboy' arguments that are rife in football forums, either. I hope(d) for a calm discussion between football lovers.

Maybe you were thinking of cricket?