OT World Cup 2010 South Africa

[Terminus]

Actually, he won't, since it turned out to be a highly-paid international player and not the lowly newbie which was initially thought, and nobody's talking about it anymore...

[JohnDillworth]

So far Argentina looks like the team to beat.

[Terminus]

Yeah, the rest of the top tier have been unimpressive...

[JohnDillworth]

Well Germany was impressive the first time out, but it seems that was more a poor Aussie team. The Dutch were quietly solid, I look forward to seeing them play again. Brazil is Brazil and Italy (the diving divas) should perk up. Right now there are a lot of openings that will be decided with the 3rd game. Maybe a surprise winner this year

[bradfordkay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: briny_norman

Damn, that was a nice goal by Donovan.
You've got a good player in him.
He's so good he should be playing in Europe.

Warspite1

I dont want to take anything away from Donovan - great finish from such an acute angle - but.......

What was the goalkeeper doing exactly??? Has anyone EVER seen a goalkeeper (in a first class game of football) ACTUALLY DUCK OUT OF THE WAY BEFORE ??????? That was ridiculous[X(]

It looks like Donovan's shot was aimed straight at his face. Any decent goalie would have thrown his hands up to block it, this guy ducked...[X(]

[Sardaukar]

England was like France in disguise...[:'(]

[castor troy]

With the very well doing English clubs more or less ruling European football over the last ten years, it´s just the old story IMO. People think their national team would be doing good because their clubs do too. But when you then get to hear that Arsenal at times is playing without any English on the lawn then the national team´s performance isn´t that surprising anymore. Not saying Lampard, Gerrard, Rooney and Co would be bad players, but the national team is overrated IMO compared to Premier League clubs like, Manchester, Chelsea, Arsenal or Liverpool. And then don´t forget that the English seem to have a problem with tournaments, just like the Dutch which is depressing for me as my mother is Dutch and football isn´t existing in Austria.[:(]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

With the very well doing English clubs more or less ruling European football over the last ten years, it´s just the old story IMO. People think their national team would be doing good because their clubs do too. But when you then get to hear that Arsenal at times is playing without any English on the lawn then the national team´s performance isn´t that surprising anymore. Not saying Lampard, Gerrard, Rooney and Co would be bad players, but the national team is overrated IMO compared to Premier League clubs like, Manchester, Chelsea, Arsenal or Liverpool. And then don´t forget that the English seem to have a problem with tournaments, just like the Dutch which is depressing for me as my mother is Dutch and football isn´t existing in Austria.[:(]

Warspite1

What you say has some merit - although on the other hand, you could argue that if English players are good enough for the top four English teams, then they must be pretty decent players. Lampard, Cole A, Cole J and Terry would not have lasted under Mourinho, Hiddinck etc if they were no good. But what that means is that while we can be certain we have some decent players, what we do not have is strength in depth. People may well criticise the picking of Ledley King, but how many English defenders with pace are there as alternatives? This is where not limiting foreigners in domestic leagues becomes a problem. Name an English right back if Johnson gets injured?.....exactly, thats why Carragher is in South Africa!

But the argument is not as simple as that. In the late 70's/early 80's English football ruled Europe: Liverpool, Nott'm Forest, Aston Villa made the European Cup pretty much an English affair - and the players were mostly English. What was the English national team doing at that time?

World Cup 78 - DNQ
Euro 80 - Out in group stages
World Cup 82 - admittedly unlucky to go out without losing any of our five games - but could not score in the 2nd round against Spain and Germany
Euro 84 - DNQ

One decent tournament out of four......

Its a complicated business, and I do not pretend to understand why English players get to big tournaments and simply forget what they do for their clubs. Why did Lennon decide not to run at the Algerian defence like he did against Croatia when we took them apart at Wmbley? Why do we think its a good idea to do a few passes in our own half - maybe sneak into the opposing half and then hoof the ball upfield instead of passing our way to the opponents penalty box? Why is our movement in the final third so non-existent? Why did Glen Johnson suddenly look so slow? The list of questions goes on and on....its so depressing!!

Anyway thats enough about England [:(]. Good luck to Holland (I'm still upset about 1974 and 1978!) and the Kiwis this weekend [:)]

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: warspite1
This is where not limiting foreigners in domestic leagues becomes a problem. Name an English right back if Johnson gets injured?

Many people say that. And I don't think it's true. As I see it, good players will always prevail. So either you produce them (Brazil, the factory) or not. And if no national squad (a club) wants them (which is rather weird), another league will want them (not everyone is stupid). Quality is quality. So I don't buy this argument. Think about Spain now. Many foreign players in the league BUT they still produced excellent players.

As for depth of the national squads, I think only Brazil (historically) can say they have two excellent A and B teams. And I don't think this is true anymore. Suffice to say that their main striker (Fabiano) is rather normal, not a genius like Messi, Rooney or Villa [:)]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

ORIGINAL: warspite1
This is where not limiting foreigners in domestic leagues becomes a problem. Name an English right back if Johnson gets injured?

Many people say that. And I don't think it's true. As I see it, good players will always prevail. So either you produce them (Brazil, the factory) or not. And if no national squad (a club) wants them (which is rather weird), another league will want them (not everyone is stupid). Quality is quality. So I don't buy this argument. Think about Spain now. Many foreign players in the league BUT they still produced excellent players.

As for depth of the national squads, I think only Brazil (historically) can say they have two excellent A and B teams. And I don't think this is true anymore. Suffice to say that their main striker (Fabiano) is rather normal, not a genius like Messi, Rooney or Villa [:)]

Warspite1

I think you are wrong. If not then why have UEFA changed the rule for homegrown players if what you say is not an issue? Its like most things in life - its degrees, and the fact that you can have too much of a good thing.

Is the English league, any league, enhanced by the introduction of quality overseas players? Yes, of course.
But, when you have a situation like at Arsenal, where the number of Englishmen in their squad (never mind the first team) can easily be counted on the fingers of one hand, then you have a real problem looming..... or in England's case it is no longer looming...its here.

We now have a situation where at right back we have the choice of Johnson, and then Carragher who is really a central defender or the 53-year old Gary Neville. Scotland's position is even worse, with only two big clubs and very few Scottish players employed - so instead of being able to pick players used to big games and Champions League football with Celtic and Rangers, they are trawling the Coca-Cola, the lesser Scottish clubs and even below, for players.

This problem is exacerbated because instant success is required and therefore chairmen will rather buy players than produce homegrown talent - potential players of the future are not given the chance as a result.

To be clear, UEFA's proposal does not get around the fact that some countries simply do not find enough talented and technically gifted players - and its not meant to. But it does mean that the important area of development of homegrown youngsters cannot be ignored.

[TulliusDetritus]

Warspite1, I think I gave you a very clear example... Spain. I know this debate started just a few years ago in England. But in Spain the football foreign "invasion" started around 1995, 15 years ago. So if I was wrong the current Spanish generation (possibly the best one they had) should not have appeared at all [;)]

Either you are good or not. It's all about the players. You have to produce them. That's all the secret. No law can stop geniuses.

As for UEFA Law, well, what about nationalism... chauvinism? [;)]

[warspite1]

You did give an example - but that does not mean you are right anymore than I am [;)]. I think the two countries have fared differently for a number of reasons.

Spain have not suffered the same level of foreign players as England its true - but then there are caps on the number of non-EU players for example, may be they also produce better, more technically skilful players than the English, and may be its something to do with the money available to the Premiership for wages. Remember the imports that were first attracted (with a few exceptions) tended to be players past their prime and were there for the cash. The advent of the Premiership and its money changed all that. Maybe its because they have less foreign managers and so prefer their own nationals. Who knows - its probably a combination of all these things and more.

An influx of foreign players does not stop a "golden generation" - those players were there as the influx began. After all, England "allegedly" produced that in the early 2000's - they just didn't win anything with it....[8|][;)][:(]

But what is happening in England, and has happened in Scotland, is fast becoming (or has become) acute - whatever the reason. There is still a pool of players in the home country. But the fact that England have one of the oldest squads suggests that the level of this influx has impacted the emergence of new homegrown players and fewer players are coming through to replace that last generation.

I do not think the UEFA law is anything to do with nationalism or chauvanism - after all it is there to protect all its members.

[TulliusDetritus]

Well Warspite1,

hypothesis (because it's only that): "foreign players in national leagues = weak national players of that league"

How do we prove this hypothesis is right or wrong? [:)]

Mongolia is possibly not a good example [8D] Because foreign or national players in their league (do they have one?) they are totally irrelevant. So let's take the big ones: Argentina, Germany, Brazil, Italy. Only two of them (the Europeans) have seen an influx of foreign players. Well, they still manage to play finals and win them, so, we hardly can prove the foreign players are to be blamed...

And then we have the wannabes [:D] England, Holland, Spain... We blame the foreign players or we simply conclude that the big ones simply prevail (WCs won, etc.)?

From my understanding and experience, most of football fans jumped on this bandwagon. With all due respect, it's a rather vague idea, which hasn't been proven [:)]

At least give me one example which proves this invasion kills the national teams. My Spain example is rather contundent, you cannot refute that. And you are mistaken, Spain saw a MASSIVE influx of foreign players (since 1995, as I have said).

Said this I like the 6+5 rule. Well, NOT exactly. I am a purist, so when I see Chelsea FC, I think it's a CLUB. Or Barça FClub. So, I would like to see minimum 6 players who always played in the CLUB, since they were kids. As opposed to some nationalist idea. Because Chelsea do not represent England, they represent the members of the club [;)]

Good win for Holland, but we haven't seen yet the virtuosity we saw in the Euro Cup [:(]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

Well Warspite1,

hypothesis (because it's only that): "foreign players in national leagues = weak national players of that league"

Warspite1

Guess I am pretty rubbish at explaining things - that was certainly not my hypothesis.

What I thought I had said:

Foreign players in a league = a good thing. (Post 210)
Unchecked no. of foreign players + (and this is just as important) conditions for not bringing through homegrown players = disaster. (The sub text of all my posts on this subject)

You want an example? I have given you one, Scotland, and another well on the way = England

Example: if as a result of the UEFA ruling there is more chance that an English player will feature in each of the top four teams and be exposed to Champions League football, cup finals, league championships, then that is a good thing - a player is better for the experience. But with the unchecked system we have in place, there is no reason we do not have an Arsene Wenger type in charge of all the main teams in the premiership in a year or so. If that happens you get just a couple of Englishmen in each team (perhaps); not enough to even make a full eleven.

So? The players you then have to pick from are from lesser teams who do not play in those games and so who dont get that experience. That is not good. Players who may actually be good may not even get a chance...

How many Englishmen have been bought by Manchester United, Liverpool, Arsenal or Chelsea in recent seasons? Apart from Glen Johnson (I cannot think of any others) the answer is none. The Englishmen they have are legacy from years ago - either bought or miraculously came through the youth team - Terry, the Coles, Lampard, Rooney, Carragher, Gerrard, Neville, Brown, Walcott, Carrick, Scholes. How old are these guys? The answer tells you all you need to know.

If Spain's influx has been that great, I would not be surprised - I would be nothing short of flabagasted (which I am sure I have spelt wrong).

[TulliusDetritus]

Warspite1, but when Wenger chooses a foreign guy it's not because he does not like the English players. It's because he considers that player is better than his English counterparts. He might be wrong though.

When a foreign coach appears, he will be choosing players he knows (from his previous league or country). This is absolutely natural [:)]

Anyway, er, as for your Scotland example... [:D] The problem is you are talking about a very tiny country, so, having excellent players is simply against the odds (kudos to Holland on this one). Brazilians have many excellent players because literally millions of kids play football. How many Scottish kids play football? 12.000? 70.000?).

And England, well, I think they could beat anyone, so that makes them potential winners of this WC. And they have some world-class players (Rooney, Gerrard and Lampard), that's what makes the difference.

[Mynok]

Population and youth development are critical....witness the rise of the US as a solid football nation, despite its lack of a world-class league. But we have masses of youth football programs at schools and in communities starting in the 70s. Now we are reaping the benefits. As a counter-example, we are dying fast as a baseball nation because youth baseball is waning in comparison to youth football (both international and American-style).

Holland has a massive youth development program. They squeeze the absolute maximum talent out of their tiny population. I know nothing about Slovenia but I was duly impressed with them. They are a pretty solid side, with less than half the population of Scotland (2million to 5million) for example.  Holland has 16million for additional comparison.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

Warspite1, but when Wenger chooses a foreign guy it's not because he does not like the English players. It's because he considers that player is better than his English counterparts. He might be wrong though.

When a foreign coach appears, he will be choosing players he knows (from his previous league or country). This is absolutely natural [:)]

Anyway, er, as for your Scotland example... [:D] The problem is you are talking about a very tiny country, so, having excellent players is simply against the odds (kudos to Holland on this one). Brazilians have many excellent players because literally millions of kids play football. How many Scottish kids play football? 12.000? 70.000?).

And England, well, I think they could beat anyone, so that makes them potential winners of this WC. And they have some world-class players (Rooney, Gerrard and Lampard), that's what makes the difference.

Warspite1

I did not say its because Wenger does not like English players - although frankly, I would not blame him if he didn't. Look at some of the expensive mistakes he has made in the transfer market or problems he has had with homegrown players: Jeffers (English), Wright (English), possibly Walcott (English), Bentley (English) Pennant (English). I don't care if he likes them or not - the fact is he rarely buys them - liking has nothing to do with the discussion. Equally the point you make with the foreign coach is the point I made earlier. More foreign coaches = possibly more foreign players; again perfectly natural. The point you are missing or ignoring is that too much of those two examples = fewer English players....

Not sure why Scotland got a [:D]. But again your answer shows the point is missed completely. This is not about excellent players and that if there were no, or a limited no. of foreign players in their leagues, Scotland or England suddenly become world beaters. That is not what is being said.

I repeat, for the sake of Scottish and English and Spanish (although if you are right then they don't need it) football, there should be a minimum number of homegrown players playing regularly for each club - including the top ones, and (in the case of Scotland) Celtic and Rangers. Look at a recent Scottish team to play in a World Cup qualifier: players from Norwich City, Bristol City, Derby County, Sheffield United and Motherwell. In the 70's and 80's she was a regular World Cup qualifier. Now she is nothing of the sort.

As for your final paragraph; when playing for their clubs Rooney, Lampard and Gerrard are world beaters - but who is following in their footsteps.....? This is the issue.

Anyway, I think I've flogged a deadhorse long enough and we are clearly going to agree to disagree. Never mind, I've enjoyed the debate - hope you have too [:)]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Mynok


Population and youth development are critical....witness the rise of the US as a solid football nation, despite its lack of a world-class league. But we have masses of youth football programs at schools and in communities starting in the 70s. Now we are reaping the benefits. As a counter-example, we are dying fast as a baseball nation because youth baseball is waning in comparison to youth football (both international and American-style).

Holland has a massive youth development program. They squeeze the absolute maximum talent out of their tiny population. I know nothing about Slovenia but I was duly impressed with them. They are a pretty solid side, with less than half the population of Scotland (2million to 5million) for example.  Holland has 16million for additional comparison.

Warspite1

I'm glad you mentioned youth development being critical because that is one of the key points I have been trying to get across. Becuase of the mentality of immediate success, allied to the amount of money in the premiership, many of the big clubs have lost sight of their youth academies - just buy another overseas player. With the UEFA ruling that cannot happen to the same extent and the bigger clubs are suddenly waking up to this fact.

[Terminus]

1 - 1 at halftime between Denmark and Cameroun, and the talking heads are already blatering on like we've won it...[8|]

[Miller]

England were utter shit last night. The Japs had more chance of winning the war than we have of winning this World Cup.

Come to think of it, the Jap football team has more chance of winning this World Cup[:@]