frankie_ecap asked me to post my thoughts on how to improve the England football (soccer) team. Now, as a very new rugby coach with the sum total of one season coaching juniors I of course am extremely well qualified to do so! Actually, as far as I can see the England football team is so bad that I probably could improve it but I'm not going there.
Really the question
frankie_ecap's request raised for me was "why bother"? I can see the point of international teams when that level of competition is the highest form of competition in a sport, as it is in rugby or cricket, or even when that kind of competition is the sport's major money raiser as it is, again, in rugby and cricket. Clearly that isn't the case in football. Manchester United or Real Madrid would beat the pants off just about any national side and, not coincidentally make far more money than any national side. The elite clubs will attract the best players and the best coaches and playing internationals is really not much more than an additional chore imposed by FIFA, just as playing in whatever the League Cup is called this year is of no consequence and best left to the Reserves.
Maybe it's time to ditch internationals in football.
no subject
Date: 2007-11-22 07:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-11-22 07:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-11-22 08:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-11-22 08:50 pm (UTC)massive earning powerjoy at representing their club side.You're right, of course, for a lot of cricketers the end of their international career means it's all over because the step down isn't rewarding enough; the gap between Test cricket and anything else is massive. However, if you're a footballer, you might think a World Cup would be nice, but a clutch of League titles and Champions League medals will count for just as much; and the pay will be better...
no subject
Date: 2007-11-24 10:22 am (UTC)You are right about the quality of the football at international level compared with club football, I really can't argue with that. So why bother is a valid and obvious question.
On a personal level I share the affliction that many fans of football share in this and many countries, I support a lower division team, Stoke City. Yes I can understand your deep sympathy at my plight but there it is. It isn't a choice, it just is. But as a result I endure mediocre players fighting for those briefest moments of glory. I wait patiently for those occasional magical moments which keep me going back again and again. I dream a dream for my team of Premiership domination and European campaigns, but know in my heart that it's just a dream.
So there is one bright light on my footballing horizon, a team I can support with just as much passion, a team full of the best players of their day, a team which promises the standard of football I can only dream about for my own beleaguered Stoke, that team is England. They let me down big time on Wednesday.
If I supported Manchester United or Chelski or Liverpool then I could shrug and go back to watch the magic of top level football played with grace and inspiration by the masters in their field, but I don't and I can't. Today Stoke are away to Burnley.
So why internationals? Well for me it's so us passionate supporters of lower division teams can have a hope of supporting a team which does have a chance of glory on an international level. These top players are not playing for England per se, they are playing for all the Stoke fans, the Burnley fans, the Stockport fans, the Doncaster Rover fans...
no subject
Date: 2007-11-24 12:11 pm (UTC)I really do understand your point about not choosing who you support. I'm a Manchester United supporter, but a third generation one (sort of, my dad actually supports City which says a great deal about him but my grand dad supported United)
no subject
Date: 2007-11-24 06:41 pm (UTC)There has been much, much hand wringing over here for the last few days. Why should England expect to do so well? One solution proposed involved revamping sport in state education (though Brasil seems to do pretty well without sports facilities in the favelas - although i might be wrong about that!).
Having national sports teams can be a highly positive experience - binding disperate people together; the downside is the occasional chauvinism it prompts (well, frequent chauvinism in the English tabloids, I suppose).
I think the English FA might actually spend sometime thinking things through, considering what steps to take to accomplish effective change. But somehow I doubt it - they'd have to change themselves, first.
no subject
Date: 2007-11-24 07:41 pm (UTC)In the SANZAR countries the club game is still largely amateur. The Super 14, NPC, Currie Cup etc are essentially owned and operated by the national unions as farm team systems for the national team.
no subject
Date: 2007-11-25 01:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-11-25 01:54 pm (UTC)Arsenal, Real Madrid or Chelski generate enough revenue to be able to hire the world's best players and there are no barriers to them doing so. There simply aren't eleven English qualified players good enough to play for Arsenal! In contrast, as I pointed out above in rugby it's the international sides that generate the cash. Thus the NZRFU can contract the best 50 or so players in New Zealand and determine when they play and who they play for. No club side can compete with that kind of clout. They only get to go play for, say, Leicester when they retire from internationals. And, frankly, the only reason Leicester can afford them is because the RFU have ballsed things up so badly that they have made players reluctant to support a central contract system and so have to bribe the clubs into releasing players for internationals.
no subject
Date: 2007-11-25 01:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-11-28 08:35 am (UTC)