I read an article some while back which stated that English coaches are not that respected abroad. They have concluded that our coaches are not that 'Technical' etc etc, compared to their European and other counterparts.

I think it was maybe 2 or 3 years ago reading an article about the numbers of coaches who had UEFA 'A' or 'Pro' licences.
If my memory serves me right, England had around 1,400, Germany around 7,000 and Spain around 15,000.We were also behind France and Italy.

Edited by Willo (28 Jun 2017 10.26am)

Look at England U21 manager Aidy Boothroyd - He has had a reputation as an advocate of the 'Long Ball' etc etc.

Don't think he is recognised as a purist and believes that brawn is very important in the modern game.He will tell you that there is no 'Right' or 'Wrong' way to play football and that right way is winning.

Some might argue his teams in the past have had steel over flair as opposed to the reverse with some other teams but at the end of the day a manager is trying to play the best way to get the most out of his team.

Edited by Willo (28 Jun 2017 11.11am)

Didn't Hoddle go off his chimps?

I don't think much of Southgate. All these chances to get the ball wide and send in wicked crosses wasted by going sideways and backwards and trying to play through the middle of teams like Scotland who are just going to stand there and let you bounce off them unless you can at least mix it up a bit. Then there's the small matter of following the Woy pwinciple of picking household names whether or not they're actually in form or even reasonably fit just now.

And Willo is quite right about the technical capabilities of coaches; there's no rule that says an England coach has to be English, but even those that have not been didn't really have strong technical credentials. I wonder if the FA thinks the England coach doesn't have enough time with the players to do anything useful in a technical sense? Which in turn will make clubs not want their men to play for England because all they will see in it for themselves is an injury risk.

============
The Ferret
============

I'd imagine though, that for the most part if your an England Coach, the amount of actual coaching of players you get to do is limited, maybe six or seven weeks with players a season or so.

The development of technical ability is at club level. A national coach can only do so much by comparison, and is more about getting players used to a style, not developing their technical ability.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Well, every national team's coach has the same issue of lack of time with the players so, if that's the FA's thinking, they're wrong (as usual).

Meanwhile, I can't think of any player earning a recent England cap who didn't play in the Premier League. Nor any English coach who has had success managing outside of the UK. Most English (and Scottish) coaches have s*** the bed on the continent.

We seem stuck in a time bubble, created by the cash riches of the Premier League, such that it attracts players and coaches who can adapt to the English style of hustle and bustle in order to compete in the Prem; these being talents that do not translate to success against modern, cultured, foreign outfits. That's why success in Europe for Premier League clubs is waning, English players and coaches are not of interest to those same clubs, and the national team is just a super-concentrated version of this phenomenon.

Unless and until a team or teams have success in the Premiership playing modern football, we will stick to what works and remain in our bubble. We will continue to produce huffers and hoofers, some of whom will move on into management where they will perpetuate the need to huff and hoof. Players with real talent - Wilf being the latest in a long line stars who were deemed not hard-working enough for the England team - will continue to be shunned and have their careers dampened as a result. Meanwhile, the Diers and Hendersons of this world will rack up multiple England caps on Quixotic campaigns.

Realistically, the only thing I see breaking this spell is if the rest of the football-watching world wakes up and smells the mediocrity. If and when they stop pouring money into the Premier League, it will be forced to improve the product in order to compete for TV rights - and teams will need to persist in European competitions in order to gain the worldwide recognition that is currently gifted to them.

For example, I worked for Aon at the time they were the Moan Utd shirt sponsor. It was highly controversial among employees at the time because they'd just had a round of layoffs and eliminated pensions for the UK staff (such things having long disappeared for US employees like me). It cost Aon $150 million to put its name on Utd's shirt for three seasons. Aon claimed that studies had shown that its brand name recognition - particularly in emerging markets and/or Asia - had jumped exponentially. It estimated that, to achieve the same market penetration by conventional advertising, would've cost them .5 billion. This is the entrenched power of the Premier League, and this is what has to go away for the league to progress.

So don't hold your breath.

Edited by Ray in Houston (28 Jun 2017 4.46pm)

We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.