[Archived] British And Irish Players

[Royal Fleet]

I think at the core of this is that fact that Premiership managers will not take a punt on lower league players. Hopefully the success that Reading have had will encourage other Prem teams that the Gulf between the leagues is not as great as people once thought. Out of first choice 11.

Keeper - Hahnemann - American - free from Fulham

RB - Murty - Semi Scot - £750k from York - 8 years ago!

LB - Shorey - English - £25k from Leyton Orient

CB - Sonko - French/Senegal - Free from Brentford

CB - Ingamarrson - Iceland - £300k from Wolves

RM - Glen Little - England - Free from Burnley

LM - Bobby Convey - American - £750k from MLS

CM - Harper - England - £300k from Arsenal

CM - Sidwell - England - £300k from Arsenal

CF - Doyle - Irish - £80k from Cork

CF - Kitson - English - £250k from Cambridge

Sum Total of £2.7m - 4 'foreigners' of which only one was signed from abroad.

I am sure that in future we may look further afield, but Coppell will always look to the lower leagues first.

What is Hughes buying policy then?

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

Good post, you forgot that Sol guy from Wolves ( Korean or Japanese ),I think they paid about £1 mill for him, I'd have had him like a shot.

[AxesFirstTouch]

.

What is Hughes buying policy then?

Free, over the hill,welsh or can play in African cup of nations, sicknote, hardwork over skill and slower then a frozen turd.

Edited December 11, 2006 by wakefieldrawks

[herbergeehh]

Yeah, or Ryan Nelsen. Or David Bentley. Or Zurab Khizanishvili. Jeez!

[broadsword]

I can assure you Bucky (hand on heart) that there is absolutely no romanticising involved.

Unfortunately it seems to be the case that anyone who says something was better in teh past is lampooned as a deluded Daily Mail reader who can't accept change, and can't accept that change is always better.

[joey_big_nose]

Unfortunately it seems to be the case that anyone who says something was better in teh past is lampooned as a deluded Daily Mail reader who can't accept change, and can't accept that change is always better.

I don't think that's true, but you have to accept a balance. The game today is different but somethings are better for it. Tugay is the sort of player wou would have been exceptionally unlikely to see back in English footie in the sixties. The pace of the game is quicker too, and the Prem can ligitimately be said to hold someof the most skillful players in the world.

Royal Fleet: That is an impressive list, and kudos to Copell for assembling it on such small money. However I am a bit suprised Seoul is not on there... It will be interesting to see whether Copell can maintain success on such meagre resources, and take the club forward without resorting to foreign players.

[Royal Fleet]

Good post, you forgot that Sol guy from Wolves ( Korean or Japanese ),I think they paid about £1 mill for him, I'd have had him like a shot.

Reason I didn't include Seol is that I am not sure he would be in the team if everyone was fit. Good player, but Coppell is loyal to those that have served him well in the past, and Little and Kitson with whom he is fighting for places with would always get the nod I think.

[DanLad]

Reason I didn't include Seol is that I am not sure he would be in the team if everyone was fit. Good player, but Coppell is loyal to those that have served him well in the past, and Little and Kitson with whom he is fighting for places with would always get the nod I think.

He looks a great player and is serving you well NOW! I don't think Coppell would show a lack of loyalty to a starting player if he was already doing the business (and he's spent a fair bit of money on him, too)

If you don't want him, we would take him off your hands (with that donkey Doyle thrown in as a sweetener, of course)

[Rovermatt]

Yes you are right Herbergheehh. Today's football IS incomparable.That's probably why us oldies are hardly interested in today's apology for football; all passing and getting rid of the ball like it's carrying the plague. To say nothing of the cheating and diving. Add the high prices and over paid players and you get boredom and disinterest. The net result gives a feeling of "I am being taken for a right mug here" and eventually you think back to when to football was truly exiciting and entertaining and the players played very good skilfull football and you were absolutely guaranteed to go home with plenty to keep you talking about the match with your mates for the whole week until the next match. Does this happen now? Certainly not for me!

I disagree. The level of skill and technique and the speed of the game now is utterly superior to anything from the 'good old days'. With the exception of Brazil's 1970 team, a lot of the stuff played in said footballing utopia was positively agrarian. Sure there were the outstanding individuals who could play on Turf Moor's swamp and still look like geniuses, but the level of today's players is surely much higher?

Of course diving, cheating, whinging is going to turn people off. So too are the vast amounts of money these idiots are being paid. However, in terms of skill you have to say today's game is better than the rose-tinted bygone era.

Edited December 12, 2006 by Rovermatt

[broadsword]

The level of skill and technique and the speed of the game now is utterly superior to anything from the 'good old days'. With the exception of Brazil's 1970 team, a lot of the stuff played in said footballing utopia was positively agrarian.

Absolute cobblers. Real A grade tosh.

"Utterly superior" - ha!

[AggyBlue]

I disagree. The level of skill and technique and the speed of the game now is utterly superior to anything from the 'good old days'.

Pace, power and stamina overall is superior.

Today's skill and technique, overall, second rate.

[herbergeehh]

I don't understand that. I'm too young to remember the British football pre-Premiership, so bear with me - you say the 60s were more skillful, but with less pace and power? Obviously you'll have to take the cynicism, diving and for some teams - "defensive" tactics - out of the equation, but that sounds more like the Serie A or Primera nowadays.

Which brings up a question for Fife, Bryan and other senior members: Have you watched a lot of Spanish or Italian football the last two-three years, and if yes - what did you make of it? I have to add though, I'm not talking about the catenaccio from the 80's, but the football at present.

[Rovermatt]

Absolute cobblers. Real A grade tosh.

"Utterly superior" - ha!

Sorry Bryan. Just 'superior' then.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

I don't think that's true, but you have to accept a balance. The game today is different but somethings are better for it. Tugay is the sort of player wou would have been exceptionally unlikely to see back in English footie in the sixties. The pace of the game is quicker too, and the Prem can ligitimately be said to hold someof the most skillful players in the world.

Royal Fleet: That is an impressive list, and kudos to Copell for assembling it on such small money. However I am a bit suprised Seoul is not on there... It will be interesting to see whether Copell can maintain success on such meagre resources, and take the club forward without resorting to foreign players.

You're wrong there Joey, Most teams had a Tugay-esque player in their team then. From our own Bryan Douglas, there was Jimmy Mac at Burnley, John White at Spurs, George Eastham at Arsenal, Johnny Haynes at Fulham, Bobby Collins/Johnny Giles at Leeds, Alan Suddick/Alan Ball at Blackpool, Jimmy Bloomfield at Birmingham, Ian Gibson at Leicester, Pat Crerand at United, Terry Venables at Chelsea- I could go on and on, names that may mean nothing to you but I would give my right arm for any one of them to be playing for the Rovers on Saturday.

Another thing they played where the boots were flying in the opposition half not in the " Glory Hole" in front of your own back four.

[Eddie]

not in the " Glory Hole" in front of your own back four.

[grizfoot]

Maybe they should bring a rule in where each team as to have four home grown players in their squad ... (i'm sure that has been discussed in the pass by FIFA)

[herbergeehh]

It has, and there's also a thread about it somewhere. Pro's and con's, making the big clubs buy more fourteen year olds and all that..

This wouldn't necessarily mean that the "home-grown" players are British, by the way..

[Fife Rover]

Pace, power and stamina overall is superior.

Today's skill and technique, overall, second rate.

Once again Aggy you are spot on in all you just said. Today's game is much faster than in my day. The players are physically much fitter, bigger, and stronger, and the game today inolves a lot of hard running and tackling and lots of quick passing and movement that the old game did not favour very much. But when you consider things like ability to kick with either foot, long and accurate passing, dribbling with the ball and ability to change pace very rapidly, crossing accurately, heading ability, ability to beat not just one but several opponents in a short space and get in an accurate cross or shot then I'm afraid I have to say there are no players anywhere that I can think of today that can come close to a whole pack of players I could name from the 40's 50's and there were still a few (but diminshing numbers) in the 60's. Since then it is all change as todays heavily overcoached players and tactics took over the natural game that we played.

Most of you will quite naturally think that today's game is better and more skilfull because you have never seen the football of 50 or 60 years ago, but I can assure you that if you had you would not consider todays game better in terms of entertainment. In a lot of ways it is more boring now because you hardly ever see anything that stands out. Goals like Tugay's recent efforts are about as good as it gets these days.

[joey_big_nose]

But isn't the whole fitness thing just a result of higher standards and more intense competition across the board? Management and so on is more scientific and more cutthroat so look for any advantage they can, and physical condition is an obvious one.

The only way of taking that out of the game would be for managers to allow their players to become less fit. Is that going to happen?

Also, if Britian had a much higher technical standard of play how come we have made such little impact on on the international stage 1966 aside?

[LeChuck]

I think at the core of this is that fact that Premiership managers will not take a punt on lower league players. Hopefully the success that Reading have had will encourage other Prem teams that the Gulf between the leagues is not as great as people once thought. Out of first choice 11.

Keeper - Hahnemann - American - free from Fulham

RB - Murty - Semi Scot - £750k from York - 8 years ago!

LB - Shorey - English - £25k from Leyton Orient

CB - Sonko - French/Senegal - Free from Brentford

CB - Ingamarrson - Iceland - £300k from Wolves

RM - Glen Little - England - Free from Burnley

LM - Bobby Convey - American - £750k from MLS

CM - Harper - England - £300k from Arsenal

CM - Sidwell - England - £300k from Arsenal

CF - Doyle - Irish - £80k from Cork

CF - Kitson - English - £250k from Cambridge

The thing about Reading is that you are a good team as you have been pretty much unchanged for around two years now. Individually, none of those players would improve our starting eleven (I'd take Sidwell over Savage, but Sparky wouldn't) as no-one really stands out*...and yes, I include Doyle in this - he just happens to be the one putting the ball in the net, there's always one striker from a promoted club who bangs them in for a while (Marcus Stewart etc). Coppell has done brilliantly to mould a team a Premiership from the transfers he has done, it's certainly a refreshing approach to managers gambling on washed-up bigger names from big clubs.

Reading remind me a lot of that Ipswich team that qualified for the UEFA cup in it's promoted season, actually. They had been together for ages and it showed in the quality of their football and how organised they were - but few (if any, I can't come up with any off the top of my head) went on to do anything in the Premiership elsewhere as, individually, they were nothing special. I see a similar fate for everyone in the current Reading team, with the possible exception of Sidwell.

Edit: *This is not a criticism in the slightest. Football is about building a team, Reading are a better team than ourselves. Individually our players are better, but it's useless when they can't work together very well.

Edited December 13, 2006 by LeChuck

[rover6]

To be honest, I think Reading are just having one of those seasons that newly promoted clubs have - taking everyone, including themselves, by surprise and finishing high.

Next season they'll be in the relegation mire.

That's not to say the fact they have so many home nations players is not admirable. (Although it'd seem none are products of their youth system).

[Lathund]

Once again Aggy you are spot on in all you just said. Today's game is much faster than in my day. The players are physically much fitter, bigger, and stronger, and the game today inolves a lot of hard running and tackling and lots of quick passing and movement that the old game did not favour very much. But when you consider things like ability to kick with either foot, long and accurate passing, dribbling with the ball and ability to change pace very rapidly, crossing accurately, heading ability, ability to beat not just one but several opponents in a short space and get in an accurate cross or shot then I'm afraid I have to say there are no players anywhere that I can think of today that can come close to a whole pack of players I could name from the 40's 50's and there were still a few (but diminshing numbers) in the 60's. Since then it is all change as todays heavily overcoached players and tactics took over the natural game that we played.

Most of you will quite naturally think that today's game is better and more skilfull because you have never seen the football of 50 or 60 years ago, but I can assure you that if you had you would not consider todays game better in terms of entertainment. In a lot of ways it is more boring now because you hardly ever see anything that stands out. Goals like Tugay's recent efforts are about as good as it gets these days.

You seem to equate "better" with "more entertaining" here. If you'd say "The game was more entertaining" then I'm sure many would agree with you, but the players today *are* better than they were in the past. Part of the reason you saw more dribbling back then was because the defending was horrendous, and noone seemed to care. The formations of that time, like the 2-3-5, makes it quite obvious what the focus of the game was. Players were given a lot more time on the ball to do those tricks. Put today's players against the defenders of the 1950s and they'd do everything those players from the 40s and 50s would (Given some time to adjust to the game), and probably more. Professional footballers today train harder (on all aspects of the game), they eat better etc. They are quite simply better. That's not to say they're more talented, but they're better trained.

Ofcourse you could cross more accurately when you had twice the time in which to do it, and when the player you aimed for wasn't as closely marked as he'd be today. Changing pace rapidly isn't really possible when the "slow" mode is much much faster than it used to be. And so on. The pace of everything has increased, and thus accurate passing takes more skill now, which is why you'll see less of it. If you look at African or South American football, you'll see a game that far more resembles that of the European game 50 years ago. Focus is largely on technique, there's very little pressing etc. It's just the way things evolve. It used to be a game all about technique, then someone found out that playing more tactically gave better results, and thus it continued. The game is different now, many would say less entertaining, but if an "old style" team faces a modern team I know whom I'd put my money on; unless that old team was a WC winning Brazil side.

Anyway, for the original issue:

Managers often cite cost as an issue but that is an absolute myth

It's not. It shouldn't be an issue, but it is. Being English adds to the price tag for some reason. Probably due to the fact that there's an overemphasis on "premiership experience", which means that "proven" English players are ridiculously expensive. That then leaves players from the Football League and foreigners; and since the top divisions in many countries are both better (On the pitch) and poorer (Economically) than the Championship, it means that Premiership clubs (Seeing as how it's the richest league in the world) can quite easily attract players who perhaps always aren't better than their English counterparts in the Championship (Although some obviously are), but are cheaper. And while players from League One may be cheap, the standard of play there is clearly worse then the top tier of nearly all European leagues, so it's a rather big gamble to take. And all this results in more foreigners.

Another factor is the huge gulf in income between the Premiership and the Championship. This places more value on short term success, i.e simply staying in the top flight. In order to achieve that goal managers go for proven players, and it's cheaper to get proven players from a poorer league than from a richer one. Thus few youngsters get to prove themselves, and the few (Generally being the "wonderkids") end up with ridiculous pricetags.

[Billy Castell]

I think at the core of this is that fact that Premiership managers will not take a punt on lower league players. Hopefully the success that Reading have had will encourage other Prem teams that the Gulf between the leagues is not as great as people once thought. Out of first choice 11.

Keeper - Hahnemann - American - free from Fulham

RB - Murty - Semi Scot - £750k from York - 8 years ago!

LB - Shorey - English - £25k from Leyton Orient

CB - Sonko - French/Senegal - Free from Brentford

CB - Ingamarrson - Iceland - £300k from Wolves

RM - Glen Little - England - Free from Burnley

LM - Bobby Convey - American - £750k from MLS

CM - Harper - England - £300k from Arsenal

CM - Sidwell - England - £300k from Arsenal

CF - Doyle - Irish - £80k from Cork

CF - Kitson - English - £250k from Cambridge

Sum Total of £2.7m - 4 'foreigners' of which only one was signed from abroad.

I am sure that in future we may look further afield, but Coppell will always look to the lower leagues first.

What is Hughes buying policy then?

Just shows how the lower leagues, and 20-23 year old players from the big 4 who were kicked out can be a good hunting ground. So let's turn some more scouts to winkle out some bargains. Not every good young player has a potential £15m price tag like Walcott or Bale.

[DP]

Lathund you are absolutely correct, although I would say your points support the argument that there are less gifted "footballers" making it in the UK as opposed to talented Athletes being moulded into football stars.

I actually think things will only get worse, as we are already seeing exceptional footballers disappearing at an early age due to their lack of physical presence. Managers just won't take a gamble on them.

Might be poor examples (as I'm not sure about their attitude in training) but 2 of our players we have now, Gallagher and Jeffers spring to mind here.

These days I wouldn't be surprised if a premier league scout watching a young Duff or Sheringham would dismiss them as being too lightweight or too slow respectively for the attacking players they need to be.

[Fife Rover]

But isn't the whole fitness thing just a result of higher standards and more intense competition across the board? Management and so on is more scientific and more cutthroat so look for any advantage they can, and physical condition is an obvious one.

The only way of taking that out of the game would be for managers to allow their players to become less fit. Is that going to happen?

Also, if Britian had a much higher technical standard of play how come we have made such little impact on on the international stage 1966 aside?

Joey you still have not understood what I am saying; and to be honest I would not expect you to (as a young person). The few over 60's amongst us will, but that I am afraid is all.

The situation is that right up to 1953 when the Hungarians came to Wembley the England team had been virtually invincible against foreign opposition, and the only serious competition they ever had was against the home nations. Then in 1953 the Hungarians came to Wembley to play England and gave us a right thrashing. You simply cant imagine the sheer shock that match caused in the English footballing world (to say nothing of the delight in Scotland). Up to that time England were the top nation in European football having beaten all the western Europe nations that they played quite comprehensively including Portugal 10-0 away, Holland 8-0, Italy 4-0 in Turin, etc. This was no fluke; at that time the only nations on Earth that could compare to the Western Europe nations were the South American nations. Nothing was known about about the Iron Curtain nations abilities because there was no contact with them for obvious reasons, so the meeting with Hungary at Wembley was a major break through in football diplomacy and was much looked forward to by all fans in Europe.

Came the big day and England's finest were humbled 3-6 by the completely unknown Hungarian side. Hungary played a style of football that was completely unknown in the western world, and this is what was adopted and adapted by the western nations to eventually evolve into the modern game that you all know and love and us oldies hate. At the time it was known colloquially as "push and run" and was effectively the modern sit deep and hit them on the break approach, with hardly any running with the ball but using quick passing and movement. We in England had never seen anything like it before and obviously did not know how to handle it.

As time went on it slowly became absorbed into our game bit by bit until that style had completely replaced the

more skilfull but ponderous approach that had been the game up to that time. the change of styles was evolved over a period of about 10 to 12 years being more or less complete by the late 60's.

So there you have it in a much condensed version. Hope this helps.

Edited December 14, 2006 by Fife Rover