Football 2015/16

[ProfessorDavey]

I would say the biggest under-achievers currently are Belgium which undermines your hypothesis.

Belgium only has a population of 11 million - what on earth does 'par' look like in your view for them.

They are the 13th largest country in Europe by population, they reached the last 8 - sounds like above par to me. The point isn't that they are perennial underachievers - nope I think given their population they've done pretty well over the years. However there were very high expectations in this specific tournament as they have their own golden generation - they blew it, but that is a one off, it doesn't equate to the decades long underachievement of England from 1970-present (just 2 semi-finals) nor Spain from 1966-2006 (one final in 1984). That really is underachievement given both their populations and the strength of their national leagues.

So if England (and previously Spain) are underachievers who are the flip-side perennial over-achievers taking account of their population. Well pretty clearly Holland (I know they failed to make the finals this time, but I'm talking longer range) and Portugal.

[jakswan]

You are failing to address an issue, England are not underachievers, you should expect them to be in the top 16 in the world and in 4 of the last 5 world cups that is where they have finished.

England's lack of success is as much down to expectations and the tendency to jump to a conclusion lurching from 'too many foreigners in England' ala Greg Dyke, or your new hypothesis.

[ProfessorDavey]

You are failing to address an issue, England are not underachievers, you should expect them to be in the top 16 in the world and in 4 of the last 5 world cups that is where they have finished.

I think you are using a circular argument - in other words to base where you think they should finish on the basis of where they do finish.

So who are the 15 teams who should be above them in the world.

If you look at this objectively on the basis of:

1. Population - i.e. the pool of available talent.
2. Where the country has a heritage of playing football as their main sport (so this would downgrade the USA and China as examples where football is a minority sport)
3. Whether the country has sufficient fundamental infrastructure (including its leagues) to support the development of talent.

On that basis England sits in a European group with Germany, France, Italy and Spain and outside of Europe only really Brazil and Argentina join them, possibly Mexico too (another underachiever).

So I'd say 'par' is last 8 in world cup, top 5 in europe - and that means that for every failure to qualify or knock in group stage or last 16 we should be seeing a balancing final appearance or even tournament victory. On that basis we are perennial underachievers.

And just compare how poor England's record is with any of their European rivals of equivalent population size and footballing infrastructure, in other words Germany, France, Italy and Spain. We are clearly the worst performing of that group, and there is no fundamental reason why - we are, therefore, underachieving.

[jakswan]

I think you are using a circular argument - in other words to base where you think they should finish on the basis of where they do finish.

So who are the 15 teams who should be above them in the world.

If you look at this objectively on the basis of:

1. Population - i.e. the pool of available talent.
2. Where the country has a heritage of playing football as their main sport (so this would downgrade the USA and China as examples where football is a minority sport)
3. Whether the country has sufficient fundamental infrastructure (including its leagues) to support the development of talent.

On that basis England sits in a European group with Germany, France, Italy and Spain and outside of Europe only really Brazil and Argentina join them, possibly Mexico too (another underachiever).

So I'd say 'par' is last 8 in world cup, top 5 in europe - and that means that for every failure to qualify or knock in group stage or last 16 we should be seeing a balancing final appearance or even tournament victory. On that basis we are perennial underachievers.

And just compare how poor England's record is with any of their European rivals of equivalent population size and footballing infrastructure, in other words Germany, France, Italy and Spain. We are clearly the worst performing of that group, and there is no fundamental reason why - we are, therefore, underachieving.

We disagree, you are not factoring in a dilution of talent due to rugby and cricket, and also the fact that England is smaller than France, Italy and much smaller than Germany.

Just imagine if there was British team, add Gareth Bale to England, in the past Ryan Giiggs, or in the 60's Best, 70s Scottish players then you should expect England to be Top 8.

[ProfessorDavey]

We disagree, you are not factoring in a dilution of talent due to rugby and cricket

Every country has other sports which compete for prominence and talent with football. So why are you just singling out England and rugby and cricket. So for example cycling is absolutely huge in France and of course they also play rugby to a similar extent as England. Football in Germany competes with other team sports such as basketball and handball. So they also have a 'dilution of talent' too.

, and also the fact that England is smaller than France, Italy and much smaller than Germany.

Sure England (54 million) is markedly smaller than Germany (80 million) but it is hardly significantly smaller than France (64 million) or Italy (59 million) and is certainly bigger than Spain (46 million). So that hardly accounts for the fact the England's record is woeful compared to Italy, France and Spain over the past 30 years or so.

Just imagine if there was British team, add Gareth Bale to England, in the past Ryan Giiggs, or in the 60's Best, 70s Scottish players then you should expect England to be Top 8.

Possibly, but we will never know.

[jakswan]

Every country has other sports which compete for prominence and talent with football. So why are you just singling out England and rugby and cricket. So for example cycling is absolutely huge in France and of course they also play rugby to a similar extent as England. Football in Germany competes with other team sports such as basketball and handball. So they also have a 'dilution of talent' too.

England would rank top 5 in the world rugby, top 3 in cricket. Not sure on cycling but UK ranks highly I would think?

Sure England (54 million) is markedly smaller than Germany (80 million) but it is hardly significantly smaller than France (64 million) or Italy (59 million) and is certainly bigger than Spain (46 million). So that hardly accounts for the fact the England's record is woeful compared to Italy, France and Spain over the past 30 years or so.

Woeful, top 16 in 4 of the last 5 world cups.

Possibly, but we will never know.

Your expectations would not change with Bale in the current England team?

[jeremyp]

You are failing to address an issue, England are not underachievers, you should expect them to be in the top 16 in the world and in 4 of the last 5 world cups that is where they have finished.

They lost to Iceland for crying out loud. 8% of Icelanders had tickets for the Euro 2016 championships. You could accommodate their entire population in the top five English football stadiums.

[ProfessorDavey]

They lost to Iceland for crying out loud. 8% of Icelanders had tickets for the Euro 2016 championships. You could accommodate their entire population in the top five English football stadiums.

I know - Jakswan really is talking rubbish in claiming that somehow England aren't perennial underachievers.

Now lets put aside the Iceland debacle - sure any team can have a terrible off day, but England have had an off-20 years (or more).

So without doubt England's benchmarking should be other European countries with broadly equivalent eligible populations, where football is undoubtedly the number one support and where there is sufficient infrastructure (including high quality club structures) not to restrict the development of a high quality national side.

And those benchmark teams are clearly Germany, France, Italy and Spain.

So taking the last 5 World Cups and last 5 European Championships the difference in records is stark:

Spain:
Wins at the knockout stages - 11
Final appearances - 3
Semi-final appearances - 3
Tournament victories - 3

France:
Wins at the knockout stages - 14
Final appearances - 4
Semi-final appearances - 4
Tournament victories - 2

Germany:
Wins at the knockout stages - 17
Final appearances - 3
Semi-final appearances - 7
Tournament victories - 1

Italy:
Wins at the knockout stages - 10
Final appearances - 3
Semi-final appearances - 3
Tournament victories - 1

And these victories at the knockout stages (the business end of any tournament) include wins over the world's big sides - i.e. each other and also Brazil/Argentina.

England:
Wins at the knockout stages - 2
Final appearances - 0
Semi-final appearances - 0
Tournament victories - 0

That's right - in the last 10 major tournaments England have won only 2 matches at the knock stages, they've never even got to a semi final, let alone a final. And those 2 knockout stage victories were over those worldbeating countries Denmark and Ecuador. In a tournament knockout stage ever time they've come up against one of the big sides they have lost.

England should have a record comparable to Spain, France, Italy or Germany on the basis of their population and infrastructure - but they aren't close. They are perennial underachievers.

[Maeght]

Yep - and they do it in such an embarassing way too!

[ProfessorDavey]

Yep - and they do it in such an embarassing way too!

Well every team has its embarrassing moments, even the top ones - remember the world champions France crashing out of the 2002 world cup having lost to Senegal in their opening match and finishing bottom of the group.

Or Italy in 2014 failing to get out of the group stage as Costa Rica came top.

So every one of the top teams (except Germany) have bad moment, but unlike England they also have good tournaments, they win knockout games, they beat decent sides, they get to the semi-finals and the finals of tournaments, and they win tournaments.

In 10 tournaments England's highlight are first knockout stage wins against Denmark and Ecuador FFS.

[ad_orientem]

England are underachieving. That's undeniable.  I'm just unconvinced that it's due to too few of our top players playing abroad. As I said, most play European style football in the Champions and Europa Leagues, have European managers etc. I think the FA itself is the problem, proven by dinosaurs such as Allardyce and Bruce reportedly being considered for the England manager job.

[ProfessorDavey]

England are underachieving. That's undeniable.  I'm just unconvinced that it's due to too few of our top players playing abroad. As I said, most play European style football in the Champions and Europa Leagues, have European managers etc. I think the FA itself is the problem, proven by dinosaurs such as Allardyce and Bruce reportedly being considered for the England manager job.

Well we've tried virtually everything else in hope of getting better - English managers, foreign managers, academy systems, etc etc etc. None have worked.

Surely it is worth a try. Of course I might be wrong, but England are a massive outlier in terms of their achievement over the past 20 years compared to the benchmark (Spain, France, Italy, Germany) and the one obvious difference is that all the others have been able to call on players with experience in all the major leagues (including our own) we have, exept in a couple of cases towards the end of their careers had only been able to draw on players with the same very narrow experience in a single league, which many people suggest is played in a different manner to many of the others - less technical, more hectic.

[ad_orientem]

Of course English league football is played differently to European league football. English league football is played at a hundred miles an hour. It's physical (as it should be), as soon as you have the ball you're being physically pressed etc. European league football is football for tarts.

[ekim]

The year of the underdogs continues ......... Celtic lost 1-0 to Gibraltar part-timers Lincoln Red Imps in their Champions League second qualifying round first leg.  I believe the goal was scored by a policeman.

[jeremyp]

That's right - in the last 10 major tournaments England have won only 2 matches at the knock stages, they've never even got to a semi final, let alone a final. And those 2 knockout stage victories were over those

In the build up to the Iceland match, ITV said that England had played 16 knockout stage matches (I think since 1966) and won only six of them. Well, now it's 6/17. That's a shocking statistic for a country with a footballing base like England.

[jakswan]

They lost to Iceland for crying out loud. 8% of Icelanders had tickets for the Euro 2016 championships. You could accommodate their entire population in the top five English football stadiums.

Iceland drew with Portugal, the winners, they beat Holland twice to get to the finals, for crying out loud.

[jakswan]

I know - Jakswan really is talking rubbish in claiming that somehow England aren't perennial underachievers.

Now lets put aside the Iceland debacle - sure any team can have a terrible off day, but England have had an off-20 years (or more).

So without doubt England's benchmarking should be other European countries with broadly equivalent eligible populations, where football is undoubtedly the number one support and where there is sufficient infrastructure (including high quality club structures) not to restrict the development of a high quality national side.

On that we disagree, Rugby, Athletics, Cricket all dilute the pool of talent available.

Why are you are not living up to expectations is that your expectations are wrong. Had Wales lost to Belgium do you think anyone would have been going potty over the state of Welsh football.

What about Russia, Wales made them look like a schoolboy side.

[jeremyp]

Iceland drew with Portugal, the winners, they beat Holland twice to get to the finals, for crying out loud.

So other countries are under achievers too. Great.

But Prof D's statistics give the lie to your point.

[ProfessorDavey]

On that we disagree, Rugby, Athletics, Cricket all dilute the pool of talent available.

Every country has other sports that 'dilute the talent pool' - where that really does make a difference is in countries where football is not a traditionally predominant sport - for example the USA. It doesn't make a difference when you compare England (which football as undoubtedly the predominant sport, but other minor sports as you suggest also played) and Italy, France, Germany and Spain, in every case also having football as undoubtedly the predominant sport, but other including minor sports. Sure these minor sports might be different to those in the UK, but they are no more, nor less of a diluting factor.

Why are you are not living up to expectations is that your expectations are wrong. Had Wales lost to Belgium do you think anyone would have been going potty over the state of Welsh football.

No because Wales as a country of a couple of million people was already massively over-achieving - their bench-mark will be other countries of similar population. England has a population of 54 million (probably more eligible players) it is benchmarked against similar sized countries where football is the predominate sport and have similar infrastructures for the game - namely Germany, France, Italy and Spain - and in that company England are perennial underachievers - not just in this tournament but for the post few decades.

What about Russia, Wales made them look like a schoolboy side.

Russia have a pretty poor side at the moment and although they have a huge population football has never really predominated in the way it does in England and some other countries - Russia have historically focussed resource and infrastructure on sports with Olympic profile, which football doesn't have.

Also worth noting, as further evidence for my thesis, that the Russian squad at Euro 2016 was almost as bad as the English squad in lacking experience outside of their home country - they had only one player currently playing outside of Russia and also just one other with any experience outside of Russia.

[ProfessorDavey]

On that we disagree, Rugby, Athletics, Cricket all dilute the pool of talent available.

You really are talking non-sense.

Lets compare with France.

The number of Rugby clubs in France and England is virtually identical (about 2000). Do you really think there are less people involved in athletics in France than England. Sure the French don't play cricket to any extent but they have a much stronger presence in other sports, for example tennis, basketball, cycling than in England. Plus also there is a huge amount of activity in the various winter sports which really don't feature at all in England.

But perhaps the most telling statistic is the number of registered football players - in France 1.9 million, in England it is over 2 million. So no evidence there that England has a smaller talent pool to pick on.

Yet in the past 10 tournaments France have won 2 tournaments and been beaten finalists on 2 further occasions, and have won 14 games at the knock-out stages. England haven't even made a semi-final and their high points are their only 2 knock out stage wins against Denmark and Ecuador.

So don't try to carry on with this view that England aren't under-achieving - the factually evidence clearly demonstrates that they are.

[ad_orientem]

Really can't believe the FA are considering Fat Sam for the England job. They must be on drugs. Turnips and Christmas trees come to mind followed by a number of years in the wilderness. Hail turnip head mark II!

[jakswan]

Every country has other sports that 'dilute the talent pool' .....

Russia have a pretty poor side at the moment and although they have a huge population football has never really predominated in the way it does in England and some other countries - Russia have historically focussed resource and infrastructure on sports with Olympic profile, which football doesn't have.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/olympics/2012/medals/countries

We will have to agree to disagree, England will keep trying to solve a "problem" which doesn't really exist lurching from one "solution" to the next.

[Hope]

Has the talent pool been diluted or has it been restricted.  There was a time when England had a crop of two-, even three-speciality internationals - often football and cricket.

Would it be fairer to suggest that football (and other sports) have become so exclusive that there is no longer the opportunity for multi-talented sportsfolk to practise that multi-talentedness?

[ProfessorDavey]

Has the talent pool been diluted or has it been restricted.  There was a time when England had a crop of two-, even three-speciality internationals - often football and cricket.

Would it be fairer to suggest that football (and other sports) have become so exclusive that there is no longer the opportunity for multi-talented sportsfolk to practise that multi-talentedness?

I think that's right - the days where a player would play international football and then international cricket are long gone.

But that wasn't the point - Jakswan is bizarrely suggesting that the pool of available players in England is diluted (or restricted) in England due to the availability of other competing sports, when it isn't in France or Germany or Spain or Italy. As if no-one in those countries ever plays any sport except for football. That is, of course, non-sense. While the competing popular sports may be different to England - so for example very few people in France play cricket, but very few people in England play Ice Hockey, all these countries have other sports, relatively minor in their popularity and participation that effect the available pool of talent for the clearly predominant sport in all those countries, which is football.

[jakswan]

Jakswan is bizarrely suggesting that the pool of available players in England is diluted (or restricted) in England due to the availability of other competing sports, when it isn't in France or Germany or Spain or Italy. As if no-one in those countries ever plays any sport except for football. That is, of course, non-sense. While the competing popular sports may be different to England - so for example very few people in France play cricket, but very few people in England play Ice Hockey, all these countries have other sports, relatively minor in their popularity and participation that effect the available pool of talent for the clearly predominant sport in all those countries, which is football.

There is nothing bizarre about it, we both agree the the US doesn't produce talent relative to their population because other sports are played, you argue that Russia doesn't live up to expectations because they compete more in the Olympics. My argument is that England plays other sports not the same degree as the USA but more than Germany, France, Spain.