Quote:
Originally Posted by Kingofthedead4
A lot of the reason we do not produce the more technical player is because the way our youngsters are brought up. In Italy, Spain and most other countries when a parent drops there child off at football training they are then banned from watching the game. In England we have parents shouting at the kids saying 'run you lazy so an so', 'do him' and so forth where everything is orientated to fitness and winning the game. Kids don't need to be told to run, they need to be told to hold the ball, look for the open man, not to be afraid at trying something in the game without being worried about getting abuse from there team mates and adults watching the game.
|
Yes, this certainly seems to be part of the problem. There is an additional factor that I find fascinating however. That is of the preference for fast, strong players over skilled ones - it's also a possible reason why, for the most part, creative play makers send to be relatively short (Wilshere, Scholes, Xavi, Modric).
The theory goes like this: When children are young the differences in strength, speed and height make bigger differences. Especially in football where it takes many years to be adept with the ball, the tall strong and fast players seem to be better. In youth football there is a far greater importance attached to the act of winning and the competition than abroad, this is highlighted in the examples of you gave of parents living veraciously through their childrens' footballing achievements.
All this means that when it comes to grassroots football the players who are picked to be coached, to play in teams, are the ones who are strong, tall, and/or fast. They are picked because they will win. There is no point perfecting the perfect pass if you can run knock it past a rival and run onto the ball, there is no point being skilled in possession when you can muscle players off the ball and so on. Importantly, their ability to play without much in the way of technical skill means that this isn't practised as much and isn't used in competitive matches. This creates a dangerous loop whereby these players get more gametime, more practise, and more coaching time. They become the next generation of England U16 and U21 players, and this reinforces the perception that these players are the better ones to pick and so the cycle continues.
This explains why England (and France btw, but they noticed this problem a few years ago and took action to remedy it) do so well at the under 16, and under 21 level but never seem to do well at the top level. Their physical advantage makes a difference as they bulldoze their way through the smaller, technical better teams like Spain with sheer pace and strength when they are young. However as those teams grow up and the physical advantage becomes less important it fast becomes obvious that those teams can play football and we can't!.
In summary: Our culture prioritises winning too much with encourages the selection and training of players who win while their young but whose advantages then become less important when they become adults. Whereas South American and some European cultures have a love of technique and creativity which is established in players at the youngest age.