Ah, those were the days. But don't despair, if the yanks can do it, so can we. The yanks? I hear you ask, well of course. If you ask any American who are the world champs at baseball, or at American football, they'll be able to tell you without hesitation.
Simple solution then, all we have to do is devise a sport which isn't played anywhere else in the world, and for a decade or so we can look forward to nominating our own World Champions. We had it cracked with cricket, then we went and encouraged others to play the game; that was unfortunate.
World indoor Bowls (Mens) Started 1970, only one winner outside of the UK since it's inception.
Gives the UK plenty of bragging rights, Out with MOTD, in with BOTD.
Job done!
Is self-bashing a sport, nobody beats the Brits at abusing themselves and especially in Sport.
World Cup Football, never again can we achieve anything either in Europe or the rest of the world because our fishing pond is empty, the Premier League does not have a pool of players England can choose from, you will be hard pushed to find 11 players that are eligible to play for England on a pitch representing the top 10 Premiership clubs any week of the season, 11 players from the top 10 teams and you could fail to find enough, that is very sad.
Now if the England team could be chosen from any player who played in England no matter what their nationality we could have a world beating team for a change.
England: Can Greg 's plans breathe life into the national team?
Standing to address a room of invited guests and the media last September, Greg made it clear that the England team was in need of urgent help.
As the newly-appointed independent chairman of the Football Association, spoke that day about challenging the historic failings of the England team and arresting a long-term decline in fortunes in international football.
The 'England Commission' was launched and, despite some initial issues over the diversity of its members, it set about its work to find answers to how England can once again win a major tournament.
Speaking at the time, , 67, made the root of the problem - and its consequences - very clear.
"In the future it is quite possible we won't have enough players qualified to play for England who are playing regularly at the highest level in this country or elsewhere in the world. As a result, it could well mean England's teams are unable to compete seriously on the world stage," he said.
This summer's performance by England at the World Cup in Brazil has served only to reinforce the view that radical change is needed.
Roy Hodgson's men finished bottom of Group D with only one point from their three group games.
And at the heart of the issue is the belief that England's best youngsters are being left to wither on the vine as clubs habitually seek to bring in imported talent.
It is in this context that the FA is now seeking to reform work permit rules for players from outside the European Union (EU).
It has sent out its first draft of proposals to reduce the number of non-EU players within English football by up to 50%.
A consultation paper has been sent to the Premier League, Football League, Professional Footballers' Association (PFA) and League Managers' Association (LMA) and it is hoped that the new regulations can be introduced next season.
But what impact will any change have on increasing the chances for young English players to cement a place in Premier League and Football League club squads?
Up until the end of last season 122 non-EU players had entered English football since 2009.
Many of those, such as Argentina's Sergio Aguero who signed for Manchester City in 2011, represent the sort of elite player who has helped make the Premier League a global success story.
Been saying regularly for years and only this week in the post above that the problem for the National team is the lack of English players in the top 10 of the Premiership though it does benefit the Premiership a great deal.
But stopping the Non-EU players won't help one iota, clubs will simply buy from EU countries.
We have to decide if we want a great premiership or a great National Team, it appears that having both is difficult, the only way to change it is to return to the kind of rules we had before allowing only a certain number of foreign players on the pitch at any one time.
If that is a good thing or a bad thing I don't know but it is the only answer, either that or getting Managers to release their players for more England training matches, something many won't do because of the risk of injury.
From the outset I will declare my chosen sport is not Football! The whys and wherefores we can save for another thread. Having said that, I can see if not understanding why, it is important to so many people.
We are very good at a number of sports in this country, others we go with the ebb and flow of the available talent. The England Rugby team in 2003 was very good without being great but they didn’t need to be, all they needed to be was better than the rest. The England Cricket team one 3 ashes series on the bounce, good! but were humiliated down under in the winter. My examples of ebbs and flows.
We are good at, snooker, triathlon, rowing, sailing, canoeing, darts, squash to name just a few. Then we get to football.
This is just an observation from an outsider but football is the only sport I can think of where the club system is stronger than the international set up! Or at least in England.
Not sure how this is good for the national side. The vast majority of national players (if not all) come from the premiership. These are privately owned companies or companies listed on the stock exchange. They have a chairman, a board of directors and a management structure designed to do nothing more than make that company as successful as possible. These clubs will purchase assets as they see fit from where ever they are available. This will include the management and the players. When the national side want to pick a player, they basically borrow him from his club, a club that from the board room to the manager does not have to have anybody with any interest in England, only success for that business. So why does a Russian chairman of a French coach give a damn if the England national side is rubbish?
Although I am assured this does not happen, but if I were a coach in the premiership and my job relies on my club doing well, even if I were an English coach if one of my star players was off to play in the world cup I would send him off with a cheery “hope you have a good world cup! Don’t get injured and don’t forget who pays your wages!”
The FA are powerless to stop this as they are, well powerless! The clubs have all the money and where there’s money, there is influence, where there is influence there is power. Mr has as much chance of influencing the England national side as me, none. I am sorry to say that for a lot of supporters, that is just fine! Where I now live the majority of football supporters follow Arsenal. If you ask them which they would prefer, England to win the world cup or Arsenal to win the Champions League, all those I have asked have said Arsenal to win the Champions League. If this attitude is the same at all the top clubs, that means the supporters of the most influential clubs don’t care for the national team.
One last point, although I don’t know this for sure but as for a golden age of English football, yes we won the world cup but is that more of a hiccup than a golden age? I think up until and including 1962, you didn’t have to qualify for the world cup, you were invited to play. We didn’t need to qualify in 1966 as we were hosts. We didn’t have to qualify in 1970 as we were the holders. We failed to qualify in 1974 and 1978 so the first world cup England qualified to play in on merit was 1982. Whilst we were failing to qualify for world cups, weren’t Liverpool, Notts Forest and Aston Villa winning the European cup?
As I say, only an observation looking from outside.
I think you will find the club situation is similar in many sports, club or individual, in Tennis for example there isn't really that much of an international scene it is more about the individual, in Rugby the club/league scene is predominant.
The difference between Rugby and Football is that there are far less players at top club level that would be ineligible to play for England, ie less foreign players, as a result the players get to play against or with fellow England rugby players more often and have a much better understanding of each other when they are called forward to represent their respective Countries ie England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, I believe it is for this reason that we have a better National Team in Rugby than in Football as I have said many times.
There is no incentive to change, we simply have to accept that England will never get into a World Cup Final let alone win one, we have to accept that qualifying is a big achievement and getting through the first stages a great result. Give the team credit for any progression and stop demonising them when they lose or get knocked out, it is our acceptance of the "business of football", the "greed of football", the desire for club glory by fans and fans wanting to see the worlds best players in the English league that has created the situation not the England managers or players, you can't have everything and we have chosen club glory.
The decision to choose club football had nothing to do with the fans. The decision was made by the clubs selling their soul to Sky. Fans may enjoy seeing the worlds best players playing in the Premier League but none of the Premier League's decisions are for the benefit of the fans.
Why are the Bundesliga and La Liga so strong and yet the German and Spanish national sides equally as strong, being the past 2 winners of the World Cup? Despite all the TV monies in those countries, the teams are still made up mainly of German and Spanish players.
In this country, we have allowed our football teams to be bought by foreign owners who have little regard for fans and club traditions and the national side is and will continue to suffer as a result.
errrrr that is exactly what I have been saying for ages, your simply agreeing with me, if perhaps a little naïve, profit dictates the Premier League and English Football in general but profit is made from supporters and fans.
If we didn't buy the merchandise, subscribe to Sky Sports, attend matches then there would be no profit, by doing those things we are condoning the profit makers actions.
If we refused to tolerate the excessive gate prices at some clubs, kept our old shirts and refused to buy the new style or new sponsor shirts, if we didn't watch the game on TV and made it known that we would only do these things if more English players were recruited into the leagues, then things would change, albeit that is an "in an ideal world" action.
So yes it is us that makes the situation the way it is, we pay more and we expect more, we want to see the best players in the world on the pitch and we have to pay the price, in hard cash and at the expense of our National Team.
Clubs not only accept foreign ownership when it brings high finance they go out looking for it, how often do you hear the likes of "Southampton (just an example) are hoping to attract foreign investment, ie foreign ownership.
And why do many of these rich Arabs, Russians or whatever buy English clubs, not for profit, there are much better financial options for your billions with a more profitable and safer return, they have the money and it's nice to own a premiership club, it gets you noticed, it makes you famous and so what if it costs a £billion or two, your not going to miss it and it would only sit in your vast bank account anyway, it's a cool hobby.
Your right, no Premier League decision is made for the benefit of the fans but neither is an Asda or Tesco decision, Lawyers for You don't give a toss that you injured yourself at work, they only care how much that injury will earn them, to listen to their adverts you might be forgiven for thinking they are a charity, as with most other businesses, they don't discount the beans to make you happy they discount them to get you into their shops. We have all known for a long time that football is just another business now.
Since when did Tesco and Asda have fans? Companies such as Tesco are ultimately answerable to their shareholders and if shareholders don't like the companies' decision they can hurt them big time. See the recent plunge in the Tesco share price!
The German and Spanish leagues demonstrate that it is possible to have both strong domestic leagues and strong national sides. They also respect their fans a damn site more than the Premier League clubs. It is possible to watch Barcelona for less than some Conference League teams!
Please don't call me naive. I'm not agreeing with you at all. Some profit may be made from the fans but the bulk of clubs income is derived from the TV receipts. If that wasn't the case, there would be no need for parachute payments to relegated clubs.
fact is they paid the money in... they OWN the club...and so they can actually do what they want....change the name !!!...change the colour of their strip !!! Whatever they bloody well want.
I do like the idea being floated at the moment that 25% of shares must be awarded to fans...and that they must have a seat on the directors board. At 25% they will not actually be able to change anything as such, but at least their voice will be heard, and maybe they can influence. Also they can report back to supporters trust and so at least everyone knows what is actually going on at board level.
Not a solution, but would at least be a step in the right direction.
The Newcastle fans continue to watch their club because the vast majority are season ticket holders and have paid their money up front. If they didn't turn up for matches, it would have very little financial impact on the club.
Are followers on Twitter and friends on Facebook fans in the same sense that football fans are?
indeed you did and it appeared to be a rhetorical question, hence my response.
I only have one theory why football is so popular, not sure it will make any sense so feel free to correct me as you see fit.
Other than running and jumping (which can get a bit boring) I am struggling to think of a simpler game! To say simple is not to detract from football in any way but all you need is 2 people, something that resembles a ball and somewhere to kick it and you are playing football. A couple of kids can’t go out and play formula 1 or ice hockey. Okay 2 extreme examples but football is the simplest team sport to start playing. Cricket you need bat, ball, something to make wickets with. Rugby you can play with a round ball but not on tarmac or concrete, even touch rugby needs to have a structure or it becomes the big kid running with the ball (not much fun). Tennis, a ball that will bounce, rackets and a net. So what game did we all play when we were kids? FOOTBALL!!
So no matter how good we were, thought we were or bad we were, it is our game. Yes I am sure the first time you enter a ground (impressive in itself) and see thousands of people it confirms it for you but you are hooked from the minute you knew you could kick a ball. So you know what it’s like to play football and you know what it’s like in a ground where thousands of people go, people like you, people who know the same as you, people that although you don’t know personally, you have a kinship with. A fellow spectator will utter “REFEREE” and you may turn to him and finish his sentence, arm raised “THAT WAS NEVER A YELLOW CARD” you don’t know that person but you know what he was thinking and how dare this outsider (the poor referee) blight your team and one if it’s champions so unfairly with a yellow card. You are united as one in your defence of what is quite obviously a miss carriage of justice.
Whether your team is Chelsea or Chester, because it is your game (you used to play after all) you see the deficiencies, you see the potential, you know when a player isn’t trying or he is being played out of place. You know how to stop the oppositions star. You know who you need to strengthen the defence. Why? Because it’s your game! You read the papers the day after the game to see how each player has been rated, you probably disagree with a lot of the ratings. You check the league position “if we win our game in hand and the 2 teams above only draw at the weekend we will be 4th!”
Who’d a thought it, some women like football too! Well yes, at school a lot of the girls used to join in with our games of football, grounds are a lot more female friendly now (the bogs at Valley Parade used to be disgusting, thank god I could go standing up!) but I still laugh at comments like “well what does she know? She’s a woman! After Radio 5 have dared send a female to report on a game and not been complimentary about the team they support.
So in a nutshell, it seems to me to be something that starts at a young age, very young. You play football, you see professionals (at first on the telly) and watch and learn. You go to the ground (your team) and form a bond, not with the players as they are transient but with the club, you only want what’s best for your club and so what if they had a bad season last season, there is always the next season or maybe the next game or the next half or the next corner and everything will be okay again. Hope strings eternal for most football supporters.
I get all that! I really do. I said in an earlier post that football is not my game of choice, it’s not that I don’t like football, I can’t think of any competitive sport I don’t like, what I really detest is the cynical manipulation of the emotions true football supporters have! The cash cow approach that is endemic in the top flight. “If you are a true supporter you have to have a replica shirt, that’s £50 please!” Look, new season, new shirt and this year it’s £55 please! An away shirt? Yes of course we have they, another £55 please.
Get every top game on Sky, except for those on BT. So to paraphrase transporters,” I choose something else”, I choose to help at the local cricket club with a bit of coaching and will turn out for them when they are a man short, I watch and shout at amateur club rugby, I watch the football teams on the local pitches when I walk the dog on a Sunday morning.
I don’t believe money in sport is a bad thing, I don’t think big money in sport is a bad thing but I don’t think the top clubs with the money either inherited through rich owners or old money from good management of finances have any inkling that they might have a responsibility for the good of the game in general. Players used to come through from smaller (feeder) clubs or were signed as youths. I know this still happens but not nearly to the same degree. Why? Because this takes time, like nurturing a seedling, looking after it and then after a few years, you MIGHT get apples. So much easier to by apples someone else has already grown, most likely abroad!
Clubs I can think of who have lost out due to the modern era, Tranmere, (Merseyside’s poor relation) used to play on a Friday night. Ferries were packed from Liverpool with people who would support Liverpool or Everton on a Saturday but would enjoy watching a game on a Friday. Now Tranmere are told when they can play and who can afford 2 or 3 games in a week? Crewe had links with the big boys in Manchester, Danny O’grady was trusted to look after young “stars” of the future. Today’s young stars of the future are playing in France or Bosnia or Peru.
Think I have said enough, just
So true ......
2 people, a tin can lying in the street and it is game on.
50 guys at Camp Bastion, a sandy desert floor and a ball made from any material to hand and it is game on.
100 kids in the ghetto townships around Johannesburg, a ball of any kind and it is game on.
A game that was traditionally played by hundreds in each team by whole villages, it is hardly surprising how popular the game is and actually requires no skill whatsoever to take part.
Anyone who has ever been to a match and stood amongst 50-60 thousand cheering fans understands the power of the atmosphere.
