ABE - Where's the HATE?

[Stibs]

I always thought the hatred was born out of a crippling inferiority complex. Was I wrong?

 

[Proper Tidy]

I'm just following your arguments from the other day I'm not sure why you're getting so angry about all this by the way.



English players are not particularly predisposed, for whatever reason, to playing abroad.

Come on, you know what you've written here is bollocks. Look, I live in Spain, I can tell you the high regard they hold English players and the English national team over here. With Mourinho coming to Madrid, Marca is full of daily stories about their chances of signing English players (Gerrard, Lampard, Cole). If England players don't play abroad, it's because they don't want to.



Trouble is, I've got fuck all idea what you mean by "underachievement" here.



And? Spain have got a great team right now. But prior to winning the last European Championship, their international record was worse than ours. Any team can develop a good crop of players once in a while, just like the French did in '98 (a group of players they've lived off until this tournament). Their international record is comparable to ours.



Why are you getting so angry? You're such a contradictory little ball of emotions that I don't know what I'm supposed to arguing about. On the one hand, I'm supposed to have an arrogant sense of entitlement, but if I say that I'm relatively satisfied with getting to the latter stages of tournaments and think that's ok for a nation like ours, I'm deluded?

Brazil are the most successful team in the history of world football. So apparently infrastructure and economic position has sod all to do with whatever makes a country a footballing super power. England are just one among some hundred and fifty nations that play football, and we're relatively good at it. Not the best in the world, but relatively good at it?

No, before Spain won the last euros they had won one major comp - the same as England. So not an "international record that was worse than England" at all.

English players "are not predisposed to playing abroad"? Bollocks. Football is a market driven economy, like everything else. If there was sufficient demand for English players overseas then there would be numerous English players overseas. Maybe not the top-end elite players such as Gerrard, Lampard and Cole - because wages are high in England - but those players playing for smaller PL clubs or in the Championship would be in demand amongst top flight European sides. They are not, and they are not because England - and the UK generally - is deficient with regard to player development; it is an inferiour product.

Underachievement means the same as it always has. A high population, a highly competitive top flight, the single most comprehensive professional pyramid in world football, favourable economic conditions and a culture in which football is the primary sport should equal a hell of a lot more than one world cup a half century ago won on home turf. Perhaps you could explain why this isn't in fact a massive failure?

That Brasil have the strongest pedigree clearly doesn't mean economic factors and infrastructure is not important does it - it simply means that Brasil's methods of player development are sophisticated and productive enough to outweigh the negative consequences of their poor infrastructure, rampant poverty and economic inequality. This proves my argument about player development, not disproves it. You tit.

 

[stupid dogbot]

All these essays, and all it says is "another world cup with no male voice choir ".

 

[Lo Siento.]

No, before Spain won the last euros they had won one major comp - the same as England. So not an "international record that was worse than England" at all.

Except the European Championship is clearly easier to win than the World Cup. As evidenced by the abject failure of most of the teams who've won the former to win the latter.

English players "are not predisposed to playing abroad"? Bollocks. Football is a market driven economy, like everything else. If there was sufficient demand for English players overseas then there would be numerous English players overseas. Maybe not the top-end elite players such as Gerrard, Lampard and Cole - because wages are high in England - but those players playing for smaller PL clubs or in the Championship would be in demand amongst top flight European sides. They are not, and they are not because England - and the UK generally - is deficient with regard to player development; it is an inferiour product.

Why would they be in demand in other countries when Championship sides pay about twice the wages of low-ranking teams in other country's top flights. Didier Zakora counts as a big name signing for the fourth biggest club in Spain, and he wouldn't start for Spurs ahead of Jermaine Jenas or Tom Huddlestone ffs.

Underachievement means the same as it always has. A high population, a highly competitive top flight, the single most comprehensive professional pyramid in world football, favourable economic conditions and a culture in which football is the primary sport should equal a hell of a lot more than one world cup a half century ago won on home turf. Perhaps you could explain why this isn't in fact a massive failure?

Because the world cup has one winner, happens once every four years and is hard to win. Why should we expect to win it?

That Brasil have the strongest pedigree clearly doesn't mean economic factors and infrastructure is not important does it - it simply means that Brasil's methods of player development are sophisticated and productive enough to outweigh the negative consequences of their poor infrastructure, rampant poverty and economic inequality. This proves my argument about player development, not disproves it. You tit.

You've sod all idea what you're talking about, basically. Feel free to tell me, without googling, what these sophisticated Brazilian training methods are, beyond having a big population, that obsessively plays football, and a culture that encourages a certain way of playing.

You cited a load of factors that apparently gave England an advantage over the rest of the world. Which, don't apply in the case of the most successful country in the history of world football. How exactly does that prove your argument? You tit.

 

[Proper Tidy]

Except the European Championship is clearly easier to win than the World Cup. As evidenced by the abject failure of most of the teams who've won the former to win the latter.



Why would they be in demand in other countries when Championship sides pay about twice the wages of low-ranking teams in other country's top flights. Didier Zakora counts as a big name signing for the fourth biggest club in Spain, and he wouldn't start for Spurs ahead of Jermaine Jenas or Tom Huddlestone ffs.



Because the world cup has one winner, happens once every four years and is hard to win. Why should we expect to win it?

What point are you trying to make here? That English players generally are equal to players from other football cultures in terms of technical ability? Really?

You've sod all idea what you're talking about, basically. Feel free to tell me, without googling, what these sophisticated Brazilian training methods are, beyond having a big population, that obsessively plays football, and a culture that encourages a certain way of playing.

"A culture that encourages a certain way of playing". Bravo - is that the sound of a penny dropping?

England also has "a big population, that obsessively plays football, and a culture that encourages a certain way of playing" - unfortunately, the certain way of playing does not encourage technical play or development. Brasilian - and latin American generally - football culture still emphasises* dribbling and close ball skills, something British football culture has consistently failed to put anywhere near enough emphasis on. You want to deny this and sneer that I don't know what I'm talking about then knock yourself out but it isn't going to fool anybody with even a passing interest in football.

Btw, you might want to google futsal yourself matey. Now, I'm sure you are a massive expert - I bet you've won loads of titles on football manager and everything - but being a patronising cunt is pretty, err, cuntish.

*alas not to the same degree as in the past

You cited a load of factors that apparently gave England an advantage over the rest of the world. Which, don't apply in the case of the most successful country in the history of world football. How exactly does that prove your argument? You tit.

So are you suggesting that the following have no influence on the success or otherwise of national teams?

• Pop above 50 million
• Relative wealth
• High standard of infrastructure
• Strong professional league system
• Strong top flight

That Brasil lacks either a decent infrastructure - the stadiums are shite and the training facilities even worse - and is generally very poor, with a weakened (and often chaotic & corrupt) domestic game clearly is a hindrance, as it would be anywhere. That Brasil produces so much talent suggests that the footballing culture in Brasil is strong enough in terms of developing talent that even major obstacles like lack of quality infrastructure and widespread poverty can be overcome. Clearly, England possessing both excellent infrastructure and relative wealth should be an asset; yet England underachieves. It doesn't take a genius to work out that this is probably indicative of the culture we have on this island.

So, mastermind, it proves my point - and pay attention now - that a culture more conducive to promoting technique and close ball skills over 'grit and determination' and hit and hope would produce more elite players.

This is fucking abc stuff, but you keep burying your head in the sand if you prefer.

 

[Proper Tidy]

All these essays, and all it says is "another world cup with no male voice choir ".

That isn't my point at all you knob. Fwiw, I have always tended to follow Argentina from since I was a kid, probably more than I have Wales, and it is hardly a revelation that the way we play football in the UK is pretty backwards.

What is fucking me off on these threads is that any criticism of England is automatically written off as bitterness or jealousy. Tbf, I shouldn't let myself get wound up because arrogance is what English fans do best.

 

[stupid dogbot]

That isn't my point at all you knob

Angry little fuckwit, aren'tcha?

 

[Lo Siento.]

What point are you trying to make here? That English players generally are equal to players from other football cultures in terms of technical ability? Really?

Yup. And that they're regarded as so outside of our country as well. Before the tournament big teams and players have been lining up to tell the papers they think England are a real threat. Why?

"A culture that encourages a certain way of playing". Bravo - is that the sound of a penny dropping?

England also has "a big population, that obsessively plays football, and a culture that encourages a certain way of playing" - unfortunately, the certain way of playing does not encourage technical play or development. Brasilian - and latin American generally - football culture still emphasises* dribbling and close ball skills, something British football culture has consistently failed to put anywhere near enough emphasis on. You want to deny this and sneer that I don't know what I'm talking about then knock yourself out but it isn't going to fool anybody with even a passing interest in football.

Btw, you might want to google futsal yourself matey. Now, I'm sure you are a massive expert - I bet you've won loads of titles on football manager and everything - but being a patronising cunt is pretty, err, cuntish.

*alas not to the same degree as in the past

Which of us started being a patronising cunt on this thread, eh? You've been throwing around insults like a good ole internet warrior from the outset. I've been trying to follow your utterly contradictory argument.

All I'm asking is that you stop talking in generalities about how awesome Brazil is, and actually stump up some examples of what it is that Brazil does that makes them so great.

So are you suggesting that the following have no influence on the success or otherwise of national teams?

• Pop above 50 million
• Relative wealth
• High standard of infrastructure
• Strong professional league system
• Strong top flight

That Brasil lacks either a decent infrastructure - the stadiums are shite and the training facilities even worse - and is generally very poor, with a weakened (and often chaotic & corrupt) domestic game clearly is a hindrance, as it would be anywhere. That Brasil produces so much talent suggests that the footballing culture in Brasil is strong enough in terms of developing talent that even major obstacles like lack of quality infrastructure and widespread poverty can be overcome. Clearly, England possessing both excellent infrastructure and relative wealth should be an asset; yet England underachieves. It doesn't take a genius to work out that this is probably indicative of the culture we have on this island.

I dunno. Maybe you could praise Brazil for having a great footballing culture and admire them? It doesn't mean that England have underachieved, it means that Brazil have an exceptional footballing tradition.

So, mastermind, it proves my point - and pay attention now - that a culture more conducive to promoting technique and close ball skills over 'grit and determination' and hit and hope would produce more elite players.

This is fucking abc stuff, but you keep burying your head in the sand if you prefer.

Obviously those multi-million pound acadamies run by the biggest footballing institutions on the planet haven't cottoned on to this magnificent insight yet! What a genius you are.

 

[Lo Siento.]

What is fucking me off on these threads is that any criticism of England is automatically written off as bitterness or jealousy. Tbf, I shouldn't let myself get wound up because arrogance is what English fans do best.

You've been throwing tantrums at me for saying England should have reasonable expectations ffs. I've not mentioned bitterness or jealousy or even Wales.

Just to get this straight. My point of view; that England are a decentish footballing nation, who've done ok to reach the latter stages of tournaments and shouldn't think they have a divine right to succeed is arrogant?

 

[Proper Tidy]

Yup. And that they're regarded as so outside of our country as well. Before the tournament big teams and players have been lining up to tell the papers they think England are a real threat. Why?

England are a threat. The point - and I have made it countless times - is that they are nowhere near the threat they should be.

Which of us started being a patronising cunt on this thread, eh? You've been throwing around insults like a good ole internet warrior from the outset. I've been trying to follow your utterly contradictory argument.

You. If somebody doesn't agree with you, they automatically know fuck all about football. Twat.

All I'm asking is that you stop talking in generalities about how awesome Brazil is, and actually stump up some examples of what it is that Brazil does that makes them so great.

What, like the examples I've already given? You're clutching at straws. Anyway, you are the one who brought Brasil into it - Argentina consistently play a more aesthetic brand of football imo, I am not a Brasil groupie.

I dunno. Maybe you could praise Brazil for having a great footballing culture and admire them? It doesn't mean that England have underachieved, it means that Brazil have an exceptional footballing tradition.

You are right that Brasil should be admired for having an exceptional footballing tradition. However, one world cup and nothing else of note from a country with so much in its favour is clearly underachievement. Perhaps, for once, you could state your case for why this isn't so?

Obviously those multi-million pound acadamies run by the biggest footballing institutions on the planet haven't cottoned on to this magnificent insight yet! What a genius you are.

You haven't been following what I have been posting at all have you? I have already pointed out that at elite level British football has caught up with their European and S American counterparts. However, at grassroots level the UK is still stuck in the dar ages, which explains why there is such a gap between the top elite English players - who have benefitted from being at elite clubs from seven onwards - and the standard of English (and Welsh, Scottish and Irish) players generally. This is the problem with England - always trying to transform football culture from the top down when it needs to be done from beneath, from grassroots amateur youth coaching upwards.

But hey, why let what I am actually writing get in the way of your straw men arguments.

Me thinks it is you that knows sweet jack shit about football. Oh, but you like in Madrid! Therefore you are an expert! Cock off.

 

[Proper Tidy]

You've been throwing tantrums at me for saying England should have reasonable expectations ffs. I've not mentioned bitterness or jealousy or even Wales.

Yeah - wasn't aimed at you sherlock, hence why I quoted somebody else's post. Moob.

 

[Proper Tidy]

Angry little fuckwit, aren'tcha?

You have a witty repertoire you know.

 

[discokermit]

You've been throwing tantrums at me for saying England should have reasonable expectations ffs. I've not mentioned bitterness or jealousy or even Wales.

watch out, he might get really tantrummy. he'll be putting the words 'nonce' and 'paedo' in your username when he refers to you next.

proper angry.

 

[Lo Siento.]

England are a threat. The point - and I have made it countless times - is that they are nowhere near the threat they should be.

How much of a threat should they be then? They're widely regarded as being 3rd or 4th favourite, behind an exceptional Spain side (an aberration in their footballing history), Brazil and Argentina.

You. If somebody doesn't agree with you, they automatically know fuck all about football. Twat.

Considering you've spent this thread mouthing ancient clichés about youth development like they were some kind of insight, I think I've been quite respectful. Unlike you.

What, like the examples I've already given? You're clutching at straws. Anyway, you are the one who brought Brasil into it - Argentina consistently play a more aesthetic brand of football imo, I am not a Brasil groupie.

Concrete examples of things they actually do and ways they actually created that culture. Rather than just generalising and telling us shit that everyone already knows.

You are right that Brasil should be admired for having an exceptional footballing tradition. However, one world cup and nothing else of note from a country with so much in its favour is clearly underachievement. Perhaps, for once, you could state your case for why this isn't so?

Because it's the level of achievement attained by every country that isn't Italy, Germany, Brazil and Argentina.

You haven't been following what I have been posting at all have you? I have already pointed out that at elite level British football has caught up with their European and S American counterparts. However, at grassroots level the UK is still stuck in the dar ages, which explains why there is such a gap between the top elite English players - who have benefitted from being at elite clubs from seven onwards - and the standard of English (and Welsh, Scottish and Irish) players generally. This is the problem with England - always trying to transform football culture from the top down when it needs to be done from beneath, from grassroots amateur youth coaching upwards.

And this has what to do with England exactly? Who cares if League 2 players can't trap a ball. This thread is about the national team, ffs.

Me thinks it is you that knows sweet jack shit about football. Oh, but you like in Madrid! Therefore you are an expert! Cock off.

I'm as knowledgeable as anyone who watches a lot of football.

 

[TheDave]

Ern, you are a right unpleasant racist fuckwit.

 

[Lo Siento.]

You. If somebody doesn't agree with you, they automatically know fuck all about football. Twat.



Me thinks it is you that knows sweet jack shit about football. Oh, but you like in Madrid! Therefore you are an expert! Cock off.

Tantrum, tantrum, tantrum

 

[Proper Tidy]

How much of a threat should they be then? They're widely regarded as being 3rd or 4th favourite, behind an exceptional Spain side (an aberration in their footballing history), Brazil and Argentina.

Who cares who the bookies are tipping? England have one world cup, from nearly fifty years ago, and nothing else. That is underachievement.

Considering you've spent this thread mouthing ancient clichés about youth development like they were some kind of insight, I think I've been quite respectful. Unlike you.

What 'ancient cliches' are they?

Concrete examples of things they actually do and ways they actually created that culture. Rather than just generalising and telling us shit that everyone already knows.

I already have - futsal which is played across the board rather than just at elite academies has a lot to do with it, although it is broader than that. I really can't be arsed giving you a potted social history of football in Brasil tbh. Perhaps you can just read Alex Bellos or something.

Because it's the level of achievement attained by every country that isn't Italy, Germany, Brazil and Argentina.

I don't know what this means.

And this has what to do with England exactly? Who cares if League 2 players can't trap a ball. This thread is about the national team, ffs.

Wut? My argument is that England fails to a) produce enough quality players and b) that English players do not possess equivalent technical abilities compared to players from elsewhere. Clearly this has a fuck of a lot to do with quality of development throughout football - ie not just in the elite academies - and an indicator of this would be the technical ability of players developed outside of the elite.

I'm as knowledgeable as anyone who watches a lot of football.

You can roll your eyes all you like, but it is you who started accusing people of not knowing about football for having the audacity to not share your short-sighted and rose-tinted view of English football.

 

[Proper Tidy]

watch out, he might get really tantrummy. he'll be putting the words 'nonce' and 'paedo' in your username when he refers to you next.

proper angry.

As opposed to making a series of side-splitting racist puns...

 

[Proper Tidy]

Tantrum, tantrum, tantrum

Concha concha concha

 

[discokermit]

As opposed to making a series of side-splitting racist puns...

racist? you dick.

 

[Proper Tidy]

racist? you dick.

Just some jolly xenophobia then yeah?

 

[chazegee]

Ern caused all of this? No.

And now a message from his sponsor, and fittingly, honking the Vulvazela, Kokopele, the Mexican troll of mischief.

 

[discokermit]

Just some jolly xenophobia then yeah?

just a wind up you bad tempered, humourless nob.

 

[Proper Tidy]

just a wind up you bad tempered, humourless nob.

Who knew being a bigot was the definition of possessing 'humour'.

 

[deadringer]

Who cares who the bookies are tipping? England have one world cup, from nearly fifty years ago, and nothing else. That is underachievement.

how is it underachievement? the world cup is designed to find the best team in the world. england haven't been the best team in the world, so they havent won the world cup since. in fact sometimes they have not even reached the finals. we are rated 8th in the world, and often have reached, er the last 8. so its not underachievement, we achieve our relevent position in world football. this world cup we may improve, we may not.



pillock

 

[Proper Tidy]

how is it underachievement? the world cup is designed to find the best team in the world. england haven't been the best team in the world, so they havent won the world cup since. in fact sometimes they have not even reached the finals. we are rated 8th in the world, and often have reached, er the last 8. so its not underachievement, we achieve our relevent position in world football. this world cup we may improve, we may not.



pillock

So let me get this right - the basis for your argument is that you are, on current Fifa rankings, the 8th best side in the world and therefore the quarters is exactly where you should be?

You tool. The Fifa rankings are a (flawed) system based upon results. Ergo, if you dropped to fifty in the Fifa rankings, by your logic should England fail to qualify for the next world cup it wouldn't be an underachievement.

Wow. Logic fail. Nice one Prof.

E2a: Lol

 

[Lo Siento.]

Who cares who the bookies are tipping? England have one world cup, from nearly fifty years ago, and nothing else. That is underachievement.

Your argument doesn't move about much, does it? I respond to a comment about England being a threat in this tournament then you respond by saying our historic record isn't good. You're totally incoherent.

Nothing to do with the bookies. Leo Messi said it, for instance. The sports papers here are saying it.

What 'ancient cliches' are they?

Ooh, them continentals, they learn to pass the ball age 4, whereas English players are just taught to be big and lump the ball forward. Oooh, the Ajax academy wankwankwank.

I already have - futsal which is played across the board rather than just at elite academies has a lot to do with it, although it is broader than that. I really can't be arsed giving you a potted social history of football in Brasil tbh. Perhaps you can just read Alex Bellos or something.

can't be arsed writing down say five examples? The one example you do come up with is that they play fucking futsal. Jeeeesus.

I don't know what this means.

Italy, Argentina, Brazil and Germany are four teams who have exceptional footballing histories. England have a mediocre footballing history not disimilar to many other countries.

Wut? My argument is that England fails to a) produce enough quality players and b) that English players do not possess equivalent technical abilities compared to players from elsewhere. Clearly this has a fuck of a lot to do with quality of development throughout football - ie not just in the elite academies - and an indicator of this would be the technical ability of players developed outside of the elite.

The quality of English players down the leagues and in the grassroots is IRRELEVANT to the matter at hand, namely the quality of the ELITE footballers who are in South Africa.

You can roll your eyes all you like, but it is you who started accusing people of not knowing about football for having the audacity to not share your shortu-sighted and rose-tinted view of English football.

Actually if you looked back, I accused you of knowing sod all about what you were talking about, ie. the development of young footballers in Brazil. I then asked you to develop the inane cliches you'd said about that topic, and you declined. So, I'm going to continue thinking you know fuck all about said topic and are just a blowhard wanker.

 

[Proper Tidy]

Your argument doesn't move about much, does it? I respond to a comment about England being a threat in this tournament then you respond by saying our historic record isn't good. You're totally incoherent.

Nothing to do with the bookies. Leo Messi said it, for instance. The sports papers here are saying it.

Saying it isn't doing it. Your comment was not at all about 'this tournament' - the whole debate has been about the overall quality of national sides.

Ooh, them continentals, they learn to pass the ball age 4, whereas English players are just taught to be big and lump the ball forward. Oooh, the Ajax academy wankwankwank.

I have neither used the term 'continentals' nor mentioned the Ajax academy. I have cited the Netherlands as prolific producers of talent given their population and the quality of their league - do you think this is a cliche ie with no basis in truth? If you do then you are a fool. There is a very good reason why the Dutch system has been borrowed from and replicated throughout the world; the Netherlands was the first country to ensure even at amateur youth level coaches must have the relevant qualifications, and have consistently taken the most academic and analytical approach to coaching.

How many Dutch players does your local side have? And how many Englishmen?

can't be arsed writing down say five examples? The one example you do come up with is that they play fucking futsal. Jeeeesus.

Well, they invented futsal. Are you suggesting that a game based upon close ball control in a confined playing area isn't conducive to producing technically proficient players? Oh dear.

Italy, Argentina, Brazil and Germany are four teams who have exceptional footballing histories. England have a mediocre footballing history not disimilar to many other countries.

I still don't understand what you are trying to say here.

The quality of English players down the leagues and in the grassroots is IRRELEVANT to the matter at hand, namely the quality of the ELITE footballers who are in South Africa.

Wut? So if you are not at an elite club by seven then you will never become an elite player? Really?

England lack - and this is the umpteenth time I have said this - both depth and technique. Clearly, if England were not reliant predominantly on a handful of academies for all their players then this would lead to more players, or greater depth. Likewise, if the culture of football here in the UK placed more emphasis on technique then England would possess more technically competent players. It has absolutely everything to do with it, and I am increasingly certain that you are bluffing a lot here.

Actually if you looked back, I accused you of knowing sod all about what you were talking about, ie. the development of young footballers in Brazil. I then asked you to develop the inane cliches you'd said about that topic, and you declined. So, I'm going to continue thinking you know fuck all about said topic and are just a blowhard wanker.

What 'inane cliches' have I used? Perhaps this time you could provide actual examples instead of making up some stuff I have never said.

In broadest brush strokes, Brasil has a culture which is conducive to producing players capable of dribbling, technical play and playing the ball in confined space. At a micro level, futbol de salao and beach football - which requires exemplary ball control - has a great deal to do with it. As I have already said, I can't be arsed typing out an essay on the social history of football in Brasil for your benefit. You really should read Alex Bellos instead.

You keep accusing me of knowing fuck all about football. Now, I am no expert - I've never played professionally, I do not coach, and my involvement in football beyond support has been limited to involvement in the supporters trust movement. I wouldn't usually claim I know more about football than anybody else. However, I am going to stick my neck on the line with regard to you, and say that I indisputably know a hell of a lot more about it than you, because you are incapable of a) not spouting bollocks and b) understanding that development cannot be looked at in the abstract - for example, that relying solely on elite academies is foolhardy, and results in players outside of that small bubble receiving a sub-standard education, with obvious implications on the overall quality of football in said culture and on the national team. Blowhard indeed. You're a football fuckwit; you're the kind of chap who thinks buying the odd 442 and watching MoTD makes him some sort of sage. You know shit all.

 

[chieftain]

debate

Carry on then...

 

[Lo Siento.]

Saying it isn't doing it. Your comment was not at all about 'this tournament' - the whole debate has been about the overall quality of national sides.

Look I'll quote you that part of the conversation, if you're not arsed to see what it was actually about:

ME:

Yup. And that they're regarded as so outside of our country as well. Before the tournament big teams and players have been lining up to tell the papers they think England are a real threat. Why?

YOU:

England are a threat. The point - and I have made it countless times - is that they are nowhere near the threat they should be.

Me:

How much of a threat should they be then? They're widely regarded as being 3rd or 4th favourite, behind an exceptional Spain side (an aberration in their footballing history), Brazil and Argentina.

You:

Who cares who the bookies are tipping? England have one world cup, from nearly fifty years ago, and nothing else. That is underachievement.

You tell me what this part of the conversation was about, if not the current quality of the england team? Note your use of the present tense I've highlighted in bold.

I have neither used the term 'continentals' nor mentioned the Ajax academy. I have cited the Netherlands as prolific producers of talent given their population and the quality of their league - do you think this is a cliche ie with no basis in truth? If you do then you are a fool. There is a very good reason why the Dutch system has been borrowed from and replicated throughout the world; the Netherlands was the first country to ensure even at amateur youth level coaches must have the relevant qualifications, and have consistently taken the most academic and analytical approach to coaching.

How many Dutch players does your local side have? And how many Englishmen?

yeah, it's a really outdated cliche. The Dutch leagues produce considerably fewer great younger players than the Premier League does.

Well, they invented futsal. Are you suggesting that a game based upon close ball control in a confined playing area isn't conducive to producing technically proficient players? Oh dear.

I'm saying it's a relatively insignificant factor in the development of most professional footballers.

I still don't understand what you are trying to say here.

Christ, it's not hard. Not being the best in the world, doesn't make you underachievers, it just makes you mediocre

England lack - and this is the umpteenth time I have said this - both depth and technique. Clearly, if England were not reliant predominantly on a handful of academies for all their players then this would lead to more players, or greater depth. Likewise, if the culture of football here in the UK placed more emphasis on technique then England would possess more technically competent players. It has absolutely everything to do with it, and I am increasingly certain that you are bluffing a lot here.

It's like you're having a conversation with yourself. All of the 23 england players in South Africa were developed by English club academies. You keep saying at the elite level England has caught up, well that's where all these players are from - the elite level. What does the grassroots have to do with them?

What 'inane cliches' have I used? Perhaps this time you could provide actual examples instead of making up some stuff I have never said.

CLICHE 1:

unfortunately, the certain way of playing does not encourage technical play or development

CLICHE 2:

So, mastermind, it proves my point - and pay attention now - that a culture more conducive to promoting technique and close ball skills over 'grit and determination' and hit and hope would produce more elite players.

I'm not arsed going back looking for more.

It's about 20 years old: the rest of the world learns technical skills, and the english learn hoofball. The Premier League is the most cosmopolitan league in the world, the clubs and academies are run by people all over the world, designed to produce footballers that can compete at the highest level against opponents from all over the world.

Yes, 15 years ago it had a lot of truth to it. Now? It's bullshit, spoken by people with an axe to grind.

In broadest brush strokes, Brasil has a culture which is conducive to producing players capable of dribbling, technical play and playing the ball in confined space. At a micro level, futbol de salao and beach football - which requires exemplary ball control - has a great deal to do with it. As I have already said, I can't be arsed typing out an essay on the social history of football in Brasil for your benefit. You really should read Alex Bellos instead.

This is pure tautology. It's sod all to do with anything that anyone controls. Brazil has technically gifted players because they have a culture of producing technically gifted players. Brilliant, what conclusion is anyone supposed to draw from that?

You keep accusing me of knowing fuck all about football.

When?

Now, I am no expert ... blablabla arrogant wank, I'm so clever, I couldn't possibly be wrong