Paul Scholes & the demise of young English talent

Joking apart, I'm actually rather taken by Alpine Joe's musings on the alleged primacy of the "all shall have prizes" ideology. I'm not going to agree with his analysis. But, equally, I'm not sure how qualified I am to enter the debate. I may have worked in schools throughout the 1980s and 1990s but I've never sampled the education system as a parent; I've watched competitive sport for as long as I can remember but was irredeemably hopeless at it myself to the extent that it bought me considerable grief. Nor do I read those newspapers where you can't escape daily bemoaning of anything to do with the education system or the iniquities of health and safety or the supposedly unjust extension of human rights. Mind you, on the other hand, I've admitted to a rather feeble semi-Guardianista status through my inability to finish anything written by Polly Toynbee. Now I'll go the whole hog and confess that I've switched to the 20p Indy. I hope there will be forgiveness and understanding.

Yet it's interesting to make links between "all shall have prizes" and what's happening in both wider society and in football. Something has definitely changed regarding our collective and individual expectations together with what we believe to constitute "rights". That may sound like "old fogeyness" but it's difficult to put because I fully believe in people being more aware of their rights and how to assert them. And, in the same way, I want more people to have higher aspirations. But the shift seems to be along the lines of "wants" being confused with "rights"; and with "to desire" becoming synonymous with "to deserve". It's as if "we can all be successful" (provided we have merit and opportunity) has been translated to "we must all be successful" simply because that's our right and it's entirely what we deserve.

Now I could say that's thanks to Thatcherism. Somebody else may blame the "looney left". Or consumerism. Or the celebrity culture. Or anything they bloody like as it's probably due to a coming together of a variety of reasons. Nor is it wholly bad.

But you can translate it to football as a way of asking why some supporters have amazingly high expectations of relatively modest football teams. Furthermore, listening to certain people around the grounds, it sounds like they have a "right" to support a more successful football team based on the concept of that being what they justly "deserve".

And, with that, comes the blame culture and the belief that it is remarkably easy to rectify shortcomings and instigate improvements overnight. That's not to denigrate informed debate - long may it continue - but it sometimes appears that we are operating in a vacuum. Solve shortcomings a, b and c; implement solutions x, y and z and we can storm the league. If not, sack the manager. My bugbear over this is that it takes no account of that fact that every other bugger in our league is trying to do the same. In this way - to paraphrase Alpine Joe's line of thought - we can do our very best and we can do it extraordinarily bloody well. But we can't all win prizes.

Presumably this message is understood by players, even if some clubs have so many Player of the Year awards that the groundsman's dog will be awarding one soon. But, for fans, it's seems as if they've adding unreasonable expectation on to a sport that is already watched in an unusually critical fashion. Dave makes the point elsewhere that theatres would close if they solely put on unappealing plays and shows. But imagine if theatre audiences were made up only of professional actors and directors yelling things such as "that was shite, Lisa", "that's the wrong f**k**g emphasis, Mark, won't you ever learn you useless tosser" or "that's the third f**k**g time, Megs, that you've fluffed that line this week. Can't somebody get her off?" We might not be professional footballers or managers but football crowds are like that, aren't they? That's what makes the game different and we've grown up with it. It may get on our wick at times - and we all know those who irritate - but we harbour reservations about the blandness of it being anything different.

But it's not everybody's cup of tea which brings me back to our recurring theme of attracting more people to football. We seem to split into two camps on this: those who feel significant numbers can be attracted through price adjustment; and those who believe it's more to do with an individual's inclination to watch football. I'm in the latter camp and would argue that there are four groups of people who don't watch football: those who have absolutely no interest in it (these numbering untold millions); those who have some interest; people who would love to attend regularly but cannot for whatever reason; and followers of the game who have an exceptionally keen interest (as much as we) but who simply never think of going to a match. They're an interesting group: perhaps TV sates their appetite; possibly what they save on football goes on drugs instead (or other and hobbies anyway); maybe they enjoy home comforts and rarely go out; or, possibly, they don't like being with grumpy, impatient, dissatisfied football fans. Makes you think, doesn't it?

Or they may even be victims of the dripping tap of Alpine Joe's "all must have prizes" theory. They simply can't handle the disappointment of not winning everything.

Lastly, if I'm going to acknowledge Alpine Joe, I better do the same with Wildebeeste. I sense he is saying that school football is just a shadow of what it used to be. Instead age group football is now mainly delivered through clubs. To put a political slant on this, you could say that football for kids has been privatised. You may also add that, rather than be ferried to matches by school transport, kids now need parents with cars, inclination and time. In short, the "soccer mom" has become a very important figure as football moves away from being the street sport of old - if that's not too much of a cliche - to becoming an increasingly middle-class activity. Good grief, we're almost talking about Judy Murray again. Wildebeeste's argument, if I understand it correctly, is that we should claw this back through once again making football a sport for all through the education system.

But I wonder if the die is now cast? Does a fifteen-year left-back now identify less with the idea of playing for Bogtown Academy than he does for turning out for Young Boys Bogtown? And what about his mate; the second-best left back in the same year at school? He may hardly ever get a game for school side but turns out regularly for Bogtown Yellow Star. It's an interesting one.

Tired of how some football forums had become, I set up the TFF to be completely different. A forum where we could discuss football, but also any other subject we liked, all done in an adult fashion and a forum that promoted self moderation.

Sadly along the way we have had one or two who did not grasp the concept to the TFF and tried all they could to turn it into something they wanted it to be, we were never going to let that happen.

Unnecessary damage was caused to the TFF, but thanks to great members like you, the TFF is slowing retuning to the heights it once reached. So the thanks really belongs to all those who take the time to contribute to the TFF, its you the members who have and always will be the ones that makes the TFF just that bit more special.

Dave

And we must not forget your son James, the brains of the family who has always been able to write more than two lines

Let me know when you are down next.

will do, as the girls miss Uncle Dave

Back on topic for a moment...



Gerrard's the Lee Mansell of Liverpool and England - a very talented player (or was) but ultimately lacks/ed the intelligence to be a true great. The guy's a matchwinner but to be a matchwinner he had to have that selfish streak. You still see it today - instead of taking the sensible option, he'll go for glory himself, either by lobbing a 40 yard pass across the field or by shooting from miles out. Occasionally they come off, but usually (and this is what you don't see on Match of the Day) they end up in the crowd or the hands of the keeper

That was enough 5 or 6 years ago, but now it just doesn't work. He hasn't got the pace to be box-to-box any more, and his passing isn't the best, so like Beckham, he has become a bit of a luxury player in his old age, carried by the team. I can't see why he's still getting picked for England - his performances for club and country have been pretty poor of late

Arrigo Sacchi, one of the greatest and most intelligent managers of all time, explained this better than I can (and with more credibility) a few years ago:

“When I was director of football at Real Madrid I had to evaluate the players coming through the youth ranks. We had some who were very good footballers. They had technique, they had athleticism, they had drive, they were hungry. But they lacked what I call knowing-how-to-play-football. They lacked decision making. They lacked positioning. They didn’t have the subtle sensitivity of football: how a player should move within the collective. And for many, I wasn’t sure they were going to learn. You see, strength, passion, technique, athleticism, all of these are very important. But they are a means to an end, not an end in itself. They help you reach your goal, which is putting your talent at the service of the team and, by doing this, making both of you and the team greater. In situations like that, I just have to say, Gerrard’s a great footballer, but perhaps not a great player.”

It's a very English way of playing football - very Roy of the Rovers. The celebration of Gerrard backs up the idea that the English believe physicality and chest-thumping passion will triumph over technical ability. It's a myth, of course - the reason Liverpool won the Champions League in 2007 was because Rafa Benitez is a good manager who used his squad very well and made key changes in the final when 3-0 down, not because Gerrard single-handedly ran the show and dragged the team to glory. Xabi Alonso was the key man, not Gerrard - it's no coincidence that they've struggled ever since he left. Not even Mascherano, a very good defensive midfielder but not as good as Alonso, has been replaced

Lampard, yes, he's an intelligent footballer, a great goalscorer, a great penalty taker, and he can pass the ball, but I don't think you can say Gerrard is up to the same level at the moment. I'd rather see a midfield 3 of Lampard, Cleverley and Carrick

School-teachers Prefer Guardian Broadsheet?

I can't believe that Barton Downs is attempting to breathe new life into this contentious thread by posting this provocative photograph.

In the tradition of some of the most notorious Yorkshire based left wing agitators such as Scargill, we now have BD trying to inflame the mass of Tory & Liberal voters in Devon with this. Initially I thought it was Corin Redgraves old gang, but apparently they were the Workers Revolutionary Party.

For those wishing to appreciate the subtle differences between the WRP and the SPGB I'd suggest Lambethgull might be the man to approach.

So not content with 'cheap jibes about Mansfield Town' we now have the ever so neat and perfectly spaced SPGB lettering appearing in a Barton post.

That doesn't look like wall art of any politically minded person who had a comprehensive education. Therefore, giving myself a bit of leeway, my preference is: Spray Painting Grammarschool Boy


Rags thankfully highlighted the paragraph from wildebeeste's contribution which really hits the nail on the head




I really wouldn't be surprised to find this is actually true. There could well be legions of Guardian reading social workers hammering it home to kids that they haven't got a chance, and that they should give up. The only hope for them is if there are Government funded affirmative action programmes introduced, positive discrimination and quotas stipulating that any team should have a minimum of 4 players brought up by a single mother, or alternatively have one parent or grandparent who is officially recognised as belonging to an ethnic minority.

What an enormous difference to the great days when we were producing a wealth of top class talent. How many times, whether it be the Charlton brothers from Ashington, or numerous others, did we hear players explain that it was the recognition of their disadvantages that spurred them on and motivated them. The alternative was often to 'go down the pit' and so you worked harder at your football.

Nowadays you get a university educated labour voting female social worker, leaving her copy of the guardian on the back seat of her car before coming into your council flat on the sink estate and filling your head with socialist propaganda. Until the Government funds safe play areas with wardens and buillds changing rooms, and funds youth clubs and puts it all on a plate for you then don't even bother trying to get anywhere by your own efforts. Give up now, the mantra is 'identify with this list of disadvantages my department have drawn up for you and give in to them'.

What a good job it is for those youngsters in many deprived parts of the world that they've not got the British Left coming round and indoctrinating them to give up their dreams and abandon all hope now.
Kids in parts of Africa, far poorer than their counterparts on Britain's sink estates, don't get hung up by the thought of western kids being taken to football practice in top of the range 4x4's or concern themselves that little Johhny from Wilmslow gets a new pair of Nike trainers bought for him every couple of months. And it'll be those kids who will more likely become the Premier League stars of tomorrow rather than the 'disadvantaged' Brits who are being fooled into believing that Beckham, Giggs and Rooney must have started life with a silver spoon in their mouth.

It's time to rout the left and bring good old fashioned values back to Britain so that once again a plentiful supply of Paul Scholes' will come rolling out of every slum and tenement building within our big cities.


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Graham_(footballer)

Doesn't it gladden the heart to think back to a time when a young George Graham wouldn't let a few minor difficulties stop him ?

The 1990's version of George, would of course, have been taken into care, and now be using his dole money for a new tattoo, be claiming compensation because he was sexually abused by his 3rd set of foster parents, and wondering what the hell his social workers means when they talk about pre-distribution and the need for an SPGB Government

Britain's youth is 'sinking' under socialist ideology