giuseppe rossi is the best striker in the world

Scuba Steve wrote:And dropped him after one mistake?

Wasn't as simple as that. First season he was class with us, then he became quite wank, and was rotated with Carroll because they were both pretty poor. Then they both pissed off when we signed Edwin

Carroll

NI wonder keeper.

Fine Shagger wrote:Carroll

NI wonder keeper.

Carroll

Neither was good because he kept on rotating them

polska. wrote:You still don't get it.

English coaching emphasizes physical development. That does not mean legs being broken.

All coaches regardless of nationality emphasize physical development. Wtf is your point ?

Not a good idea to rotate goalkeepers imo

Scuba Steve wrote:Neither was good because he kept on rotating them

Because they'd come in, look ok, and make a massive mistake.

Why do foreigners assume that British lads are coached to injure people?
I've played in left-back and I've filled in at centre-back before and not once have I been told to kick someone

grenade187 wrote:

polska. wrote:You still don't get it.

English coaching emphasizes physical development. That does not mean legs being broken.

All coaches regardless of nationality emphasize physical development. Wtf is your point ?

Obviously, but some coaches more so than others. British coaches in particular.

I know Polska is on a wind up. But that Dutch coach he refferred to said the problems were that coaches were making players train too often. He said everywhere awell, not just in England.

Barca youth only train 1 hours 45 mins a day

"Up to the age of 16 we don't do any fitness training with the boys, just practice with the ball. Then we add the fitness training, but always incorporated into exercises with the ball."

Cornholio wrote:I know Polska is on a wind up. But that Dutch coach he refferred to said the problems were that coaches were making players train too often. He said everywhere awell, not just in England.

Yes, that is correct. I can't help and wonder that the same was probably the reason why Wisla had so much injury problems when Petrescu was our coach (he actually got sacked because the players refused to train ).

But you should read some of the other things he said regarding the training in England.

I read most of it.

No as in unrelated to that article.

I read the whole thing too.

Look, the point of a football team is to be stronger then every other team in every aspect.

Physical strength and power is one of those aspects.

polska. wrote:

grenade187 wrote:

polska. wrote:You still don't get it.

English coaching emphasizes physical development. That does not mean legs being broken.

All coaches regardless of nationality emphasize physical development. Wtf is your point ?

Obviously, but some coaches more so than others. British coaches in particular.

Its not English coaches, its coaches that generally train EPL players. Having good physical attributes is a big advantage in England compared to other leagues (ie Seria a where players dive around like little pussys )

I do not think its the EPL becoming more physical, rather other leagues changing + becoming sissyfied (if thats even a real word).
Seriously your an ignorant prick if you think its just English coaches.

I never said it was just English coaches.

German and Polish coaches have been known to focus on the physical aspects quite a bit (though not to the extent of English coaches) and Italian coaches and football in general is very physical (despite them being diving pussies ) heck even many Brazilian sides focus alot on the physical part of the game.

My point is that while other coaches train extensively the other parts of the game(Italian defending is half physical half tactical, and Germans focus quite a bit on other aspects and Brazilians obviously with their footy) English coaches (not just EPL, it goes down the leagues as well) focus mainly on the physical part of the game and little on other parts. (Besides notable exceptions ala Wenger)

Polska you don't know anything about English coaches or the youth system.

It's true that physicality is very important in English football...but that doesn't mean that's all that's important.

Generally...if you're not tall and strong you're going to REALLY struggle to make it in English football unless you have that extra bit of technical ability. I've been in and out of youth football and so has my brother...we're both tall and strong so that's not really affected us but I've seen lots of talented young "flair" players get rejected at academy level simply because they're tiny. In the end that's just how it is....that doesn't mean they won't get another chance but the reality is that physicality matters a lot.

You can work on technical ability with players....it's a lot easier for teams to get big, fast and strong players and improve on their technical skills. Some youth teams don't have the technical quality to play good football....but a lot of teams will INSIST on passing football to the extent that it's more important than the result......and that is a fact. In the end if you lose to a bunch of big, fast black guys at the age of 15 that's not the end of the world......those players may peak and never be technically good enough but the other team may grow and be technically good enough to make it at a higher level.

English youth football isn't perfect....it's inconsistent and needs a better general coaching level....better training for coaches and higher coaching standards etc......but this doesn't mean that there are no clubs who do the right thing by their players and give them an all rounded footballing experience.

Luxz0rz wrote:Polska you don't know anything about English coaches or the youth system.

It's true that physicality is very important in English football...but that doesn't mean that's all that's important.

Generally...if you're not tall and strong you're going to REALLY struggle to make it in English football unless you have that extra bit of technical ability. I've been in and out of youth football and so has my brother...we're both tall and strong so that's not really affected us but I've seen lots of talented young "flair" players get rejected at academy level simply because they're tiny. In the end that's just how it is....that doesn't mean they won't get another chance but the reality is that physicality matters a lot.

You can work on technical ability with players....it's a lot easier for teams to get big, fast and strong players and improve on their technical skills. Some youth teams don't have the technical quality to play good football....but a lot of teams will INSIST on passing football to the extent that it's more important than the result......and that is a fact. In the end if you lose to a bunch of big, fast black guys at the age of 15 that's not the end of the world......those players may peak and never be technically good enough but the other team may grow and be technically good enough to make it at a higher level.

English youth football isn't perfect....it's inconsistent and needs a better general coaching level....better training for coaches and higher coaching standards etc......but this doesn't mean that there are no clubs who do the right thing by their players and give them an all rounded footballing experience.

Surely that paragraph is one big contradiction? At one stage you're saying it's easier to work on technical ability then you switch to saying losing to a team of strong youngsters isn't so bad because it's unlikely they'll be technically good enough.

My take on it is the player naturally gifted at football is always going to stand more chance than the more athletic player. There are plenty of recent English cases to back this up. Who are the latest youth players who looks like succeeding...players like Wilshire, Adam Johnson etc while the athlete side are looking like massive flops(Richards, Agbonlahor etc)

Fine Shagger wrote:Surely that paragraph is one big contradiction? At one stage you're saying it's easier to work on technical ability then you switch to saying losing to a team of strong youngsters isn't so bad because it's unlikely they'll be technically good enough.

My take on it is the player naturally gifted at football is always going to stand more chance than the more athletic player. There are plenty of recent English cases to back this up. Who are the latest youth players who looks like succeeding...players like Wilshire, Adam Johnson etc while the athlete side are looking like massive flops(Richards, Agbonlahor etc)

My point is that for youth teams it's a lot easier for them to bring through physically strong players and try and make them technically good. That doesn't mean it's more successful....because evidently it's not but it's a lot easier and less risky then gambling on small players who may never be able to compensate for their lack of physicality with their technical ability. In some parts this is down to the lack of quality across England's youth coaches......in some places you have good managers who can overcome these barriers but some just aren't good enough and will take the easy route, taking only physical players because it brings quick success at youth level.

Some managers are so selfish and hungry at win that they'll do anything, even when it's at the cost of the players futures. At my brother's college there's people being brought into the u18 side who are 20+ who used to play for the college in the past because they're physically better and the coaches are desperate to win......but it's pretty pathetic when their job is to be training current scholars of the college.

You can't generalise the English youth system because it's so inconsistent from one team to the other....this is partly down to the lack of training, qualifications and rules/laws that coaches need to have/abide by.

Luxz0rz wrote:Polska you don't know anything about English coaches or the youth system.

It's true that physicality is very important in English football...but that doesn't mean that's all that's important.

Generally...if you're not tall and strong you're going to REALLY struggle to make it in English football unless you have that extra bit of technical ability. I've been in and out of youth football and so has my brother...we're both tall and strong so that's not really affected us but I've seen lots of talented young "flair" players get rejected at academy level simply because they're tiny. In the end that's just how it is....that doesn't mean they won't get another chance but the reality is that physicality matters a lot.

You can work on technical ability with players....it's a lot easier for teams to get big, fast and strong players and improve on their technical skills. Some youth teams don't have the technical quality to play good football....but a lot of teams will INSIST on passing football to the extent that it's more important than the result......and that is a fact. In the end if you lose to a bunch of big, fast black guys at the age of 15 that's not the end of the world......those players may peak and never be technically good enough but the other team may grow and be technically good enough to make it at a higher level.

English youth football isn't perfect....it's inconsistent and needs a better general coaching level....better training for coaches and higher coaching standards etc......but this doesn't mean that there are no clubs who do the right thing by their players and give them an all rounded footballing experience.

The bold is basically what i've been trying to say.

Maybe my own posts are too unclear?

Or perhaps people are taking things too literally? I mean obviously there are exceptions to the norm, but the exceptions are only exceptions.