Damunk wrote:
Uhm, Chief.... the converse has also been stated by the Anglophobes as the reason why England has regularly gone home early:
"the weakness of their league and the lack of quality players".So now they've got to the semis, its a little disingenuous to now quote the We Brigade, as if their opinion wasn't stoutly contested back then in the way I've mentioned above.
Rather than look at a single factor (English National team's S/F placing) as an indication of EPL strength, it is the other incontestable factors that should hold sway:
1. For the last two (probably even more) World Cups, the EPL has had the greatest number of players (represented in the WC - 108 of them in Russia, 30 more than 2nd placed Spain.
2. It has had the largest number of clubs represented in the WC (20 v 15)
3. An even higher percentage of EPL players are still standing in the WC
semi-finals - the 'business end' of the tournament.
4. The England national team is the only country which has ALL squad members playing in its domestic league. If all of their players were removed from the equation, the EPL would still have the highest number of players in Russia.
5. The Championship - junior brother to the EPL - itself has 21 players in Russia.
These are facts only the frivolous would argue with as being a very strong indicator of league strength.
The 'best league in the world' is itself a nonsense.
What does 'best' even mean anyway, and how is it objectively measured?
I'd like to see anyone dismantle and dismiss these checkable facts that have held sway for at least 2 WCs.
Meanwhile, I am thoroughly enjoying the discomfort of the ABEGars with the England team's success - almost as good as the football itself!
Nna, the arguments for England not doing well in tournaments that I recognise include, the poor technical quality of the English game, the players being tired after a gruelling season, the fact the players are not as good as the hype, the pressure put on the players, etc. I don’t remember seeing the “weakness” of the league as an argument. The EPL is a strong and vibrant league. I think the argument is that it is too strong (physically) and it drains players. I don’t buy that particular argument. I remember England going out in the first round in Euro 88 and pundits peddling that line. They forgot that they were beaten by Ireland, with all their players playing in England.
The fact is that the reasons why England failed in previous tournaments still exist today, regardless of this semi appearance. Since 1966, England has never knocked out a major footballing power at the WC. They still haven’t.
The numbers of EPL players at WCs just proves one thing – it is the richest league in the world. No one ever disputed that. The money available means it attracts the greatest number of players. It doesn’t always translate to better technical quality. Lukaku for e.g. is a WC semi-finalist, earns megabucks in England, very strong and very effective. But a lot of more technically gifted strikers than him went home early.
You are probably unaware that during England’s many years of failure that the fact that all their players were based in England was used as an excuse. It was argued that if they played abroad, they would have learned to play the continental way and that the hurly burly of the EPL was ruining their chances of international success. This England team is not fundamentally different from the rest. They are organised, run a lot, work hard, well drilled at set pieces, good in the air, a lot of perspiration and hardly any inspiration. There is still zero fantasy in their game. I said to my brother last night while we were watching Belgium v France, imagine if Hazard were English. They don’t produce players like him and if they managed it, they would have told us that he is the greatest player to ever play the game. Rooney was meant to be the “the White Pele”. Harry Kane is now the best striker in the world - WC top scorer (4 pens, one shot deflecting off his foot and one header from a corner against Tunisia).
I’m not sure why you have gone into these “strong” league arguments. Nobody every disputed that the EPL was “strong”. In fact, we were always told that the power of money in attracting so many foreigners was destroying England’s chances of success since many English players couldn’t get into top clubs. I even agree with the Ghananese troll that England is like a mid-table EPL club.
There is actually an objective measure for which league is the best in Europe. It is the Uefa coefficient, which measures performances of each league in European club competitions over about five years. Spain has been topping the coefficient table for several years.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
