Jump to content
IGNORED

Why are England not as successful in Football as they are in Cricket and Rugby?

Unan

By Unan
in Football Chat

Recommended Posts

Unan

Unan

Posted
Posted

So England are in another Rugby World Cup final where they are considered big favourites and likely to land a second world cup in 16 years. England also this year finally won the Cricket World Cup for the first time ever.

In fact since 1966, England have qualified for 19 different tournaments (10 WC's and 9 Euro's) and haven't even made ONE single bloody final.

In contrast in this same time period, England have made FOUR Rugby World Cup finals, winning at least one, possibly two, and FOUR Cricket World Cup Finals, winning one.

Any reason? Is the Anglo-saxon mindset more suited to tactical and strategic sports rather than sports involving creativity and flair like Football which latin countries have often gotten the better of them at?

The differences in success is quite stark between Football and Rugby/Cricket is quite stark, I'm just curious as the reasons for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Unan

Unan

Posted
  • Author
Posted

The Premier League is a victim of its own success, flooded with the best talent in the world. Much harder now for English players to be first choice at the top clubs, and the Champions League is the highest level in Europe. Money drives football now, pride drives rugby & **** knows why people still play cricket.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BS4 on Tour...

BS4 on Tour...

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, chinapig said:

Because far fewer countries play international rugby union and cricket perhaps?

Spot on mate - over 200 footballing countries are affiliated to FIFA and over 50 are affiliated to UEFA 

 

 

12 minutes ago, Seneca the Younger said:

So England are in another Rugby World Cup final where they are considered big favourites and likely to land a second world cup in 16 years. England also this year finally won the Cricket World Cup for the first time ever.

In fact since 1966, England have qualified for 19 different tournaments (10 WC's and 9 Euro's) and haven't even made ONE single bloody final.

In contrast in this same time period, England have made FOUR Rugby World Cup finals, winning at least one, possibly two, and FOUR Cricket World Cup Finals, winning one.

Any reason? Is the Anglo-saxon mindset more suited to tactical and strategic sports rather than sports involving creativity and flair like Football which latin countries have often gotten the better of them at?

The differences in success is quite stark between Football and Rugby/Cricket is quite stark, I'm just curious as the reasons for that.

Bit of a naive post with all due respect - not nearly as much serious competition when it comes to rugby and cricket

 

3 minutes ago, Seneca the Younger said:

The Premier League is a victim of its own success, flooded with the best talent in the world. Much harder now for English players to be first choice at the top clubs, and the Champions League is the highest level in Europe. Money drives football now, pride drives rugby & **** knows why people still play cricket.

....your last seven words - there are a lot worse ways to make a living?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tinmans Love Child

Tinmans Love Child

Posted
Posted

It’s alL down to the amount of decent teams at International level for football compared to cricket and rugby.

In rugby you only really have England, Wales, Ireland, SA, Australia and New Zealand who realistically have a chance.

In cricket you only have England, SA, Australia, New Zealand, India, Pakistan,Sri Lanka and West Indies.

In football you have England, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal to start with just in Europe, let alone Brazil, Argentina, Columbia, Mexico, Uruguay etc etc

Theres a good book called ‘Why England Don’t Win the World Cup’ which shows that actually we do pretty well at International level when you take into account the size of the country and some other factors

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Why-England-Lose-phenomena-explained/dp/0007301111

Plus In rugby and cricket, the structure is geared towards international competition, unlike the football structure which is geared towards money

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Smokey

Smokey

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, Seneca the Younger said:

The Premier League is a victim of its own success, flooded with the best talent in the world. Much harder now for English players to be first choice at the top clubs, and the Champions League is the highest level in Europe. Money drives football now, pride drives rugby & **** knows why people still play cricket.

The premier league has nothing to do with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
redsince1994

redsince1994

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, Seneca the Younger said:

So England are in another Rugby World Cup final where they are considered big favourites and likely to land a second world cup in 16 years. England also this year finally won the Cricket World Cup for the first time ever.

In fact since 1966, England have qualified for 19 different tournaments (10 WC's and 9 Euro's) and haven't even made ONE single bloody final.

In contrast in this same time period, England have made FOUR Rugby World Cup finals, winning at least one, possibly two, and FOUR Cricket World Cup Finals, winning one.

Any reason? Is the Anglo-saxon mindset more suited to tactical and strategic sports rather than sports involving creativity and flair like Football which latin countries have often gotten the better of them at?

The differences in success is quite stark between Football and Rugby/Cricket is quite stark, I'm just curious as the reasons for that.

Last 4 world cups won by France, Germany, Spain & Italy. 

European countries have dominance in the modern era, and 3 of them aren't exactly renowned for being flair sides. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tinmans Love Child

Tinmans Love Child

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, Seneca the Younger said:

The Premier League is a victim of its own success, flooded with the best talent in the world. Much harder now for English players to be first choice at the top clubs, and the Champions League is the highest level in Europe. Money drives football now, pride drives rugby & **** knows why people still play cricket.

We were not winning world cups for nearly 30 years before the premier league came along which was also a time when there were hardly any foreign players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr Popodopolous

Mr Popodopolous

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, redsince1994 said:

Last 4 world cups won by France, Germany, Spain & Italy. 

European countries have dominance in the modern era, and 3 of them aren't exactly renowned for being flair sides. 

Err...

Germany were very dominant in game I mean for a number of years- tiki Taka and high scoring, high pressing under Low for some time.

Spain we know about, France are a weird one- have the players to dominate all with the exception of peak Spain possibly, Italy are the lack of flair one but tbh had the players to play much better football over the years IMO- and actually were lazily typecast at times- they were pretty good to watch in Euro 2012 and WC 2006- Lippi not a defensive manager, Prandelli too and Mancini with them atm most definitely not!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lrrr

Lrrr

Posted
Posted
Just now, BS15_RED said:

Name them? Or by Brits, do you mean Scottish, Irish or Welsh?

Its changed a bit in recent years but Cipriani moved abroad, Steffon Armitage when he was considered England's best flanker, Abendanon was european player of the year playing abroad not selected. Then you have the Welsh, Scots and Irish etc.

'Both men may be in the form of their life but the Rugby Football Union's current selection policy means the France-based pair are currently ineligible to represent the national team, bar "exceptional circumstances" which were not met.'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/32626996

Players were being paid far more for moving abroad but making themselves ineligible rather than staying in Britain

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tinmans Love Child

Tinmans Love Child

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, swanker said:

Other countries seem to win it though!

Germany, Italy, Spain and Brazil aren’t also winning rugby world cups and test matches are they.  

We are more successful in rugby and cricket because there are less decent sides.  The other decent sides in rugby and cricket don’t do anything in footballing terms, so we are actually battling on 3 fronts which is pretty impressive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Phileas Fogg

Phileas Fogg

Posted
Posted
45 minutes ago, Seneca the Younger said:

So England are in another Rugby World Cup final where they are considered big favourites and likely to land a second world cup in 16 years. England also this year finally won the Cricket World Cup for the first time ever.

In fact since 1966, England have qualified for 19 different tournaments (10 WC's and 9 Euro's) and haven't even made ONE single bloody final.

In contrast in this same time period, England have made FOUR Rugby World Cup finals, winning at least one, possibly two, and FOUR Cricket World Cup Finals, winning one.

Any reason? Is the Anglo-saxon mindset more suited to tactical and strategic sports rather than sports involving creativity and flair like Football which latin countries have often gotten the better of them at?

The differences in success is quite stark between Football and Rugby/Cricket is quite stark, I'm just curious as the reasons for that.

It's pretty simple really - a lot more countries play Football than Rugby or Cricket so there is less competition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Major Isewater

Major Isewater

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Lord Northski said:

Darn, some people are hard to satisfy. 

We got to semi finals of the last Football World Cup. That’s pretty good

We currently hold the Cricket World Cup.

We may win Rugby World Cup tomorrow 

We came second in the Olympic medal table at the last Summer Olympics. 

 

Personally pretty pleased with that. 

That’s just the type of attitude that holds us back . 
 

Second is nowhere. 
 

Although it can mostly be found between first and third . 
 

:yes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted

Because English football has been very different to European football and world football over the years. So what works over here in the prem, did not work when those players put on the england shirt. And they could not adapt.

But then there has been the tactical side too, which has been embarrassing over the years. So many tournaments we played 442 with as many star names as possible.

The likes of Gerrard and Lampard holding, and the nation confused as to why they aren't the same for England as they were for their clubs. Pretty obvious when Gerrard had Alonso and Macherano behind him, he was not really a midfielder, more a second striker behind Torres. And Lampard had Makelele and Essien sitting behind him.

Used to amaze me that england managers were paid millions a year and could not even see these most basic of things.

Carrick barely played for England. Or certainly was not involved much in tournaments.

A top technical defensive midfielder, Guardiola even said he was as good as any he managed including Busquets.

But our media loved goalscoring midfielders and it seems our managers believed we had to squeeze these attacking midielders into the same side.

The nation seemed to think Michael Owen was brilliant because he could score goals. Heskey rubbish because he didn't score goals.

But then you take Heskey away and Owen would have been pretty useless. It's like we had 2 people doing one mans job up there as both were not complete strikers.

Obviously Rooney came along. Never got the best out of him. But when it was time to drop him and he was awful in at least 2 major tounaments, we still wouldn't, or even bring him off because he's the star player.

But it does seem to have got to a point where we have finally caught up with the other nations in producing talent.

 I thought Southgate actually got the world cup so wrong, and I still wonder if he will ever be the right man.

There is some concerning decisions he makes at times. To stand there arms folded seeing Croatia clearly about to score a winner, only a matter of time, and to do nothing about it. It's not what a top manager would do.

We didn't beat any top nation at the world cup. We looked pretty awful in both Belgium games and after first 45 of Croatia game where they sussed us out at half time.

We did however do well in that nations league before Southgate messed it up against Holland. So he did well in a couple of games at least.

I do think the young players we are producing now are really up there with the best in the world. Our attacking talent is ridiculous. We really should win something soon.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Murraysrightplum

Murraysrightplum

Posted
Posted

21 football world cups won by 8 countries 

9 rugby world cups have been won by 4 countries (including 2019 as SA and england have already won it)

Looks pretty even in terms of how many teams can actually win it. If you looked at how many teams will have won the RWC in another 40 years it’s likely that Wales, France, Ireland and maybe some up and coming teams would have won it as well. At the super-elite level it doesn’t really matter how many worse teams there are than you. Look at the number of premier league winners as another example. Would it change much if suddenly 10 championship teams were let into the competition? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tinmans Love Child

Tinmans Love Child

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, JonDolman said:

Because English football has been very different to European football and world football over the years. So what works over here in the prem, did not work when those players put on the england shirt. And they could not adapt.

But then there has been the tactical side too, which has been embarrassing over the years. So many tournaments we played 442 with as many star names as possible.

The likes of Gerrard and Lampard holding, and the nation confused as to why they aren't the same for England as they were for their clubs. Pretty obvious when Gerrard had Alonso and Macherano behind him, he was not really a midfielder, more a second striker behind Torres. And Lampard had Makelele and Essien sitting behind him.

Used to amaze me that england managers were paid millions a year and could not even see these most basic of things.

Carrick barely played for England. Or certainly was not involved much in tournaments.

A top technical defensive midfielder, Guardiola even said he was as good as any he managed including Busquets.

But our media loved goalscoring midfielders and it seems our managers believed we had to squeeze these attacking midielders into the same side.

The nation seemed to think Michael Owen was brilliant because he could score goals. Heskey rubbish because he didn't score goals.

But then you take Heskey away and Owen would have been pretty useless. It's like we had 2 people doing one mans job up there as both were not complete strikers.

Obviously Rooney came along. Never got the best out of him. But when it was time to drop him and he was awful in at least 2 major tounaments, we still wouldn't, or even bring him off because he's the star player.

But it does seem to have got to a point where we have finally caught up with the other nations in producing talent.

 I thought Southgate actually got the world cup so wrong, and I still wonder if he will ever be the right man.

There is some concerning decisions he makes at times. To stand there arms folded seeing Croatia clearly about to score a winner, only a matter of time, and to do nothing about it. It's not what a top manager would do.

We didn't beat any top nation at the world cup. We looked pretty awful in both Belgium games and after first 45 of Croatia game where they sussed us out at half time.

We did however do well in that nations league before Southgate messed it up against Holland. So he did well in a couple of games at least.

I do think the young players we are producing now are really up there with the best in the world. Our attacking talent is ridiculous. We really should win something soon.

 

 

 

Some good points but not sure how Southgate got the World Cup so wrong, they made the semi’s with a very young and inexperienced team, if he would have got it wrong we wouldn’t have made it out the groups like in the Euros

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Tinmans Love Child said:

Some good points but not sure how Southgate got the World Cup so wrong, they made the semi’s with a very young and inexperienced team, if he would have got it wrong we wouldn’t have made it out the groups like in the Euros

Yes better than the euros. Can't get much worse!

But for me when you see the talent we had, i believe we only really beat teams we really should be beating. And one of those was on pens.

I think when it came down to the Croatia match that was certainly winnable, he didn't manage the situation second half at all well and just waited for us to lose the game.

Had we had a fairly normal series of matches, and not had the incredible luck of the games we had, then I believe we'd have certainly have lost against any tough side we played before the semi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BS15_RED

BS15_RED

Posted
Posted
49 minutes ago, hodge said:

Its changed a bit in recent years but Cipriani moved abroad, Steffon Armitage when he was considered England's best flanker, Abendanon was european player of the year playing abroad not selected. Then you have the Welsh, Scots and Irish etc.

'Both men may be in the form of their life but the Rugby Football Union's current selection policy means the France-based pair are currently ineligible to represent the national team, bar "exceptional circumstances" which were not met.'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/32626996

Players were being paid far more for moving abroad but making themselves ineligible rather than staying in Britain

Spot on, but to further prove my point, the French national team since the influx of foreign players has declined considerably in the last 10 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Boston Red

Boston Red

Posted
Posted

Because the Football Association is stuffy, and badly run. They cannot appoint, get the best out of, and keep a decent manager. Clough was never given the job, even though he specialised in building an eleven, relaxing players, and European knock-out tournament football. Robson, Venables, and Hoddle were all good ar the job but lost it for essentially non - football reasons. Errikson was booted out when he wanted to stay and his successor Maclaren was worse, as Taylor was worse than Robson. They gave Capello the job when he could not speak English. They appointed stuffy old Hodgson when they should have appointed Redknapp. It just goes on and on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
swanker

swanker

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Tinmans Love Child said:

Germany, Italy, Spain and Brazil aren’t also winning rugby world cups and test matches are they.  

 

I’ve often wondered why those countries you’ve mentioned do well in the World Cup and now I know. It’s because they don’t play rugby and cricket as well.

Well I never, the older I’m getting the more I learn!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
chinapig

chinapig

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, chinapig said:

Because far fewer countries play international rugby union and cricket perhaps?

It's also worth noting that England cricketers are centrally contracted to the ECB so international cricket takes priority.

In rugby union the England coach gets more time with the players than his football equivalent, there being something of a truce for now between the clubs and the RFU.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tinmans Love Child

Tinmans Love Child

Posted
Posted
56 minutes ago, swanker said:

I’ve often wondered why those countries you’ve mentioned do well in the World Cup and now I know. It’s because they don’t play rugby and cricket as well.

Well I never, the older I’m getting the more I learn!

The original post was stating why we do well in cricket and rugby but not football compared to other countries, just stating a fact about those sports, chill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...