Will England ever beat Australia at anything?

I was watching htis Polo match the other day invloving theses two sides and I thought to myself this must be a chance to turn over the vaunted green and golds, Was it heck ! Itwas a good match mind very exciting right up to the end ;in fact it ended in a golden goal scored by ------Australia. It all started very promising like ,England go t oa 3-0 lead and I'm thinking its going to be a stroll. Errrr misplaced optimism!Despite being the better team England concede a total of 4 penalties all of which converted but it wasnt until the very last 4 minutes that they go behind and then with the very last hit they score to level. Golden goal beckons but the Aussies just seem to know when to pull the rabbit out of the hat nad the cup is theirs.
Question is what is it that Australians have that we havent?Is it that their whole sense of being is based not only on playing sport but winning whereas we content ourselves with just putting on a good show- the old corinthian bit?The odd win against them is just as good as twenty defeats because we know how much they hate it where as we just shrug our shoulders and move on.Just wondered

 

No. Easy really.

It's more that we don't value getting kids involved in sport early on. The Aus have excellent sports academys for virtually every sport. Us? Footy and that's it. Same in Europe. In Germany they start kids as young as 5-6 on the road to being professional footballers. Here we wait until they are teenagers. The result? Germany 3 times World cup winners, runners up 4 times, and 3 times Euro winners. Us, well 66' and all that...........

 

You don't watch rugby then I take it?

 

It doesn't help when about 45% of school playing fields have been sold off over the last decade or so in my opinion. It also doesn't help when some schools don't encourage competitive sports because they don't want some teams to be seen as losers
I'm sure that when the lottery started up years ago there was talk of funding sports academies with some of the profits, has this happened ?

 

Eeerr that was two year ago games. Since then played twice lost twice

 

I notice England came second in the recent under 19 championship to France which is an achievement in itself. Amy Lawrence wrote an interesting artcile in the Observer yesterday. The score was 3-1 but the French ran rings around our boys.It seems their skills are at a different level, skills which are worked on consistently from about 12/ 13 onwards. The schools are also very hot on football and many of the kids hone their skills on the streets. By the time they reach the academies they are well equiped. Over here I gather the accent is more on playing lots of matches ,the parents themselves demanding it and liuttle time is spent on skills.I know its a different culture but surely we can lerarn from the likes of France Portugal and Brazil

 

selling sportsfields - a crime John!

 

Same in the US at primary level. Their sporting record is however, somewhat better than ours. As in the US though, our secondary schools do not have non competitive sports.

A lot of it is also down to parents. In the nations with good sporting records parents are much more involved in making their children great, even to the point of helping to coach. Can you see many of our parents doing that?

Trouble is though grand, it's not. England used to regularly do well, if not win international youth tournaments (UEFA youth tournie winners 8 times, and joint most successful, between 48'-84'). It's down to poor coaching, as you say, with the modern emphasis on stamina not skill that's the problem.

 

Customers Official: Whats the purpose of our visit to Australia?
Botham: Business and Pleasure.
Customers Official: Do you have a criminal record sir?
Botham: I wasn't aware you still needed one!


Gary

 

Sadly Gary, that just makes it worse! I still remember (although it's fading fast) basking in the glory of Botham bashing the Aussies over boundary time and again............

 

sorry Overkill

Gary

 

am i being overly optimistic in hoping that improved facilities resulting from our winning 2012 bid will change things over here for the better in the future? If we don't take full advantage of that we don't deserve to be competing in the international arena in any sports.

 

I think that there's all sorts of elements to this. The Aussies have a much more "outdoor" culture than the Brits and who can blame them with their climate. You go to Australia and there are playing fields and stadia everywhere, absolutely everywhere. The facilities are just incredible.

You could argue that they are focussed on fewer sports than us. But that is debatable. The reality is that they are a much more competitive race than us in general and that is a trait normally found in successful sportsmen and women.

Success in sport is such a huge part of their culture that it's bred into them from a very young age which makes them tougher later on. Winning is everything to them not the taking part. Unlike over here where failure is often applauded and competitive sport often frowned upon.

There have been few British sports teams/individuals with that mentality - Redgrave, Pinsent, English Rugby team of 2003, Man Utd (much as it pains me to admit it) of late 90s and others. Their singled-mindedness, determination and will to win set them apart from other (even more talented) teams.

Those teams/individuals displayed un-British characteristics and they won and won. That's why the Aussies are better than us at sport. B*stards!

 

Sadly they have just realised that they can send our criminals home, see here

 

I THinks its basically a cultural thing . The two years I spent at a school over here I remember the principle telling the assembly about whatever sporting participation and the accent was ALWaYS in the taking part ie winning ,although welcome, seemed to be secondary.As I grew older I generally noticed amongst the people I met a sort of phlegmatic attitude when England faced defeat. It used to infuriate me watching the boys go down on a yearly basis to the Welsh rugby team made all the worse by indiffernce by the English." By wanting to beat us so much they pay us the ultimate compliment" a friend of mine would say.Maybe true but it didnt half rankle.The Argie in me would scream abuse at the tv, throw things, yell at the referee and at the English players ineptitude. .My wife thought it very funny and said I behaved like Basil Fawlty .Now when things start to go wrong I simply switch off as I dont fancy a cardiac arrest

 

Quitter!

 

trouble is I'm 52 now cant afford to take chances

 

I think we won the toss one year

 

How so? As explained above our schooling system is basicaly the same as the US when it comes to sport (and sadly, other areas), yet they do much better than we do. English football teams have been VERY successful in Europe (among the top 3) and much more so than in recent years. Our cricket team used to be successful, as has our English rugby team in recent times. In all that time the mental attitude of the US, Aus and German sportsmen/women has changed not one jot. Yet we were able to compete. By contrast our Athletes just enjoyed a successful olympics and can look forward (hopefully) do doing even better next time.

It's not so much our culture that's wrong as our coaching, tactics, and most important of all funding where the real problems lie. The only area where culture still plays a seriously impeding role, is in the daft selection procedures that still hamper many team sports.

It's too easy to blame 'culture' as the real answers are much more complex...........

 

Are you sure about that? I have never been to America, but I always get the impression that even their high school sports programs are massive and almost like military training camps.

Maybe I am getting the wrong impression from films like Remember the Titans, but I have never seen any secondary school program like that in this country.

Certainly their university sports seems to be massively better than ours.

 

I never said it as wrong just different The americans like the Aussies have a different culture to us, being new pioneering countries they are far more competitive. If we want to compete with them we need to have a similar attitiude. They have colleges virtually dedicated to sport. Its one of the ways they determine themselves as nations. We, on the other hand, are slow to change.Fooball had a period during the eighties when clubs were successful iN Europe since then ,apart from Man u and Liverpool(once each)I dointhink there has been huge success. Chelsea, hopefully will,change that.I still harbour hopes that England will do well in the WC if people get off Ericsons back and let him get on with it and the clubs release the players as and when he wants them which should be often More than club success I want to see England playing like a club side with the players fully understanding each other..
I do have some hope for the cricket team as they were so woeful a few years back and the success owes a lot to the changes that were made to the games strucure nad the fact the players are on centralised contracts. This means they cannot be overplayed( can football and rugby learn from this?err no because there is too much club self interest)
England had a good period as far as rugby was concerned but I'm not too confident that it will be maintained. The Kiwis have shown how the game has moved and so far my feeling is that the Welsh are more likely to take the game forward than the English who are , as I said before, slow to change

 

They are! I was only comparing the competitive spirit not the scale. Sadly for the US (but arguably good for the rest of us) their high schools produce some excellent footballers too. However, they are then lost as there is no feeder system as in Europe (including here) nor is there still any serious professional game.

English sides have been successful in Europe since 1963! They reached finals and won the vast majority in 63,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,76,77 and so it went on.... We actually dominated Europe in the late 70's and early 80's although we did so in a way that frankly bored everyone! The main reason we have not been successful in the post return era is simply that in the meantime our top flight has become weaker and weaker and the dominant clubs, although that problem is largely of their own greedy making, have suffered as a result. It's no coincidence that with fewer and fewer clubs competing for honours in England that our Euro success has become more sparce. Competition sharpens the edge of any team.

Ericsson is a weasel, and frankly I can't wait to see the back of him. As JohnG and I discussed before, he hasn't moved England on one iota under his tenure. He's negative to the point where in the key matches it's cost us (very) dear. I see no reason to believe thats going to change. with World football in the mess it's in England stand as good a chance as anyone else of winning things. Just look at the average Greeks, Koreans and Turks success. No offence meant to all those nations. Yet can Ericsson do better than them? Nope.

Not that old chestnut..... English footballers are now playing less football than when we were dominating Europe, and when England were among the best in the World. It's pure spin to get more money for less effort. Don't buy into it m8.

 

I DID say since the eighties OK, I dont see the point in going further back than that. since the eighties it has been the Spanish and Italian clubs whoi have beem dominant.
Yuo may not like Erikson and I certainly dont agree with his wages but so as far as I'm concerned we've got him so i'll be hoping for the best results. if England win the WC or come close people will change their minds about him. I agree he has been negative at times but it must be remembered that he has lost matches to either eventual winners- Brasil who were/are a better team anyway and eventual finalists Portugal- no disgrace there. Frankly all our past managers since Ramsey have claims of uselesness apart from Robson 1990 who with a bit more luck could have won it.As far as the Greeks are concerned well they prove my point that if you have a well organised side who know each other well have the basics and are fresh then anything is possble

Not that old chestnut..... English footballers are now playing less football than when we were dominating Europe, and when England were among the best in the World. It's pure spin to get more money for less effort. Don't buy into it m8

We have had this arguement before . All I would say is ask Gary Linekar who has been there done it and worn the tshirt. I simply ask for less club matches for our elite squad more get togthers and friendlies maybe even some matches against club sides. Wont happppen of course because of clubs self interest and because fans either treat England as the icing on the cake and expect miracles to happen or simply care about their clubs far more . We are far too parochial in my view.I'm afraid I tend to take a "sod the clubs" attitude because they are so selfserving , have had all that money thrown at them cannot manage their affairs correctly( apart from a few like Norwich and Birmingham who because of their ethos deserve supporting).If I had my way I would compel the clubs to release players as and when the England manager wanted them in fact \I'd have them on centralised contracts. Any Director or manager who impeded me who be tied to a stock and would be pelted with eggs and tomatoes .My policy would be to make England /GB the most successful sporting nation on earth

 

Why not? Because it doesn't fit in with your pet theories that the Aus, Germans etc are, and ALWAYS have been, more competitive, better skilled, etc? Since we didn't compete in Europe for six years, and English football has been disastrously re-structured since, don't you think this might account for our lack of success?

But neither were great shakes either! If you want to win things you have to beat everyone and the tactics he adopts each time he comes against someone even above average has 'guaranteed loser' written all over them. If he wins the World cup and does it in style, then I'd be prepared to give him credit (cos frankly I'll be so drunk I wont care!). However, I have just the tiniest feeling he won't.

Rather they prove the other. That all teams are becoming equally average. And yet virtually all continentals play less football than us or Spain. Why then, for example are Italy now so poor? Germany a pale shadow of teams of old? Reducing games is patently NOT producing better football or better international teams.

I think that proves my point not yours. Linekers views are about as useful as a chocolate fireguard. Hence he's under fire for his job. I would prefer to take the views of likes of Franz Beckenbaur, who has, let's be honest, won just a little more, and had just a tad more experience, than Lineker. His view is that modern footballers play too little, over too great a time period, and therefore are lacking in both skill and understanding levels at club and international level. Watching some of the rubbish we see all over the World these days he's not wrong.

So would I. However, Ericsson is not alone in this problem. None of the big continental sides are happy releasing players, and in fact both the Italians and German managers have commented over the last twenty years on the problems they have. Yet both are more successful in relative terms than England. There has always been a club vs country conflict, for every country, and the insane greed of modern footballers, which as made them too expensive and asset to risk playing non club football, has made it worse.

 

I cant see the point in going back there anymore than going back to the twenties thirties or forties the game has moved on.Of cousre being out of Europe had somehting to do with it but also our appalling island mentality and a belief that johny foreigner cant teach us anything that and our genetral slowness in changiing . When did we first enter world cups for eg?
Brasil no great shakes????? - They just won that tournament in Geramny with something to spare.Their technique is on a different level and alsways has been . The only time they fell foul is when they tried to adopt a more European appproach in n74 and 78. with a better central defensive pairing ie Lucio and one other they will be the team to beat no question! France, if they can their players fresh( they have looked listless in both the last two major championships) will probably pose the greatest threat threat.

Liverpool proved in the eighties that if you have a well organised with good players in key positions and the rest willnmg workhorses then you can win things,They were very much a side whose total was greater than the sum of the parts. Ditto Greece!

Its not so much the number of games as the number of high pressure games and carrying injuries as well that takes its toll.I wopuld far prefer to see fewer maytchges but of a higher calibre played and spare time improving skills and RESTING/treating.
I certainly wouldnt diss Lineker in quite that fashion. Footballers as a whole arent the brightest but he has shown himself to be fairly eloquent
I agree with your last paragraph.

 

To answer the thread title.
Biggest sport in the world is Football (soccer). They usually fail to qualify despite the poor quality of their pool of countries. They have never won the World Cup. England are amongst the favourites to win again.

Second world biggest single spectator sport is now Rugby (according to Sky figures) and we beat them in their own back yard (with an influenceds ref) and won the World Cup.

They achieve a lot of great sporting success but not IMO where is matters on the World stage. They do well in the Olympics. Especially with the hundreds of swimming events which is a joke ...running is surely a more natural sport. Why do we not have a running backwards (backstroke equivalent) event? No event is bigger than the next. Though to me the pinnacle is the 100m has Aus ever won that event ?

They are a better sporting nation but only in niche sports. Who gives a XXXX ?

PS Cricket.. if there was one sport of the above to be good at it would not be Cricket. They can have it.


We have nothing to worry about.

 

England have beaten the aussies many times in all sorts of sports but with most english teams its been consistency over long periods which has always let them down.

 

for a country with 20000000 people they have won two world rugby union cups , are the the best at Rugby league, they are streets ahead of any one else at cricket and have been for some years now.They produce a very good crop of swimmers and athletes in general , although not too many track athletes,they have some very good tennis players a few good golfers,they have excvellent cyclists, they have the best field hockey team and they gave us the ultimate humiliation when they beat us in a fairly recent football match. what more do you want?

 

Cricket!!!!!

 

They say that statistics can be manipulated to agree almost anything but I think that the above quote is just extracting the urine.

The world's biggest population centres are China, The Indian subcontinent and USA and I don't recall ever reading about their love of rugby.