Englander here. Tell me when you find out.
It also mentioned that they have revamped their training scheme to systemically encourage creativity, following Germany's experiments. And English youth teams have been winning in the past few years.
Hypothesis: having some of a country's top players participating in leagues with different styles of play is helpful -- so as not to be stuck in and limited by an ever-repeating style and system of offense/defense.
Regarding different playing styles: Premier League has a lot of players and managers from all around the world, so there is no shortage of different playing styles.
I think the real reasons why England has such limited success in football are these:
- having best (and richest) leaque is a mixed blessing: brings a lot of foreign players, taking spots away from native English ones.
- another reason, related to previous: English teams have a lot of money, so they prefer buying players and not training them themselves. Compare that with Spanish teams (Real, Barcelona) which have those big training sites for junior players, and usually half of the senior team line-ups is made of it's alumni. That's why Spain has plenty of world-class players, and England doesn't.
That should be an unmitigated advantage.
Here is where four key Germany players were in 2014:
- Klose: Lazio
- Özil: Arsenal
- Khedira: Real Madrid
- Schürrle: Chelsea
(Not counting Kroos who moved to Real Madrid immediately after the World Cup.)
As for Spain, five players had ongoing or recent foreign-league experience (mostly England!) when they won the World Cup in 2010:
- Piqué: Man U 2004-2008
- Alonso: Liverpool 2004-2009
- Torres: Liverpool 2007-2011
- Fàbregas: Arsenal 2003-2011
- Arbeloa: Liverpool 2007-2009
- plus Marchena, shortly and anciently: Benfica: 2000-2001
(Not counting David Silva who signed with Manchester City just before the World Cup.)
Well, you're in being rude.
Germany had 7 players from Bayern, 16 out of 22 from the Bundesliga. Spain 2010 is even more striking.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_FIFA_World_Cup_squads#Spa...
Both teams played a distinct national style. The style of the Premiere league is not very internationally competitive.
In 2007 Liverpool reached the UEFA Champions League Final, and lost to Milan. In 2008 they reached the semi-final, and lost to Chelsea, whose opponents in the final were Man U, making it the first all-English final in the competition's history. How is that "not very internationally competitive"?
For the love of Jove, look at the squads this year: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_FIFA_World_Cup_squads
England is clearly apart from all other teams in its insularity; even Russia manages to include two players with foreign-league experience in their selection.
Or look at the EURO 2016 squads: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA_Euro_2016_squads
Your thesis that the best teams from the "larger" football countries don't have a lot of key players in foreign leagues is plainly wrong.
Do you believe that there is no difference between having a national team with zero players who thrive in foreign leagues vs having 4-5 key players who do?
I don't believe that, it's not really what I'm saying. On the other hand, this is the winning squad of the 2006 World Cup.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_FIFA_World_Cup_squads#Ita...
It's tricolore all the way. I don't think foreign league participation is what keeps English fans from having to endlessly update the years of hurt count.
We'll soon see whether the unimaginative style of England's team, which my hypothesis attributes to their insular spread and consequent recruitment of top players, is a match for other national teams. I expect them to struggle against both Panama and Tunisia, and to completely fall apart against Belgium unless the latter already feel comfortable with the group results to date.
Another common factor among many World Cup winners is a top flight national club league that produces the core of the national team and drives significant tactical or other innovation. That would give you (in their respective heydays) Brazil, Argentina, Italy, Germany, Spain. The Netherlands is missing - bad luck.
The Premiere league is commercially successful but isn't quite that sort of league. English clubs are regularly embarrassed by their top European competitors. There's not much incentive to fix this, though, since the league prints money as it is.
And this even makes financial sense, because winning Premier League pays much bigger money than winning Champions League.
Having said that I really no nothing about football :)
Edit: Frankly I don't care so much about karma, but this downvote is strange. I would have thought that this reason wasn't controversial at all. I've even heard british players say that. Anybody care to explain?