In the interest of moderation, let’s step this back and let understanding occur. Chris, I think the main point being made is the same as that which you stated earlier against inara which is that there is a fundamental difference between physicality and technique, the physical and the intellectual. And furthermore, it is difficult to discern which is the superior methodology.

Certainly a team needs a measure of both to compete at the highest levels. To make it more personal to you, take AS Roma. They have a physical defense, but what makes them special is that currently they are not jut hoofing the ball to the solitary striker, but putting together very intellectual strings of passes (aka the intellectual side of football).

Malouda seems to be pointing out very clearly that England training is overly physical with not enough intellectual portions. It may be an unfair criticism, certainly as you point out, tactics exist in which people know what they need to do, how, and when, but it is a criticism of that sort, not of the sort that anybody who thinks in a match or wishes to see more thought in matches is somehow weak and unmasculine.

It is also a dangerous thought pattern to get into. Here in America, masculinity posing contests and the idea that thought has little place in “physical” sports leads to problems like the US National Team which has very physical and physically gifted players being made into pathetic fools by more technically gifted sides. It has certainly as Inara tried to point out made England into a weaker national team.

I think that is the point trying to be made and one which you yourself have made at points in the conversation. Sure, a game with all technique and no physical component can be just as bad as all physical and I also agree that Malouda should have put some thought into the not at all hidden physicality of the English game before signing on with Chelsea, but I disagree it is born out of fear or that being intellectually minded is either unmasculine or a negative trait to acquire.

Now about the being a diver on the other hand…Total pathetic wanker.

Physicality: “Intensely physical orientation; predominance of the physical usually at the expense of the mental, spiritual, or social.”

Difficulty: “Something not easily done, accomplished, comprehended, or solved.”

While your last comment wasn’t a response to my comment, as far as I can tell, it (as well as your earlier comments) implies that these two words are interchangeable. Read Malouda’s comments again, read the definitions again, and read your original post again. He’s saying the English training sessions are more physical (and brainless), yes, but not more difficult. Yet your references to crying babies and wussy girls is implying he can’t take it because it’s difficult. You’re still missing the point.

Lampard says of the twice daily training sessions, “it’s intense and that’s a good thing.” Mourinho details every minute of every session. If something is expected to happen in the 90th minute, it happens then. It is “very football orientated. Everything has a purpose,” says Lampard. “There is always an aim.”

There are plenty more. Sometimes the point is just that, and it doesn’t need a “translation”.

What he said is valid and accurate.

“if not more, talent which is more productive at a higher level than France – productions levels which are often cyclical”

So what is the highest level? The Champions League? Because if that’s the case, after Brazil, France has the most players in the competition – and they all play for top teams. No offense, but if you’re going to accuse me of bias, then maybe you should admit that you yourself have serious issues against France.

Look, we can debate this on and on, but name one Italian, German, or Spanish academy that is more well known outside their country than Clairefontaine? If you took a blind survey on this site and polled people as to which European country has the best youth academies, I bet people will vote France because that is what France is known for – footballing breeding grounds. That’s not bias. That’s opening up any soccer magazine or website and seeing it there. That’s reading interviews by directors from other clubs who travel to France to learn about French youth development. That’s by seeing UEFA repeatedly praise France for formation every other week. Etc.

No one is saying that other countries don’t know how to develop players, and I do think that Spain will surpass France within the next decade, but I’m sorry, besides South America and Netherlands in the mid 90s, on average, at this moment, France’s academies can wipe the rest of Europe’s off the map.

I really have nothing more to add here since all you’ve done is say I’m wrong without saying why. Since we’re just going in circles and hijacking this post, and since neither of us will change our minds and no one else cares, I’m going to say goodnight. I’ll be happy to continue this discussion tomorrow if you have anything to add.

Also, I hope you aren’t taking this debate personally, because this is after all, just a debate. Nothing against you personally.

This has always been about the difficulty of training. Period.

“it’s pretty much universally acknowledged”

Seriously, your French argument is highly biased and based on word of mouth? From whom? Is this a quantitative argument? Absolutely nothing to back your statement other than being a fan of L1. Plenty of countries produce just as much, if not more talent which is more productive at a higher level than France – production levels which are often cyclical. What are we basing “talent” on? Is it trophies won? Is it money made? Is it the eyes of the Ballon D’Or voters – presented by a French magazine? Or just “you should know” France produced players are better? For which style of play or league? For the long run? Short term? Would you like me to give you a list of African or Asian or South American born players Serie A clubs have produced? Or the Bundesliga, which has produced some damn fine talent from outside of Europe? Hell, I might even make the argument that Real and Barca alone wipe the lot of France off the map – not legitimately, but you get the point. How is this even close to being “universally recognized” or so definitive as to say “no country produces so many talents on a yearly basis like France”? It smells more of an agenda than a substantive, unifying argument, no offense.