The England Team - all the news, views…

[chaddyrovers]

9 minutes ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

It’s the quality of the football on display that gets me. We’re really poor to watch. With the players we’ve got we must be able to play better than that.

alot of games have been poor in terms of quality of football on display

Edited July 8 by chaddyrovers

[RevidgeBlue]

11 minutes ago, Forever Blue said:

You think the players available now are better than 20 years ago?

Not better than the original "Golden Generation" who completely flopped maybe but in general terms yes. 

Since the Premier League took off and financially dwarfed all the other domestic Leagues we  have players playing week in week out in what I would class as the best League in the world in the sense it's by far the most competitive.

[DE.]

25 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

It's a fair point to make I suppose 

I'd disagree, as pre-88 it was far more difficult to progress due to the number of teams in tournaments being far less and therefore of greater concentrated quality. The Euros only had 8 teams competing until 1996, and the WC only expanded to 24 teams in 1982, nowadays it's 32 and will be 48 in two years. 

Gareth has a good record compared to most of his predecessors from comparable years (1996 onwards, really). That is a fair point, albeit in many of those prior years we ended up going out, at whatever stage, to a top team - and that pattern hasn't changed. We've just been meeting those teams far later in the tournament. 

[Forever Blue]

Just now, RevidgeBlue said:

Not better than the original "Golden Generation" who completely flopped maybe but in general terms yes. 

Since the Premier League took off and financially dwarfed all the other domestic Leagues we  have players playing week in week out in what I would class as the best League in the world in the sense it's by far the most competitive.

And it’s full of non-English players.

With respect, you’ve swallowed the Prem hype. Apart from that appalling spell were the likes of Geoff Thomas and Keith Curle were being picked, we’ve always had some quality players. Until now that has never translated into a consistently effective National team. 
 

And I’d say the defence we have now is poor in relation to some of the players we’ve been able to call on in the past. Stones and Trippier are average, as is Pickford. Guehi being are best defender speaks volumes. 
 

Id argue the CM is hardly vintage either and we’ve got a bloke up front who can’t run. 
 

This squad is hyped because Bellingham plays for RM  and because Saka and Foden play well their clubs most weeks. 
 

International football is completely different. 

 

[RevidgeBlue]

1 hour ago, chaddyrovers said:

alot of games have been poor in terms of quality of football on display

I think in terms of quality it's been the poorest tournament I can remember.

Some of the smaller teams like Georgia, Turkey and Austria have been a breath of fresh air but none of the traditional "big guns" have really fired with the exception of Spain and to a limited extent Germany.

What's the reason for this? A lot of people will claim the teams are all burnt out but I'd say a major reason is the demise of the traditional old fashioned striker who just wants to get into scoring positions and find the back of the net. Most teams have been loath to shoot and guilty of taking at least one pass too many and on the rare occasions when a dangerous ball has flashed across the area no-one has been looking to get on the end of it.

When a team has finally attempted a shot, by and large the technique and quality of strike has been dreadful and of course attacking play hasn't been aided either by the ridiculous practice of VAR chalking off goals for toe nail offsides.

Edited July 8 by RevidgeBlue

[Forever Blue]

11 minutes ago, DE. said:

 

Gareth has a good record compared to most of his predecessors from comparable years (1996 onwards, really). That is a fair point, albeit in many of those prior years we ended up going out, at whatever stage, to a top team - and that pattern hasn't changed. We've just been meeting those teams far later in the tournament. 

No, Gareth has a far better record than ALL his predecessors bar Sir Alf since 1930. 
 

It’s also irrelevant what the format has changed from/to because the same rules apply to every other nation. 

[RevidgeBlue]

5 minutes ago, Forever Blue said:

And it’s full of non-English players.

With respect, you’ve swallowed the Prem hype. Apart from that appalling spell were the likes of Geoff Thomas and Keith Curle were being picked, we’ve always had some quality players. Until now that has never translated into a consistently effective National team. 
 

And I’d say the defence we have now is poor in relation to some of the players we’ve been able to call on in the past. Stones and Trippier are average, as is Pickford. Guehi being are best defender speaks volumes. 
 

Id argue the CM is hardly vintage either and we’ve got a bloke up front who can’t run. 
 

This squad is hyped because Bellingham plays for RM  and because Saka and Foden play well their clubs most weeks. 
 

International football is completely different. 

 

The bloke up front who "can't run" scored about 35 goals for Bayern last season so someone must be able to get a tune out of him.

Stones and Guehi have arguably been out best performers. Walker is top class and it's Southgate's fault he didn't pick a fit left footed left back in the squad.

After that if you can't get a tune out of the likes of Bellingham, Rice, Saka, Foden, Palmer, Toney etc you're probably in the wrong job.

[Forever Blue]

1 minute ago, RevidgeBlue said:

The bloke up front who "can't run" scored about 35 goals for Bayern last season so someone must be able to get a tune out of him.

Stones and Guehi have arguably been out best performers. Walker is top class and it's Southgate's fault he didn't pick a fit left footed left back in the squad.

After that if you can't get a tune out of the likes of Bellingham, Rice, Saka, Foden, Palmer, Toney etc you're probably in the wrong job.

International football is not club football. 

[RevidgeBlue]

6 minutes ago, Forever Blue said:

International football is not club football. 

No **** Sherlock. What's your point exactly?

[Forever Blue]

5 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

No **** Sherlock. What's your point exactly?

I thought it was obvious. That performance levels in club football don’t necessarily translate to International football. Many hyped ‘superstars’ at club level have failed to make the transition. 

[joey_big_nose]

51 minutes ago, DE. said:

I'd disagree, as pre-88 it was far more difficult to progress due to the number of teams in tournaments being far less and therefore of greater concentrated quality. The Euros only had 8 teams competing until 1996, and the WC only expanded to 24 teams in 1982, nowadays it's 32 and will be 48 in two years. 

Gareth has a good record compared to most of his predecessors from comparable years (1996 onwards, really). That is a fair point, albeit in many of those prior years we ended up going out, at whatever stage, to a top team - and that pattern hasn't changed. We've just been meeting those teams far later in the tournament. 

To be fair everyone has the capacity to qualify for the tournament irrespective of the how large the final tournament was. In effect while the end tournament was much smaller everyone still played a full group round to get there... so actually to say that you can't compare 2024 to 1988 I am not really sure. For example the qualifying groups in 1988 looked like the below.. and if anything it was maybe "easier" as in the qualifying you got to play home and away so less vulnerable to a freak result rather than the single games in the host country in the group in the tournament.

 

 

 

[roverandout]

1 hour ago, Forever Blue said:

You think the players available now are better than 20 years ago?

Far more depth. Outwith the starting 11 we had crap like vassell Lennon Milner to come off the bench. Now we have players like palmer Gordon Wharton Watkins etc to call on. The likes of sterling sancho would have walked into the 04/06 squad 

Edited July 8 by roverandout

[joey_big_nose]

5 minutes ago, roverandout said:

Far more depth. Outwith the starting 11 we had crap like vassell Lennon Milner to come off the bench. Now we have players like palmer Gordon Wharton Watkins etc to call on. The likes of sterling sancho would have walked into the 04/06 squad 

Id say our defence is worse but we have much better options going forward. Also in Rice we have a top enforcer in midfield which we haven't had since Batty and Ince retired.

[DE.]

26 minutes ago, joey_big_nose said:

To be fair everyone has the capacity to qualify for the tournament irrespective of the how large the final tournament was. In effect while the end tournament was much smaller everyone still played a full group round to get there... so actually to say that you can't compare 2024 to 1988 I am not really sure. For example the qualifying groups in 1988 looked like the below.. and if anything it was maybe "easier" as in the qualifying you got to play home and away so less vulnerable to a freak result rather than the single games in the host country in the group in the tournament.

 

 

 

But once you're in the tournament you aren't facing the likes of Slovenia, Slovakia, etc, so that makes it more difficult to get out of the group or progress to the semis. 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only genuinely top team we've beaten in tournaments during Southgate's tenure is Germany? They were in a massive dip at that point, but still, I'll give it to him. Nonetheless, what evidence is there, based on our performances against the top international sides during Southgate's tenure, that we would have done better in tournaments comprised primarily of the top teams? 

Edited July 8 by DE.

[RevidgeBlue]

5 minutes ago, DE. said:

But once you're in the tournament you aren't facing the likes of Slovenia, Slovakia, etc, so that makes it more difficult to get out of the group or progress to the semis. 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only genuinely top team we've beaten in tournaments during Southgate's tenure is Germany? They were in a massive dip at that point, but still, I'll give it to him. Nonetheless, what evidence is there, based on our performances against the top international sides during Southgate's tenure, that we would have done better in tournaments comprised primarily of the top teams? 

Pretty much nailed it there. In general under Southgate as soon as We've played a "top" team We've been beaten which I would put down to a combination of his innate caution and lack of proactiveness during games rather than the quality of our players.

The guy must wear a life jacket in the bath. 

Edited July 8 by RevidgeBlue

[Eddie]

1 hour ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

It’s the quality of the football on display that gets me. We’re really poor to watch. With the players we’ve got we must be able to play better than that.

There are a couple of factors that do play into that though.

Southgate acknowledged early on in his tenure that the focus was being on defensively solid as they'd analysed previous tournament winners and identified that defensive teams tended to do better. What bothers me slightly about him is that he isn't sticking to his guns and driving that point home when facing criticism.

The other issues that he faces are that the overall quality of international football has rapidly improved over the last 20 years and most teams are struggling to play expansive football.

The football has been awful and his refusal to make substations before the 70th minute or bring in more in-form players are both definitely a problem, but he has still turned England from a side that never really got past the quarterfinals into a team that now consistently makes the latter stages of tournaments. 

France have been worse to watch, but their players and French supporters as a whole have accepted that the be-all and end-all are the results. There are no medals for playing pretty football and losing in the quarterfinals and people will forget boring football when you're lifting the trophy on July 14th. 

[RevidgeBlue]

9 minutes ago, Eddie said:

There are a couple of factors that do play into that though.

Southgate acknowledged early on in his tenure that the focus was being on defensively solid as they'd analysed previous tournament winners and identified that defensive teams tended to do better. What bothers me slightly about him is that he isn't sticking to his guns and driving that point home when facing criticism.

The other issues that he faces are that the overall quality of international football has rapidly improved over the last 20 years and most teams are struggling to play expansive football.

The football has been awful and his refusal to make substations before the 70th minute or bring in more in-form players are both definitely a problem, but he has still turned England from a side that never really got past the quarterfinals into a team that now consistently makes the latter stages of tournaments. 

France have been worse to watch, but their players and French supporters as a whole have accepted that the be-all and end-all are the results. There are no medals for playing pretty football and losing in the quarterfinals and people will forget boring football when you're lifting the trophy on July 14th. 

Correct, but if you're going to stink the place out, the end has to justify the means and you HAVE to lift the Trophy.

[Eddie]

2 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Correct, but if you're going to stink the place out, the end has to justify the means and you HAVE to lift the Trophy.

Two matches away...

England go in as favourites against a decent Netherlands side and then we'll have to see who they might face in the final. Spain would be an issue as it could see England sit deeper and deeper. France would be an interesting test as it would be two sides struggling to get out of their own halves. 

[RevidgeBlue]

3 minutes ago, Eddie said:

Two matches away...

England go in as favourites against a decent Netherlands side and then we'll have to see who they might face in the final. Spain would be an issue as it could see England sit deeper and deeper. France would be an interesting test as it would be two sides struggling to get out of their own halves. 

Yep, if it did turn out to be France against England, one of the two sides is going to have to try to come out of their shells a bit otherwise the loser is going to get slaughtered.

And rightly so imo given the players on display.

[Eddie]

3 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Yep, if it did turn out to be France against England, one of the two sides is going to have to try to come out of their shells a bit otherwise the loser is going to get slaughtered.

And rightly so imo given the players on display.

England would be slaughtered, France would point to some mitigating factors.

They would, rightfully, point out that England have more talent. They would also use the Mbappe injury as an explanation for his poor form (so far). It's a French team that is lacking a lot of star power in key positions and relying on some ageing players in others. 

[Forever Blue]

1 hour ago, roverandout said:

Far more depth. Outwith the starting 11 we had crap like vassell Lennon Milner to come off the bench. Now we have players like palmer Gordon Wharton Watkins etc to call on. The likes of sterling sancho would have walked into the 04/06 squad 

Totally disagree. Quite a few of the players in the first XI now would have been squad players at best 20/25 years ago. 

The likes of Ferdinand Terry Cole Beckham Scholes  Gerrard Lampard Owen Rooney etc etc would have walked into the current team. The hype is ridiculous for a team containing  the likes of Pickford, Trippier, Stones, Gallagher. 

 

 

Edited July 8 by Forever Blue

[roverandout]

4 minutes ago, Forever Blue said:

Totally disagree. The players in the first XI now would have been squad players at best 20/25 years ago. 

The likes of Ferdinand Terry Cole Beckham Scholes  Gerrard Lampard Owen Rooney etc etc would have walked into the current team. The hype is ridiculous for a team containing  the likes of Pickford, Trippier, Stones, Gallagher. 

 

 

Pickford is top class better than anything 20 years ago. Stones would definitely compare with Terry.  Rice is what England lacked 20 years ago. Gerrard and lampard didn't work together.  We had a world class 11 back then but shit substitutes

[roverandout]

And kane would definitely be in alongside Rooney. Owen wasn't the same players after 04

[Exiled_Rover]

1 hour ago, joey_big_nose said:

Id say our defence is worse but we have much better options going forward. Also in Rice we have a top enforcer in midfield which we haven't had since Batty and Ince retired.

He's a firefighter rather than an enforcer.

[Eddie]

22 minutes ago, Forever Blue said:

Totally disagree. Quite a few of the players in the first XI now would have been squad players at best 20/25 years ago. 

The likes of Ferdinand Terry Cole Beckham Scholes  Gerrard Lampard Owen Rooney etc etc would have walked into the current team. The hype is ridiculous for a team containing  the likes of Pickford, Trippier, Stones, Gallagher. 

 

 

Think you are underrating Stones and I'm not sure you can make a strong case for a better England goalkeeper than Pickford over the last 20/30 years.

This current England squad has more talent and depth in midfield and attack, but is currently a bit weaker defensively.