The England Team - all the news, views…

[Admiral Nelsen]

Just now, speeeeeeedie said:

 

England did have some bad luck as you highlighted. However, as good as some of the players were and ignoring Greece's 2004 fluke win Sven's England teams were still a level below the teams who won trophies. 

The 2002 Brazil team had Ronaldo, Rivaldo, Ronaldinho, Cafu, and Roberto Carlos. 

France 2004 and 2006 still had Zidane, Henry, Makelele, Thuram, and more.

Italy in 2006 - Del Piero, Totti, Buffon, Cannavaro, Pirlo. 

Sven's teams had 3 world class players - Ashley Cole, Wayne Rooney, and Michael Owen. Unfortunately, only Ashley Cole was consistent. Rooney was a bit too young (see 2006 sending off) and Owen was a shadow of his former self.

 

 

I think the Italy example is an interesting one. They had a sprinkling of players who were obviously top level, but they had others who weren't. And yet they won the World Cup not by being streets ahead of everyone they played, but by cashing in when the opportunity presents itself. Could've easily have lost both the semi and the final.

I think also that Terry, Gerrard and Ferdinand would all get into those teams you mention too. Even if they don't, I think we can look back on the side and say that even if they fell below their potential, and even if there wasn't any depth in certain positions, they were still an excellent side on paper and not overhyped because they were English. 

[Hasta]

44 minutes ago, Mike E said:

I’d even add 2010 and THAT disallowed goal from Lampard.

Not sure on that. 

In 2010 we were awful in the group stage, and then got ripped to pieces by Germany in the first knockout game. Lampard should, of course, have equalised but it would have been undeserved.

Edited June 10 by Hasta

[chaddyrovers]

16 minutes ago, speeeeeeedie said:

Sven's teams had 3 world class players - Ashley Cole, Wayne Rooney, and Michael Owen. Unfortunately, only Ashley Cole was consistent. Rooney was a bit too young (see 2006 sending off) and Owen was a shadow of his former self.

So Rio Ferdinand and Steven Gerrard weren't world class players? 

Lampard, Gary Neville and Terry also?

[Giant]

The term “world class player” is the most overused in football. In all my time watching England, I have only seen a handful of such players, namely Bobby Moore, Gordon Banks, Bobby Charlton, and Paul Gascoigne. We’ve had plenty of very good players, but hardly any that you would pick in a world 11 of the day. I don’t even think that there is a current footballer in the game, save for Mbappe, who is genuine world class. Messi and Ronaldo are not there now. For what it’s worth, Bobby Moore is the best England player I have ever seen, absolutely brilliant in every aspect of his role.

[riverholmes]

8 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

So Rio Ferdinand and Steven Gerrard weren't world class players? 

Lampard, Gary Neville and Terry also?

A difficulty faced by those players was the British football style was direct and physical and teams were like rabbits in headlights when on the international arena and faced by a team that retained possession. All sorts of insecurity crises were played out on the pitch. Some teams resorted to trying to play possession football and suppress the urge to hit cross-field balls (which there was no opening for, because the games were slower) and ended up looking constipated.

The shift in the Premier League to possession football, which has gone all the way down the roots, so that youth teams play it, has brought England closer, I think. It could be argued, England have gone too far, and risk abandoning what strengths they had and under utilised. (E.g. We have a top target man forward, so we should play with width, even if others don't). Nevertheless, I would argue, Southgate is benefiting from a major advantage his predecessors didn't necessarily have.

Edit: The more I think about it, the more I think that playing with width and some directness could be key to England. It would give them a sense of identity, for a start, rather than vaguely trying to imitate everyone else. There's no need to always go wide but now and again, having a winger or full back whip in crosses and have Kane and Bellingham in the box could open teams up.

Edited June 10 by riverholmes

[speeeeeeedie]

1 hour ago, oneandycrawford said:

Scholes was also world-class - as evident from his reputation amongst Europe's top players. However Sven never seemed to know how to use him so he couldn't show how good he was.

 

He is an interesting one. I have heard plenty of pundits wax lyrical about how good he was since he retired. He was excellent for Man U but he never hit the heights for England. Sven's lack of a left sided midfielder forced him into some unorthodox decisions, and Scholes suffered as a result.

[speeeeeeedie]

1 hour ago, Admiral Nelsen said:

 

I think the Italy example is an interesting one. They had a sprinkling of players who were obviously top level, but they had others who weren't. And yet they won the World Cup not by being streets ahead of everyone they played, but by cashing in when the opportunity presents itself. Could've easily have lost both the semi and the final.

I think also that Terry, Gerrard and Ferdinand would all get into those teams you mention too. Even if they don't, I think we can look back on the side and say that even if they fell below their potential, and even if there wasn't any depth in certain positions, they were still an excellent side on paper and not overhyped because they were English. 

Italy should also have lost to Australia in the first knock out round. Without looking the game up someone (maybe Totti) got sent off and Lucas Neill was involved in either a missed pen or an own goal.   

Italy are also seasoned in how to play tournament football. 

[speeeeeeedie]

1 hour ago, chaddyrovers said:

So Rio Ferdinand and Steven Gerrard weren't world class players? 

Lampard, Gary Neville and Terry also?

Ferdinand was close, Gerrard was another who was stifled when he played for England. 

The last 3 no. Gary Neville had no competition for his spot. 

We've debated ad nauseum on here about the underperforming on the "golden generation". Club rivalries, bad luck, and a still evolving style contributed to it. 

Southgate has a system and has built a unified squad, which can go a long way.

[The Mighty Chaffinch]

4 hours ago, Bohinen1983 said:

I can't be the only one that thinks England are not that good..

Keepers: Dodgy

Defence, fairly dodgy too..  Only one natural left back that's coming back from injury..

Rice is very good,  Wharton and Gallagher are also good players, as is Mainoo..

We have an abundance of talent that all plays in the same position: Palmer, Bellingham, Foden all like to play as a 10..

Kane likes to drop into the 10 too.. 

Saka likes to cut inside too- very congested area.

I really think we're massively over-rated, just like previous years. 

I'd like to see Eze and Saka out wide.  Perhaps Wharton in CM too- passes forward.     

Can Foden play a bit deeper with Bellingham in the 10 role? I think that could work well working off Kane...    

So perhap:

Pickford
Walker
Stones
Trippier
Gomez
Rice
Foden
Saka
Eze
Bellingham
Kane

To me that's not a great side- France with Zidane,  Brazil, Italy, Germany, Spain- they were world class sides.. This is another over-hyped false dawn.. 

Dodgy defence, negative manager and players that believe their own hype. I think we'll be lucky to get to the QF's let alone win it.

 

I agree that we look dodgy at the back but I can’t help think that this is due to being caught out on the break too frequently as we struggle to keep the ball…this is where Wharton would improve things significantly. We look exposed to the counter against almost any team (see Iceland on Friday) and that puts undue pressure on the back 4. When you look at the back 4 and keeper, only Guehi (who is likely to partner Stones) lacks in tournament experience. Pickford, Walker, Stones, Trippier and Shaw (despite only amassing 31 caps in 10 years!) all have played in the later stages of Euros or World Cups. Sort the midfield two out behind Bellingham and I think we look more solid regardless of the back 4 personnel. 

[roverandout]

No way is this squad massively overrated.  Rice saka foden kane Bellingham walker would walk into any national team in the world.  Its probably the strongest squad we've ever had. When u think sancho Grealish maddison solanke sterling James White tomori can't get into the squad that shows the level of depth. They'd be starters for most sides 

[roverandout]

4 hours ago, Bohinen1983 said:

ahhaha, so it has! I still think they'd struggle to get past the QF's

Based on What. We'd probably play Italy.  We've already banged them out twice

[roverandout]

France scraped a 0-0 with Canada.  Portugal lost at home to Croatia.  Italy barely managed a 1-0 win over Bosnia who we dispatched.  My point is pre tournament friendlies mean nothing.  Its just when England mess up everyone loves jumping on them. None of the pre tournament favourites have impressed. These friendly games are just warm ups. The players clearly weren't giving their all. If after the Serbia game we've had a poor result then I'll be worried

Edited June 10 by roverandout

[roverandout]

5 hours ago, Bohinen1983 said:

I can't be the only one that thinks England are not that good..

Keepers: Dodgy

Defence, fairly dodgy too..  Only one natural left back that's coming back from injury..

Rice is very good,  Wharton and Gallagher are also good players, as is Mainoo..

We have an abundance of talent that all plays in the same position: Palmer, Bellingham, Foden all like to play as a 10..

Kane likes to drop into the 10 too.. 

Saka likes to cut inside too- very congested area.

I really think we're massively over-rated, just like previous years. 

I'd like to see Eze and Saka out wide.  Perhaps Wharton in CM too- passes forward.     

Can Foden play a bit deeper with Bellingham in the 10 role? I think that could work well working off Kane...    

So perhap: 

Pickford
Walker
Stones
Trippier
Gomez
Rice
Foden
Saka
Eze
Bellingham
Kane

To me that's not a great side- France with Zidane,  Brazil, Italy, Germany, Spain- they were world class sides.. This is another over-hyped false dawn.. 

Dodgy defence, negative manager and players that believe their own hype. I think we'll be lucky to get to the QF's let alone win it.

 

Wheres the evidence that pickford is dodgy.  He was one of the top rated keepers in the epl last season. Raya was first in a much better team. Pickford came second.  He's a brilliant tournament keeper.  Dodgy defence only because they were exposed on Friday because mainoo left wide open gaps because he never tracked back. Ghuei was impressive on Friday. Stones wasn't his best after that injury.  Our defence isn't brilliant but bar France and Holland none of the other teams have a plethora of top centrebacks.  Agree with some of your other comments 

[roversfan99]

16 minutes ago, roverandout said:

No way is this squad massively overrated.  Rice saka foden kane Bellingham walker would walk into any national team in the world.  Its probably the strongest squad we've ever had. When u think sancho Grealish maddison solanke sterling James White tomori can't get into the squad that shows the level of depth. They'd be starters for most sides 

It perhaps is in that people judge it and our chances based solely on those brilliant attacking talents. Those players arent overated, they are excellent. When there are areas of big weakness. Its a brilliant front 4, one quality central midfielder then mainly around that its the unfit or the untested.

Some of those players you mention would be nowhere near other big nations either. Sterling isnt a regular for Chelsea, hes past it and gets booed by his own fans. White would be starting if it werent for a fall out.

[roversfan99]

10 minutes ago, roverandout said:

France scraped a 0-0 with Canada.  Portugal lost at home to Croatia.  Italy barely managed a 1-0 win over Bosnia who we dispatched.  My point is pre tournament friendlies mean nothing.  Its just when England mess up everyone loves jumping on them. None of the pre tournament favourites have impressed. These friendly games are just warm ups. The players clearly weren't giving their all. If after the Serbia game we've had a poor result then I'll be worried

Listening to the football ramble podcast, the reaction has been very negative in France to the draw. The English media is obviously focused on the English team, it isnt an agenda. 

You are right that Friday means little. But our concerns dont come from that 

[Admiral Nelsen]

 

1 hour ago, speeeeeeedie said:

He is an interesting one. I have heard plenty of pundits wax lyrical about how good he was since he retired. He was excellent for Man U but he never hit the heights for England. Sven's lack of a left sided midfielder forced him into some unorthodox decisions, and Scholes suffered as a result.

 

In retrospect, playing a midfield 3 with Scholes in there would've made a world of difference. Especially considering we never really managed to get Owen and Rooney fully fit and in the same team, so it's not even as though we had to change the midfield to accommodate our two best strikers.

But to be fair to Sven, most teams played 442 then, even ones who we associate with being possession teams. And even playing Scholes on the left - whilst not getting the best out of him - sort of makes sense when he drifts in like Cairney did for us. He even did it for United a few times when Veron played.

 

[roverandout]

6 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

It perhaps is in that people judge it and our chances based solely on those brilliant attacking talents. Those players arent overated, they are excellent. When there are areas of big weakness. Its a brilliant front 4, one quality central midfielder then mainly around that its the unfit or the untested.

Some of those players you mention would be nowhere near other big nations either. Sterling isnt a regular for Chelsea, hes past it and gets booed by his own fans. White would be starting if it werent for a fall out.

That's why I said most sides. Rice Wharton mainoo are all top midfielders.  Gallagher isn't particularly great but a good sub option.  Trent could come to the fore this tournament 

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

2 hours ago, Giant said:

The term “world class player” is the most overused in football. In all my time watching England, I have only seen a handful of such players, namely Bobby Moore, Gordon Banks, Bobby Charlton, and Paul Gascoigne. We’ve had plenty of very good players, but hardly any that you would pick in a world 11 of the day. I don’t even think that there is a current footballer in the game, save for Mbappe, who is genuine world class. Messi and Ronaldo are not there now. For what it’s worth, Bobby Moore is the best England player I have ever seen, absolutely brilliant in every aspect of his role.

Ashley Cole was World Class.

[Butty]

4 hours ago, Admiral Nelsen said:

 

I don't agree that the England team of the 00s were overrated. Quite a lot of time has passed now and we can look more dispassionately with a fair amount of hindsight, and there's no getting away from that side being comprised mostly of really excellent players. Gerrard, Scholes, A. Cole, Terry, Ferdinand, Lampard, Rooney, Owen at the start of the decade. Beckham. They all shone in Champions League teams (Owen aside), so they weren't just overhyped by playing in a substandard league. 

 

They underperformed - no question - but even there I'm a bit of Sven apologist. 

2002 - knocked out by a freak goal against the last great Brazil side and eventual winners.

2004 - knocked out on pens to the hosts and eventual finalists after having a perfectly good winning goal disallowed. 

2006 - knocked out on pens after playing an hour with 10 men, and still looking the stronger side as I recall.

 

An unfortunate run of tournaments, which preceded a real downturn in the quality of the squad until arguably the last few years. It goes to show the importance of striking whilst the iron is hot, because you're not always going to have very strong sides. The difference between England and the more successful nations is that when Germany, France, Italy & Spain have produced a great squad of players, they have done a better job than us of making it count. 

Big shout but for me we win Euro 2004 if Rooney doesn’t get injured. He was unplayable in that tournament. 

[roversfan99]

1 hour ago, roverandout said:

That's why I said most sides. Rice Wharton mainoo are all top midfielders.  Gallagher isn't particularly great but a good sub option.  Trent could come to the fore this tournament 

Rice is top class. Wharton is a classy player but too early to say that, he cant be compared to the best midfielders. Mainoo im not as convinced on, certainly not at the moment. Gallagher bang average. Trent is such an attacking threat but playing in a midfield 2 (or midfield at all) is still alien to him, seems like if he gets the nod its based on what in theory he could do in there rather than what we know he can in the absence of anyone standing out next to Rice.

[Hasta]

2 hours ago, roverandout said:

  It’s probably the strongest squad we've ever had.

Defensively it’s nowhere near.

[ABBEY]

4 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

So Rio Ferdinand and Steven Gerrard weren't world class players? 

Lampard, Gary Neville and Terry also?

Rio Ferdinand was a performance enhancing drug cheat.

[roverandout]

1 hour ago, ABBEY said:

Rio Ferdinand was a performance enhancing drug cheat.

Still a great player 

[Upside Down]

6 hours ago, Eddie said:

Yeah, because we're only talking about a manager who's been in charge for 3 major tournaments and made it to the QF, SF, and final.

Let's start your list off by removing any manager who doesn't speak fluent English. Then remove managers who would have never taken the job in the first place (Ferguson was never going to be England manager). Oh, and then remove any managers who have disgraced themselves or would have disgraced the job (for example, remove Allardyce from your list after what he did).

If you can then get to 500 managers, send me the list and I'll send you 500 pounds. 

Well you've taken a throw away joke comment very seriously here.

It's hard to take you even remotely seriously TBH.

Southgate is a shit manager and England can and should do better.

[chaddyrovers]

4 hours ago, speeeeeeedie said:

Ferdinand was close, Gerrard was another who was stifled when he played for England. 

Ferdinand was class. 

Gerrard was never used right just like Lampard and Scholes(who I forgot)

4 hours ago, speeeeeeedie said:

The last 3 no. Gary Neville had no competition for his spot. 

That's a fair point 

4 hours ago, speeeeeeedie said:

We've debated ad nauseum on here about the underperforming on the "golden generation". Club rivalries, bad luck, and a still evolving style contributed to it. 

The club rivalries was a problem as several former players have said before on daily interviews and podcasts. 

4 hours ago, speeeeeeedie said:

Southgate has a system and has built a unified squad, which can go a long way.

Southgate has built a squad and got the squad integrating everyone.