Jump to content

Football 17/18


TheGayTent
 Share

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, CRW5252 said:

Sadly it's not just the midfield. Defense and GK are poor. Only position we have good depth is striker. Although if Kane plays anything like he did at the euros we will be out at the group stage of the world cup again.

Depth in strikers? Who in the England squad has got much of a track record at either champions league or international level? Only one regularly competes for the leagues top scorer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, kaosmark2 said:

You mean take out every team in Europe that has a consistent history of high quality players except us and the Dutch?

Some star generations aside (current Belgian, Czech early 00s, etc), you've listed the teams that are consistently talented and would be expecting eras of success.

It was a point clumsily made. However I stand by the fact that international tournaments are very hard to win. When you look at the World Cup i think only 6 teams have won without home advantage which is amazing when you think how many have taken place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, CRW5252 said:

I think it just emphasizes how poor we are now. If that team couldn't win anything (or even get close), our current team has no chance. Especially with a manager like Southgate. 

I'm not convinced those England teams were ever in the top 4 in terms of quality. When they were eliminated from tournaments they generally were knocked out by equal or better teams. These tournaments are very hard to win. Looking at the World Cup i started watching in 1990. I would argue the worst winners I have seen were Italy 2006 and they still had Buffon, Canavarro, Pirlo and Del Piero.

England may think Euro 2004 was their big chance in view of the winners, but there are 5 or 6 others who thought exactly the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, pink_triangle said:

I'm not convinced those England teams were ever in the top 4 in terms of quality. When they were eliminated from tournaments they generally were knocked out by equal or better teams. These tournaments are very hard to win. Looking at the World Cup i started watching in 1990. I would argue the worst winners I have seen were Italy 2006 and they still had Buffon, Canavarro, Pirlo and Del Piero.

England may think Euro 2004 was their big chance in view of the winners, but there are 5 or 6 others who thought exactly the same.

I disagree, in terms of personal on the pitch (not as a unit) they were in the top 4. Scholes, Gerrard and Lampard are all widely considered to be 3 of the best midfielders of the 21st century. Beckham only shortly behind them in terms of quality. Cole was the best left back in the world. Terry and Ferdinand were one of, if not the best, defensive partnership at the time.  Neville, Hargreaves, Rooney were other top players in the squad. The only position where we lacked anyone of top quality was goalkeeper. Between 2004-2006 the top 4 team, in terms of individual quality, were France, Brazil, England and Italy.

Edited by CRW5252
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, CRW5252 said:

I disagree, in terms of personal on the pitch (not as a unit) they were in the top 4. Scholes, Gerrard and Lampard are all widely considered to be 3 of the best midfielders of the 21st century. Beckham only shortly behind them in terms of quality. Cole was the best left back in the world. Terry and Ferdinand were one of, if not the best, defensive partnership at the time.  Neville, Hargreaves, Rooney were other top players in the squad. The only position where we lacked anyone of top quality was goalkeeper. Between 2004-2006 the top 4 team, in terms of individual quality, were France, Brazil, England and Italy.

Widely considered by who? The British media and  people who watched the premiership every week? The technical deficiencies of those player should were hidden playing every week with overseas players. I would certainly rank holland , Argentina and (up for debate) the Portugal tgolden generation at that time better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

Widely considered by who? The British media and  people who watched the premiership every week? The technical deficiencies of those player should were hidden playing every week with overseas players. I would certainly rank holland , Argentina and (up for debate) the Portugal tgolden generation at that time better.

No, by the whole world. Just do some research into the comments the likes of Xavi, Messi, Suarez, Henry, Ronaldinho etc... had about these 3.

'The technical deficiencies of those player should were hidden playing every week with overseas players.' is there any evidence of this whatsoever? If this was the case, why did these 3 stand out as one of their clubs best players for years? 

Holland, Argentina and Portugal all had defenses that weren't even close to England's. Attacking wise they all had great players but they were at best as good as England's. I don't think anyone can really justify that those teams were better than England's at the time in terms of individual quality. There is a reason we were joint second favorites for the 2006 world cup.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, CRW5252 said:

No, by the whole world. Just do some research into the comments the likes of Xavi, Messi, Suarez, Henry, Ronaldinho etc... had about these 3.

 

I take very little stock into players comments. Often when you examine them they come as a result of leading questions from journalists and footballers giving politicaly correct answers. 

Around the time if you polled most British people who was the best left back in the world, they would have said Ashley Cole. I'm not as convinced you get the same result running the polls in different countries. People always rate higher the players they are more focused on

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, CRW5252 said:

 

'The technical deficiencies of those player should were hidden playing every week with overseas players.' is there any evidence of this whatsoever? If this was the case, why did these 3 stand out as one of their clubs best players for years? 

There's little evidence for most of your comments, it's all subjective opinion. Most of the players you mention stood out for one team, playing in the country they were born, supported by some of the best players from overseas. Would they have looked a good playing abroad as most other top players have to, we will never know the answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, CRW5252 said:

 

Holland, Argentina and Portugal all had defenses that weren't even close to England's. 

How are you judging the quality of a defence. England may have often had the most eye-catching defence in terms of last ditch tackles, headers etc. I would argue part of modern defending is being comfortable on the ball, playing out etc I don't think the England defence excelled here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, CRW5252 said:

Atacking wise they all had great players but they were at best as good as England's. 

It depends what qualities you are looking for. Certainly in terms of skill and  composure England were lacking. I think different countries appreciate different players in different ways. Lampard and Gerrard for example were very "British" players with the pros and cons that come with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How would you even line up against Germany and Brazil with that squad? Three at the back with wing backs and may as well blood the youngsters in my opinion. 

Butland

Cahill Jones Stones

Walker Dier RLC Rose

Vardy Abraham Rashford

 

Not sure if I can see Abraham getting the start though so failing that perhaps throw in Livermore and give RLC more of a license to create.

Butland

Cahill Jones Stones

Walker Dier RLC Livermore Rose

Vardy Rashford

It's not ideal by any stretch of the imagination but what can you do. Hopefully some of the lads take the opportunity and play well. I won't hold my breath though, it is England after all.

Edited by jyoung
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion the 2002 World Cup was the one that got away. Which is strange considering that the squad was ravaged by injury - we took Danny Mills, Trevor Sinclair, Darius Vassell, Keiron Dyer and a half fit Beckham and Owen and yet Sven produced a team who should have gone further than they did. We played for at least 30 minutes against a ten man Brazil and didn't do anything to hurt them. Had we got past them it would have been Turkey in the semis and the worst Germany team to have ever made a major final (who we beat 5-1 nine months prior). I remain convinced that had we overcome those ten men in yellow we would have had gone on to win the thing. Auntie + bollocks = uncle I know, but there you are.

Funny that Sven managed three consecutive quarter finals (02, 04, 06) before being considered not good enough and drummed out by the media for being a bit foreign. We've made one quarter final since then.

Edited by Hugh Jass
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

I take very little stock into players comments. Often when you examine them they come as a result of leading questions from journalists and footballers giving politicaly correct answers. 

Around the time if you polled most British people who was the best left back in the world, they would have said Ashley Cole. I'm not as convinced you get the same result running the polls in different countries. People always rate higher the players they are more focused on

The players wouldn't have said something if they completely disagreed with it. It is still some evidence that it wasn't just British media and regular premier league watchers who considered them greats. 

I have no idea, I highly doubt anyone overseas would not consider him at least one of the best. All you have to do is look at everything he's won.

32 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

There's little evidence for most of your comments, it's all subjective opinion. Most of the players you mention stood out for one team, playing in the country they were born, supported by some of the best players from overseas. Would they have looked a good playing abroad as most other top players have to, we will never know the answer.

Of course it is, as is yours. Although looking at the trophy cabinet for those 3 is some evidence of how good they were. Also Lampard and Gerrard were 2nd and 3rd respectively for the Ballon d'Or in 2005. Is that not evidence they were rated very highly globally? 

There are plenty of foreign greats who have only played for one team and in one country for the majority of the career. Messi being one of these off a huge list. 

'as most other top players have to' is this really true? Look at the 2017 ballon d'or list, most of the players haven't ventured out of the league they made a name for themselves in. 

Despite all of this, previously you said this: 'the technical deficiencies of those player should were hidden playing every week with overseas players'  referring to Gerrard, Lampard and Scholes. Surely, by applying that statement, playing with more overseas players would only hide these 'deficiencies' even more and they would in fact play better.

 

47 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

How are you judging the quality of a defence. England may have often had the most eye-catching defence in terms of last ditch tackles, headers etc. I would argue part of modern defending is being comfortable on the ball, playing out etc I don't think the England defence excelled here.

I agree that the England defense didn't excel in that area but that doesn't take away from the fact that they were an outstanding defense. Neville, Cole, Ferdinand and Terry have all won numerous league titles and at least one champions league each. They have done it on the world stage. There were only a few national teams at the time who had a defense with individuals that had achieved that kind of success at club level.

 

53 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

It depends what qualities you are looking for. Certainly in terms of skill and  composure England were lacking. I think different countries appreciate different players in different ways. Lampard and Gerrard for example were very "British" players with the pros and cons that come with that.

When you say skill, do you mean flair? England had a team with an abundance of skill, proven by all that they had won at club level. I agree they lacked composure and that is certainly a major factor on why they weren't successful at international level.

I agree, there a pros and cons to every style of player.

55 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

English people letting their hearts rule their heads and lumping money on, leading to bookies acting accordingly?

Any evidence of this? Do other countries not bet? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Hugh Jass said:

Funny that Sven managed three consecutive quarter finals (02, 04, 06) before being considered not good enough and drummed out by the media for being a bit foreign. We've made one quarter final since then.

But isn't that supposedly the point that is being made, that team was supposed to be getting quarter finals minimum during that time frame.. 

1 hour ago, pink_triangle said:

Lampard and Gerrard for example were very "British" players with the pros and cons that come with that

I think this is why I'm actually slightly more enthusiastic about England currently than a lot of others might be - when all fully fit we do actually have some players that have that creative spark that we so often lacked during the lampard/gerrard era. They are both good midfielders of course (as is scholes and the rest of that team) but they all offered the 'british' midfield role, whereas we now have a few more players that link the midfield to the forwards. A universal change in systems has help this as well

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, CRW5252 said:

The players wouldn't have said something if they completely disagreed with it. It is still some evidence that it wasn't just British media and regular premier league watchers who considered them greats. 

 

If a top footballer is asked a question " Is player x one of the top players in world football, most will just say yes and waffle. In general footballers give the safest answers possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, CRW5252 said:

 

I have no idea, I highly doubt anyone overseas would not consider him at least one of the best. All you have to do is look at everything he's won.

Of course it is, as is yours. Although looking at the trophy cabinet for those 3 is some evidence of how good they were. Also Lampard and Gerrard were 2nd and 3rd respectively for the Ballon d'Or in 2005. Is that not evidence they were rated very highly globally? 

 

 

I have no doubt that Ashley Cole was rated highly abroad. Was he unanimously considered best in the world in Spain, Italy, Germany etc. I suspect they would plump for the best in their league.

Trophy cabinet only shows so much. Lots of people from any country win a lot of domestic honours, particularly the likes of England, Italy, Germany etc when the best players don't often move.

I'm not saying Gerrard and lampard weren't rated highly. I'm saying they were rated higher in England than others countries. Which is probably the same for players in other countries. I am always a bit cautious about awards as they often are a combination of Fame and achievement. I remember Gerrard being voted in team of the tournament in Euro (I think) 2012 when he was very average 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, CRW5252 said:
35 minutes ago, CRW5252 said:

 

spite all of this, previously you said this: 'the technical deficiencies of those player should were hidden playing every week with overseas players'  referring to Gerrard, Lampard and Scholes. Surely, by applying that statement, playing with more overseas players would only hide these 'deficiencies' even more and they would in fact play better.

 

 

 

Maybe I wasn't clear. What I meant to say was the English players deficiencies were covered by the overseas players in their team. When they were taken out they were exposed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, CRW5252 said:

 

I agree that the England defense didn't excel in that area but that doesn't take away from the fact that they were an outstanding defense. Neville, Cole, Ferdinand and Terry have all won numerous league titles and at least one champions league each. They have done it on the world stage. There were only a few national teams at the time who had a defense with individuals that had achieved that kind of success at club level.

 

When you say skill, do you mean flair? England had a team with an abundance of skill, proven by all that they had won at club level. I agree they lacked composure and that is certainly a major factor on why they weren't successful at international level.

I agree, there a pros and cons to every style of player.

Any evidence of this? Do other countries not bet? 

They are outstanding in some aspects of defence. However while the last ditch tackle, header, clearance etc is exciting to watch and makes the players stand out, I doubt it's effectiveness particularly in the international game.The reason being it often just gives possession back or a set piece. A defender who is tactically aware, generally in the right place and comfortable passing the ball out is less impressive on the eye, but I would argue more effective.

In terms of skill I don't just mean flair, I think England players have often given the ball away too easy, whether through ball control, passing or getting past players. I also think a lot of England players have worn themselves out running like headless chickens and lacking the tactical awareness of other players.

I'm sceptical to look at what players have won purely because so many factors involved. At a European level a lot of the players success has been due to an accident of birth and bring in the right place at the right time. If all the money had poured into Holland or Portugal you would have seen more players from those nation's winning things.

As for betting bookies are in general not in the prediction game, they follow the money. We generally hear offs from our own bookmakers. In honest I'm not sure how different countries odds differ. Logic is more money would be placed on England in England.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, pink_triangle said:

They are outstanding in some aspects of defence. However while the last ditch tackle, header, clearance etc is exciting to watch and makes the players stand out, I doubt it's effectiveness particularly in the international game.The reason being it often just gives possession back or a set piece. A defender who is tactically aware, generally in the right place and comfortable passing the ball out is less impressive on the eye, but I would argue more effective.

In terms of skill I don't just mean flair, I think England players have often given the ball away too easy, whether through ball control, passing or getting past players. I also think a lot of England players have worn themselves out running like headless chickens and lacking the tactical awareness of other players.

As for betting bookies are in general not in the prediction game, they follow the money. We generally hear offs from our own bookmakers. In honest I'm not sure how different countries odds differ. Logic is more money would be placed on England in England.

It's generally accepted (and something I believe) that Ferdinand had an incredibly good reading of the game and ability to pass out from the back. He complemented a last-ditch style defender, be it Campbell/Terry/Vidic. 

I completely agree about England having given the ball away too easily over the years, not just through ball control and passing, but wild shots (Lampard and Gerrard particularly guilty of this).

Completely agree that England fans betting on England is why the odds were so low, the bookies price at the lowest they can still get people to place bets on, English fans believed and by keeping the odds low they both exacerbated that belief and reduced the risk to themselves if England did win.

Personally, I think England in the 02-08 era should've at least looked like challenging for a tournament. They're incredibly hard to win, but the players available were incredibly high class, not reaching a semi-final or final is a definite under-achievement, and a number of the teams that did well in that time were fairly poor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

It's generally accepted (and something I believe) that Ferdinand had an incredibly good reading of the game and ability to pass out from the back. He complemented a last-ditch style defender, be it Campbell/Terry/Vidic. 

 

I would say good, but I think the fact he was different to many traditional English centre backs made him look better than he was.

 

26 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

 

I completely agree about England having given the ball away too easily over the years, not just through ball control and passing, but wild shots (Lampard and Gerrard particularly guilty of this).

Also a tendency to go for the Hollywood pass. As with the long range shots, people generally only remember the ones that work.

 

29 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

It's generally accepted (and some

Personally, I think England in the 02-08 era should've at least looked like challenging for a tournament. They're incredibly hard to win, but the players available were incredibly high class, not reaching a semi-final or final is a definite under-achievement, and a number of the teams that did well in that time were fairly poor.

I think 2008 is a bit of a stretch England didn't even qualify and there was a very strong winner. In the other tournaments it's a bit of luck of the draw. England were underdogs against Brazil and I think those 2 Portugal matches were 50/50 games. There was no shame losing those 3 games.

26 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mjsell said:

But isn't that supposedly the point that is being made, that team was supposed to be getting quarter finals minimum during that time frame.. 

I think this is why I'm actually slightly more enthusiastic about England currently than a lot of others might be - when all fully fit we do actually have some players that have that creative spark that we so often lacked during the lampard/gerrard era. They are both good midfielders of course (as is scholes and the rest of that team) but they all offered the 'british' midfield role, whereas we now have a few more players that link the midfield to the forwards. A universal change in systems has help this as well

I find the current and upcoming crop hard to judge as so few are tested at the top level. I would have thought 2022 would be Englands best chance to shine purely because it's a lot earlier in the season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...