It seemed to me, from last weekend’s match against Ecudor that England are slowly putting together reasonable performances, and may yet surprise some of their critics. But this guy, Chris Dillow, has an interesting angle on a classic weakness of almost every England team since 1966: conglomerate discount. Confused? Read on for why Frank Lampard has had more shots on goal than any other player. And why it’s not working. Thanks for the heads up to Paul.
It’s not published until 3rd March, but one book I recommend you place an advance order for from Slugger’s Bookstore is James Harkin’s Niche. Belfast émigré Harkin examines a number of stories from business, culture and politics and comes to a single insight: everywhere the broad middle is collapsing. He offers Woolworths as an iconic exemplar [...] read our review »
A moment of some significance in journalism perhaps, as the New York Times reviews the current talked about book, The Wrong War: Grit, Strategy, and the Way Out of Afghanistan by Bing West. The author is no bleeding heart but a former assistant Defense Secretary from the Reagan era who stomped his way round the Afghan [...] read our review »
Fortunately the FA has managed to secure the services of the Middlesbrough manager for the next few years. That should bring a few triangular tournament trophies in.
Well nothing new there then. That’s pretty much the jist of the after-match analysis in the pub and has been the constant criticism of the team’s structure and (lack of) strategy for some time – albeit without the management-speak analogy.
“Contrast the static England team to the fluid movement of Arsenal”.
Aaahh! Sweet memory. Roll on autumn.
Funny, but I was thinking the same the other day that England were less than the sum of their parts – Didn’t have the fancy name for it though. The contrast I would obviously put forward is the Irish team, which always seems to have a team greater than the sum of its parts. Greece winning the Euro is probably a better example though.
Sorry to have lowered the tone – Should have said ‘conglomerate premium’ when describing Ireland and Greece!
This sounds plausible. Equally, the England team could be a bunch of overhyped morons whose reputations are built on playing in teams filled with better foreign players in a weak domestic league.
The truth is that if Gerrard and Lampard were world class, they’d be able to play successfully together. Robinson is clearly not a good keeper. Terry has been exposed by playing against different styles, and Ferdinand was never worth the money paid for him in the first place. Crouch belongs in a Sunday team until he learns how to head a ball, and watching some videos of Niall Quinn might teach him how to hold the ball up. Joe Cole’s wonder goal was due to bad goalkeeping. Gerrard has done quite well sometimes, but the fact is that Beckham, for all the calls for him to be dropped, has been keeping them afloat with vital contributions. Ashley Cole has also done well, and Rooney looks sharp, but 3 or 4 players do not a good team make.
Anybody know where I can get some Niall Quinn videos? I was in Woolworths but they had obviously sold out.
“a weak domestic league” Wise up – this is the league that got teams into the 2 top european cup finals.
The problem with England is that the players aren’t as motivated by the idea of playing for their country as other nations. The other example of this is Spain, where the team is theoretically excellent, but usually flounders. Note that these are the two countries with the strongest domestic leagues in Europe – possibly the players are too focussed on their clubs to get worked up enough for their country.
This is a big a factor as conglomerate discountism (sp?).
Dk,
Look at the English record over say the last decade and compare it to Spain and Italy. Rubbish. Same goes for where the best players in the world chose to play. Except for Ballack, and with the possible exception of Svenchenko, who has looked rubbish in the World Cup, who was the last world star to come to England at the top of their game? And only when Chelsea can pay outrageous sums in wages.
As for the idea English teams aren’t motivated by playing for their country, have to say I heartily disagree. Watching them belt out the anthem and the way they talk about it, I really don’t see how you can say this. The vast majority of them are little different than the average 2 World Wars and One World Cup, England is the greatest country in the world fan. They’re just not as great as Sky and the rest of the British media would have us believe.
Pith,
I hold my hands up in abject surrender.
“Look at the English record over say the last decade and compare it to Spain and Italy. Rubbish.”
OK, I did. Winners of Euopean Cup in last 10 years: Spain = 4, England = 2, Germany = 2, Italy = 1, Portugal = 1.
But why not find out from UEFA? They use a country co-efficient to determine which country has the most club slots in competitions. England are higher than either Spain or Italy; second only to Holland.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA_coefficients
So, I repeat again that the domestic league is very strong. However, this has not translated to the national team, which is not bad, but not the best in Europe.
Oops – I looked at the wrong table. For clubs, Spain, Italy and then England are the top countries, getting 4 slots each. Still indicates a strong domestic league
Garibalby, although I agree wholeheartedly that the English team and leagues can be overhyped by our media, I think that the English record against Spain and Italy compares very favourably over the last 10 years.
Spain have never made it past the quarters in a World Cup and were knocked out by England in Euro ’96 (when England reached the Semis) and France in 2000 at the quarter finals in both cases and they didn’t make it through the group stage in 2004.
Against Italy too, England went out at the same stage as Italy in 1998 (having qualified for the tournament in the same group ahead of them) and went a stage further than Italy in 2002. Our European Championship form is worse against Italy in this period, admittedly, but hardly by enough to render us “rubbish”.
In terms of Champions League wins, I make it Spain 4, England 2 and Italy 1 in the same period.
Your point just doesn’t add up. Why do you say this? Liktening to too much of the rabidly Anglophobic commentary on RTE no doubt…
Before I admit defeat, what are the figures not for wins, but for the presence of teams in the quarter and semi-finals. I know Chelsea keep reaching the semis and that there has been an English team in the champions league final the past two years, but what about this. There’s also a similar question to be asked of the UEFA cup.
Martin, I was referring to the leagues rather than the international team. I acutally think Eriksson has done consistently well with a limited pool of talent. A quite good first 11 in relative terms, but little strength in depth.
Alas, no free state tv for me on the football front. I say this because I’ve had to put up with the nonsense from the English media and public about English football.
Garabaldi.
I would hate for you to be my manager, you’d tear me to pieces;¬)
I am absolutely astounded that even the decent English players, Gerard,Lampard,Terry have yet to shine. I think Rooney has an excuse, Joe Cole, is boiling away nicely. The rest are average in the extreme. There is no getting away from attacking the easy target, the leadership so obviously isnt there!!!
Can’t wait for them to get humped soon. Strangely watching the media trying to be upbeat, is almost as fun as watching and waiting for them to get put to the sword.
Well, I haven’t checked the stats, but over the last 10 years there has been an English team that isn’t Chelsea in the Semis at least 6 times. Man U, Arsenal and Liverpool in 1999, 2005 and 2006 obviously. Then there was Leeds in 2001. Man U also reached the Semis in 1997 and 2002. So I still don’t think your point stacks up as over half the Champions League Semis over the last decade have featured English clubs.
I still think your point is not really based in anything but traditional Irish Anglophobia.
This is a comparative not an absolute argument, i.e. if more Italian and Spanish teams are reaching quarters, semis and finals in both European competitions more consistently than the English. Also I note no-one has answered the point about why so few top class players at the height of their careers have moved to England.
As for UEFA’s co-efficients, are they any more reliable than FIFA’s, by which the Yanks are the 5th best in the world?
The Premiership is a decent league, and may be more enjoyable to watch than foreign leagues (which I find to be the case), but the consistent claims in the English media that it is the best league in the world do not add up. And until many of these English players prove themselves on the international stage, they cannot be regarded as world-class, or anything approaching it. So time for Lampard, Gerrard, Joe Cole, John Terry etc to step up.
Never mind lads. If Portugal do the business, we can all relax. Good win by Dublin btw. The Germans are cheering Ghana on on the ABB principle.
On the one man team: Portugal and Eusebio were one in ’66. He single handledly crushed North Korea like he was playing in road leagues. Pity England went on to win but at least we got the “Two worlds wars and a world cup” chant out of it.
“Well, I haven’t checked the stats, but over the last 10 years there has been an English team that isn’t Chelsea in the Semis at least 6 times. Man U, Arsenal and Liverpool in 1999, 2005 and 2006 obviously. Then there was Leeds in 2001. Man U also reached the Semis in 1997 and 2002. So I still don’t think your point stacks up as over half the Champions League Semis over the last decade have featured English clubs.”
Yes, but that’s largely down to being able to call upon some of the best foreign talent.
Garibaldy,
The ranking system used by FIFA is a nonsense. They look at the teams performance over the last few years, which will usually involve matches with their neighbours in the regional competitions like the qualification for the World Cup and European Championships. The problem arises when they apply a “regional multiplier”. This is to take account of the fact that teams like the U.S. have easier neighbours to play against than do the European teams. But the multipliers are wrong and anyway it’s too simplistic a method.
The whole thing should be scrapped. The only realistic way it to get a computer to churn through lots of different rankings and settle on the ordering of teams that has the fewest contradictions when compared to the results of the matches. It could easily be done on a regional basis first and then merge the lists together based on the results of matches between teams in different regions. Then you could do things like give more weight to matches in the Finals of competitions or whatever. There’s a lot that could be done, but whatever it is, the current system trying to assign a points score is just nonsense unless we put all 200 countries into a fully round robin league system!
.. adding to my comment a few minutes ago ..
In the group stages of the current World Cup, every match between a CONCACAF team (the U.S. and it’s neighbours) and a UEFA team (Europe) ended in a European win except for two draws. Unless I’ve missed some match that is.
Anyway, this makes it pretty daft that the US and Mexico are in 4th and 5th in the rankings with only two European teams above them. If the best CONCACAF usually lose when playing UEFA teams, then surely the CONCACAF teams should be below at least half of the UEFA teams
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFA_World_Rankings
Kensei, yes, the English clubs were able to draw upon some of the best foreign talent. So were the Spanish clubs and every other club in post-Bosman Europe. Real Madrid, Europe’s most successful team in the last 10 years (and at least joint richest club) had a self confessed policy of signing the best attacking players from around the world until very recently.
You also argue against Garibaldi’s point. Garibaldi says English clubs can’t attract the best foreign talent whereas you say English success in the Champions League is because of it.
You can’t both be right. If Garibaldy is correct, and the English clubs can’t attract foreign talent, the success I described in my earlier post is due to domestic players, so Kensei is wrong.
On the other hand, if Kensei is right then it is because the best foriegn players come to England, thereby negating Garibaldy’s points. So guys, which is it?
Irish Anglophobia cracks me up sometimes. Can’t even resist self-contradiction in order to beat up anything and everything English.
Spain, England and Italy all suffer from the same problem – they pick their international team based on fickle performances in their domestic leagues, broadcast to the baying masses every weekend. It is the form and class argument, and the end result is there for all to see.
Just because some show-pony like Joe Cole finally manages to get his finger out of his arse and have a reasonably good season (by his own underwhelming standards) on Match of the Day – there is unbearable pressure to have in included in the side.
Brazil have more footballers playing at the top level than any country in the world but they don’t pick the team based on form. Every dog has its day, and they’d have a different 11 out every game if they adopted the approach that England do. The good/great French side virtually picked itself for the best part of a decade. Regardless what David Ginola, Cantona or Nicholas Anelka did, they weren’t getting a call-up, as it would have upset the team structure. England don’t have such thing, and it shows. Same with the Dutch. Spain have chopped and changed down through the years but Aragones appears to have a settled 11 this time.
Kensei,
“… being able to call upon some of the best foreign talent”
Martin’s made my point for me – how many of Barca’s winning side were Catalans?
Garibaldy,
Something that tends to get overlooked in the argument on foreign talent in the Premiership is the money-work ratio. The Premiership is larger than its other rivals so more games. It is also percieved as a “tougher” league (i.e. more physical). If I’m Overpaid Footballer X (if only), I think I’d rather play in a shorter league for the same amount of money and not have to go to Bolton in the League or Grimsby in the Cup on a midweek night.
Top players who stayed in the PL at their height:
Henry (recently) or Bergkamp
Giggs or Scholes (usually mentioned by fellow pros, like Zidane, as getting into most sides in Europe)
Gerrard (much as you don’t rate him) or Alonso
Martin,
I can’t see where you’re getting the Anglophobia thing from – Garibaldy’s points are largely spot-on about England thus far.
Ringo,
The problem with sticking to a structure is that form is vitally important for the vast majority of players. Brazil have looked largely poor so far and it was only when Parreira wised up and dropped Adriano (due to his form) that Robinho got a start. Result: livelier performance up front and four goals.
Aragones did something similar with Raul, again based on his domestic form, and it has resulted in some excellent performances from Torres and Villa.
I can see an argument for keeping some players on the pitch, regardless of form, because they can do something magical in the 91st minute to win a match, but you can count those players on one hand. Beckham, for all the value of that freekick goal, is not fully justifying his place at the minute. At least he’s not alone.
The Anglophobia is demonstrated by one Irish commentator (Kensei) criticising England for having too many foreign players, another (Garibaldy) for having too few, all the’re points have in common (along with virtually all Irish commentators) is the fact they used to blast England.
You guys take any viewpoint about English sport in particular and immediately turn it into a criticism. Kensei by implitly stating that the English teams success is due to foreigners, Garibaldy by suggesting can’t attract foreign talent. Either point may have objective merit but it seems that no point about England on this board may be made without including a subjective prod at the neighbours.
The best one was a couple of weeks ago where a commentator suggested that a scandal at a Dublin maternity hospital in the 50′s was down to English Common Law.
Martin,
Blasting England and the Premiership is hardly the preserve of Irish or indeed any foreign commentators. Nothing said in either of the two posts mentioned hasn’t already been raised in the British media over the last twenty years as, it should be noted, it has in the Spanish and Italian media about their respective teams as well.
Spot on martin, the amount of blatant anglophobia displayed on this blog is truely frightening. However if you look at RTE’s biased coverage of the WC you can see where some people get it from.
The idea that the English Premier League is not one of the top three of four leagues in the world is ninsense. The UEFA co-efficients (FAR more reliable than the FIFA rankings) prove it and the number of trophies win proves it. If you want further proof look at the Top 10 fooballers in the World in 2005 (based on the judgement of international m,anagers/coaches).
1. Ronaldo de Assis “RONALDINHO” (Brazil)
2. Frank LAMPARD (England)
3. Samuel ETO’O (Cameroon)
4. Thierry HENRY (France)
5. ADRIANO Ribeiro Leite (Brazil) 6. Andriy SHEVCHENKO (Ukraine)
7. Steven GERRARD (England) 8. Ricardo Izecson Santos “KAKA” (Brazil)
9. Paolo MALDINI (Italy) 10. Didier DROGBA (Ivory Coast)
4 of the 10 played in England, 4 in Italy and 2 in Spain. Next season, 5 of the 10 wiil play in England.
The English national team is another matter. Nowhere in Europe (apart from Italy) does the press play such an intrusive role in the selection of the national team. Ericsson (like almost all his predecessors) has paid far too much notice of the press.
England’s problem is this World Cup is down to the squad selection. There was a question over the fitrness on Owen and Rooney. Crouch is not World class, and Walcott is inexperienced. Marcus Bent and Jermaine Dafoe should be in Germany.
Either way, come Saturday, I’ll be parked in from of the TV., shouthing for ENG-GER-LAND and laughing at the RTE panels with the chips on the shoulder, playing it up for the great unwashed.
Martin,
Criticising the overhyped Premiership and overrated English players is not Anglophobia. Secondly, there’s no reason that Kensei and I should agree as we are 2 different individuals with our own view. The point about foreign talent in my view is this: the Premiership has failed to attract the very best players at the top of their form, while attracting quite a lot of good foreign players, who are often better than their English counterparts. This failure to attract the very best suggests that professional footballers, unlike the English media, do not regard the Premiership as even approaching the best league in the world. Pointing this out is not xenophobic, but seeking to explain why the English team is not living up to absurdly inflated expectations. Which, as I see it, after all is the point of the thread judging from the title.
Radischev,
I think Henry’s recent performances internationally since 2002 at major championships call the idea that he’s one of the world’s best into question. But he, and Viera, and Bergamp, all came to England having failed in Italy. Now in fairness to the first two they were about 20 but Bergamp wasn’t. He failed miserably at Inter. A brilliant player, and clearly world class – but only because he showed it for Holland time and again, including one of the best world cup goals ever. I’ll grant you Giggs, Scholes, even Gerrard, but there’s cultural factors there, and their not foreign. While I think Alonso is an excellent player, he’s not a superstar, though he might become one.
Keith,
That list of the top ten players is ridiculous. Drogba? Do me a favour. Also, and I’ll say it yet again, when Lampard, Gerrard etc do it consistently at international level – rather than against Fulham, Wigan etc every week – then I’ll quite happily say they are world class. This is, I think, what separates them from Beckham. He has consistently done it when England needed it, and thus has to be recognised as a world-class player.
On the issue of top leagues, we can’t really compare outside Europe but the question of the Argentenian and Brazilian leagues must be injected here. I can’t remember who has won the world club championship, but isn’t it ususally south Americans? The Premiership is the 3rd best league in Europe, though the most entertaining. I doubt it’s better than either of the top two South American leagues.
i think the English Premiership has been very successful in attracting foreign talent and increasing the standard of football there.
They’ve done very well, but like so many other things, success in one area causes problems somewhere else.
I think the depth of eligible English players has dropped, much like the Serie A when it was attracting the great majority of foreign talent, and Italy struggled to find a well balanced national team.
Does that qualify me as an Anglophone ?
)
“On the other hand, if Kensei is right then it is because the best foriegn players come to England, thereby negating Garibaldy’s points. So guys, which is it?”
O_o What a question.
Me, obviously. The success of English club sides in Europe is due to the fact thay attract some of best foreign talent. They are therefore able to play a more European style passing game (or even better, succesfully marry it with the more pacy and direct english game), which all the English sides at the top level of European football attempt to do. It also gives them a more creative dimension that they lack.
This is not a criticism. The foreign players in England undoubtedly add a lot to the league, and have probably helped raise the standard of English
players over the past decade. As have the foreign managers.
Anyone who looks at the current England team as World Beaters cannot be watching the same World Cup. Only Ukraine vs Switzerland last night surpassed the nadir of anti-football that England have represented in this tournament. Even English commentators admit they’ve been appalling, and watching the BBC pundits deflate during the tournament has been a sight in itself. If you can’t keep the ball, you can’t win the tournament.
The crime is that FIFA cannot decalre Mexico the winner of the England-Ecudar match.
Garibaldy,
I hadn’t spotted the foreign requirement first time around – mea culpa. On Henry and Viera, they didn’t really play enough in Italy to show the sort of form that pushed them and they did that at Arsenal (much as it pains me) at the height of their careers). Bergkamp certainly didn’t do well in Italy, but again did it both at club level and on the highest stage whilst playing in England, which was the original point. Alonso and Fabregas would walk into most Spanish sides, let alone anywhere else in Europe, and they’ll bring a lot to the English game in coming years (again, much as it pains me to say, given who they play for). Spot on about Drogba – he’s a cheating waste of space.
I seem to have this argument about the ‘best’ league in Europe (never mind the world) every couple of years. I think there’s no real answer, just a matter of taste. ‘The most exciting league’ (at least until tovarishch Abramovich rolled into town) is probably the fairest comment – on grounds of skill and technique, it doesn’t always make for exciting viewing (i.e. Serie A most weeks of the season).
Keith,
Sven cowed by the press – you’re having a laugh! Your point on the squad selection directly contradicts that – if he had been influenced, Bent or Defoe would have been in and not Walcott. On the proposed system, though, there is more of a case to be made – the diamond, the 4-5-1 experiment, and so on.
Garibaldy “That list of the top ten players is ridiculous.” The list is not my list, it was compiled by the managers of the national teams around the World. Since these are people who are paid for their football knowledge, I think I’d prefer to be believe tham rather than you.
Your point on Bergamp, just proves how English clubs can get the best out of players when the more rigid style in Italian does not allow flair players to shine.
Radishchev : I take your point on squad selection but as you have said his formations seem to be more than influenced by the press.
Keith,
I know it wasn’t your list, but I’d trust it as much as I’d trust the FIFA rankings.
Keith,
It may be that the moves on formation come from within the camp than from the press – it happened under Robson in 1990 and there were rumours to that effect during qualifying last year.
On Bergkamp, I would suggest it was the manager Wenger that enabled Bergkamp to flourish, rather than the footballing culture. And, before anyone jumps in, I know it was Rioch who signed him – my point is that Wenger gave him a run in the side and played with a system that gave him a slightly freer role behind the main striker, neither of which was the case in Italy.
Keithm,
I have to disagree with you on Sven. He doesn’t listen to the press.
What he seems to do is surround himself with a set of players he likes and that’s it.
He always picked Owen, despite the player being clearly out of form.
He always picked Beckham and didn’t substitute him at Euro 2004 when he clearly wasn’t fit.
He continues to play Lampard and Gerrard when it is obvious that the two don’t work together.
He sticks with Hargreaves (who I think is doing well) despite the press baying for his blood.
He went to Germany with only four strikers (Ireland went to Italia 90 with seven I think) and one right back – Gary Neville. The press didn’t agree with that.
Then there’s Walcott. Every press conference, he is asked if he regrets the decision. Every time he says no.
Radishchev -
you only have too look at how players from Ireland or the Scandanavians who are barely getting a look in at club level are more that capable of holding their own and more at international level, as log as they are playing consistently with their country. Richard Dunne wasn’t playing first team football yet he managed to do a job against the likes of Kluivert, Van Nistelroy, Overmars etc… For Trinidad and Tobago, you have your man Sanchos (og aside) from Gillingham striding the world stage like a colossus – an even better your man Chris Birchall – able to do a job against Gerrard and Lampard.
Unless you’ve a settled side over a matter of years you’ll go nowhere. The smaller nations don’t have the luxury of replacing a misfiring/misbehaving striker with some flavour of the month Ian Dowie-lookalike with a good season behind him like Mad Marco did earlier in the week. They just plug along with what they’ve got and are stronger for it.
Garibaldy –
Failures work both ways – Veron was a disaster at both United and Chelsea, yet he was clearly world class. Diego Forlan, couldn’t hit a cows arse with a banjo unless it looked like the gap between Jerzy Dudeks legs – then goes to Spain and fulfils his potential.
George –
I agree with him not listening to the press. But he hasn’t stuck with the same players. He’s in a World Cup quater final and he hasn’t a settled formation, let alone settled first 11.
He used far to many players in the build up games and never used the time to develop a coherent playing style, and now he’s relying far too much on the individual talents rather than team work to get a goal.
Ringo,
In each of the cases you mentioned, I’m not sure it’s the fact it’s a settled side. I would point to the fact that the sides are well-drilled at doing one thing and doing it well. Usually, it involves defending strongly and nicking a goal on the break. The problem comes when you face an equally well-drilled side with something a bit different, usually up front or creative in the middle. Case in point – T&T vs. Paraguay, Free State vs. France or Switzerland (in recent years) and, on the domestic front, Liverpool under Houllier. Then the solid side has to change its game and the difference in class usually shows.
The argument on settled sides means that a team can become stagnant and certain players feel they can get a game, despite bringing little to the side – France at the moment.
‘a classic weakness of almost every England team since 1966′
Why just ‘since 1966′? Surely that should be before, during and since 1966.
England, for all the pretentions of greatness and/or superiority , have only delivered once at international level – in 1966. And that was done with a very workmanlike team put together by Alf Ramsey. He did what Sven has done – constant indecision before and even during the finals. He went into the finals determined to play a winger in a 4-3-3 formation, and tried 3 different wingers in the 3 group games. And he stuck with Jimmy Greaves as his main striker in those games, even though Greaves didn’t produce.
It was only after accepting that the winger idea wasn’t working that he went to the famous 4-4-2. And when Greaves wasn’t able to take part in the quarter final due to injury Hurst was introduced – a guy with only 5 caps.
Thus the Ramsey Robots team was put together – a hard working outfit who were also called wingless wonders. An unglamourous outfit that only looked like a team in the semi-final against Portugal and the final.
If the 1966 team is viewed as some all-conquering outfit that swept all before them, that view is wrong. They struggled just like this 2006 team and won through hard work.
Prior to 1966 England had got no further than the quarter-finals and have only got to the semi-finals once since. England are a natural quarter-final level team, with the potential to go further once in a while. That’s what happened in 1966 – they worked their way to a win. Maybe this team can work their way to a win too. Maybe they will suddenly turn it on when faced by an attacking team like Brazil in the semis – that was what happened in 1966 after they had struggled through their first 4 games.
Two questions:
1. Where are the Republic of Ireland this summer?
2. Where are Northern Ireland this summer?
You are in a fine position to criticise England who are in the last eight, despite the fact that their two key strikers have struggled with fitness, and now Owen is missing. We have also played two matches in blistering heat which is going to affect your game. Why has nobody mentioned these key factors?
People try to bring us down, but we might just go all the way!
COME ON ENGLAND!
Ringo,
the changes Sven brought about were forced.
He played Carragher because Neville was injured.
He rested Gerrard because he was on a yellow card. He dropped Crouch because Rooney was fit to start again.
English,
This could turn out to be the worst major tournament in a generation for the English. At least at Italia 90 you had the Cameroon and Germany games, probably the two best at the tournament. Loads of fond memories for your average football fan.
At Euro 96 you had Gazza (minus the tears) against Scotland, the thumping of Holland and the Germans again. Lots of good memories.
This time around you have abject matches and all the players saying they don’t care about performances.
If they go out to Portugal, what will your memories of this World Cup be apart from the Owen injury? I would be interested in hearing your fond memories after four of seven games.
Unless they deliver in Gelsenkirchen, this England team is a disgrace in my view.
More fool you for buying into the players and their “we don’t care if we win seven games 1-0″ line.
And if they don’t? They’ll sit at home with their 100k laughing while you wonder why you wasted four weeks of your life fretting about these bozos who don’t even let people watch them train.
DK
“The problem with England is that the players aren’t as motivated by the idea of playing for their country as other nations. The other example of this is Spain, where the team is theoretically excellent, but usually flounders. Note that these are the two countries with the strongest domestic leagues in Europe – possibly the players are too focussed on their clubs to get worked up enough for their country.”
That’s a novel view of Spain’s inability to translate individual brilliance into team success.
Are you Andy Townsend in disguise?
‘This could turn out to be the worst major tournament in a generation for the English.’
George:
You seem to have an odd definition of good/bad or best/worst.
Most English fans would settle for ongoing plodding performances aided by own-goals and scrappy goals if England win the World Cup. You seem to think that playing well is what is important, even if it ends in ultimate failure (1990 and 1996).
Looking back to 1966, after 4 games England were in much the same position as they are today – they have achieved, even if the football has been ugly.
Which would you prefer to be – a team in the quarter finals of the World Cup, or one that looked pretty on the fieel and played attractively, but was on its way home at this point?
‘If they go out to Portugal, what will your memories of this World Cup be apart from the Owen injury?’
What do memories have to do with it? There are 2 states of being:
1. winning the whole thing
2. losing at some point
Does it really matter how the team plays at any point if they ultimately lose? I don’t think that happy memories of a few attractive games compensate for losing in the end.
‘Read on for why Frank Lampard has had more shots on goal than any other player.’
The article writer is wrong about Lampard. He hasn’t been shooting from unlikely distances where there is little chance of scoring. The ball just isn’t going into the net for him. Most of his chances have been from positions where he normally scores from.
I don’t think there is any particular reason why he isn’t scoring. Playing for Chelsea these chances go in for him. He scores an unusually high number of goals for a mid-fielder at club level. And he did so during the World Cup qualifying campaign. Maybe this is just his numbers averaging out.
Gerrard had scored 2 goals, and he usually scores a lot, again as a mid-fielder. For him its business as usual.
I’d be more concerned about the lack of production from England’s strikers. But maybe this is all part of Sven’s masterplan. To win a tournament with mid-fielders. If you have lots of them who can score goals (and England have Gerrard, Cole and Lampard, and Beckham for set-pieces) then use them, instead of forwards. It’s not conventional, but it might just work.
People said that Ramsey couldn’t win in 1966 with no wingers, and they were proven to be wrong. Maybe Sven can win with no strikers.
George,
I have great memories already thank you very much, in particular brilliant goals from Cole, Gerrard and Beckham. Winning World Cup matches is a brilliant feeling, it’s as simple as that, I have not bought into anything the players have said.
The difference this time around is that apart from Argentina (who we have beaten twice in our last two encounters) and Germany (one of which will be eliminated), the opposition doesn’t look the greatest this time around. For starters, at no point have I thought we would lose a game, which I have never had before in this competition. Despite everyone saying (particularly here in Ireland) we are a disgrace!
I believe that ‘if’ we can overcome Portugal which will be very difficult, we have a better than normal chance of beating Brazil of France in the Semi’s. If I’m honest I would say that we won’t even make the final, but I am more optimistic than in other World Cups I have watched – even though we played better in other tournaments.
You might be right though!
Harpo,
my point is that England have delivered nothing so far and not only won’t they win the World Cup, they won’t even make a decent stab at it.
Remember these were the second favourites after Brazil, not some team to make uop the numbers.
The fact that they are in the quarter-final is neither here nor there. So are Ukraine.
I fully agree that “most English fans would settle for ongoing plodding performances aided by own-goals and scrappy goals if England win the World Cup”.
However, I don’t believe that England will win the World Cup playing as they are which will leave English fans with a particularly bad taste in their mouth.
Here you have the best set of England players in a generation and they are playing total crap. I feel it is doomed to failure.
I wasn’t on this earth in 1966 so I can’t draw comparisons to then.
I also agree it is better to have played ugly and be in the quarter-finals than pretty and at home but I see structural weaknesses that won’t be overcome.
The England players and coaches are preaching a losing mantra in my view. Time will tell if I am right.
“What do memories have to do with it? There are 2 states of being:
1. winning the whole thing
2. losing at some point!
This isn’t true. You also remember proud moments and if England go out of this tournament without having delivered anything or found their stride then this is the worst kind of losing because they won’t have given their best.
English,
you haven’t played anyone decent yet. Portugal is the litmus test.
The first 20 minutes against Paraguay I thought England were top class and felt they had a real chance but since then they have got worse and worse.
This team has the potential to win the World Cup as it is the most open tournament in years but I think they are throwing this chance away.
I spotted a car in St. Albans, Herts. this morning sporting both the Irish tricolour and the English St George Cross which seemed to proclaim “I’m an Irishman supporting England in this tournament”.
Should I have praised him for his fair-minded enthusiasm or should I have censored him for breaching the time-honoured “anyone but England” rule?
Such are the burning dilemnas of the day.
Harpo, in answer to your question :
Which would you prefer to be – a team in the quarter finals of the World Cup, or one that looked pretty on the field and played attractively, but was on its way home at this point?
I would truly go for the attractive option.
Although i would also be in the minority there.
It depends on how you view the tournement i guess. For me, it’s entertainment. Teams progress on referee decisions, injuries, suspensions, weather conditions, technology, sports science, luck, organisation as well as player ability.
My response is just to enjoy it and i wouldn’t want my team to go there representing the country and not play attractively.
I’m not criticising any country, as it’s not my place to do so in a public forum.
As far as England go they are still there and they are building as they go. I have seen past English teams look poor until they meet good opposition and then they look much better.
I think ‘English’ is right, there doesn’t seem to be a lot of quality opposition. Apart from Argentina and Germany (who play eachother) Italy look like their defence will be difficult for anyone to beat. I think England are starting from behind, but they can beat any of the teams that are left. And they can get beat by any of them.
I think Lampards attacking play has added much to the English prformances so far and they look much more dangerous with Rooney. I think they will need 2 strikers against quality opposition though.