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.
World by Storm has a nice piece up on the IRA’s role in helping MK, the armed wing of the ANC, in the 1980s. In particular he sees a strange alchemy at work there: …if one can think of a clearly legitimate contemporary struggle it was that against apartheid and it is to the credit [...] read our review »
Unionists, Loyalists, and Conflict Transformation in Northern Ireland is a new academic tome by lecturer and researcher Lee Smithey. In the book the Pennsylvania academic outlines his findings based on 67 interviews over eighteen months with grassroots activists in unionist and loyalist communities and organisations. This is largely a book about men, even though they [...] read our review »
Ireland is in the middle of a boom – a running boom. Chances are, even if you have never run a step yourself (apart from some painful P.E. classes many moons ago), someone you know has taken up running over the last little while. Road races in Northern Ireland and in the Republic have seen [...] read our review »
Radishchev
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.
cough, cough… ; )
I agree with what you are saying regarding a settled playing style being the defining aspect of smaller nations that manage to punch above their weight (and I don’t consider the current ROI side to be either settled or punching above its weight).
The problem comes when you face an equally well-drilled side with something a bit different, usually up front or creative in the middle.
Agreed – but my point is that Spain, England and (to a lesser extent)Italy rarely put out a well drilled side, so they have to fall back on the ‘something a bit different’ – aka individual talent. Beckhams free kicks being a classic case – individual brilliance and requiring no teamwork. Look at his general play – he hasn’t the discipline to stay out wide, and instead constantly drifts in to pick up the ball in an area where they already have two players capable of hitting a big pass.
George
In his time 78 players (enough for 7 completely different sides, plus Michael Ricketts) have played for England. And most of the regulars have played in multiple positions. It is insane. No wonder the likes of Lampard, the best player in the Premiership over the past 2 years, who has played a ridiculous amount of contiguous games for Chelsea in the one position and with a rigid formation looks lost.
I am not an anglophobe.But England are so Overated it is embarrasing.They have taken part in 4 of the worst games.Only Swiztzerland and Ukraine was as bad.If they do progress they should give Jose Mourinho a medal.
He has turned Terry,Cole and Lampard into world class divers.
abucs,
I don’t understand your logic, you would rather be a fan of say Spain who play some pretty football but are out? No, it is better to an England fan at this time (at least until Saturday anyway).
We have every reason to be confident, because I do not see any bad players in the side. We also have World class players in Ferdinand (occasionally),Terry, Beckham, Lampard, Gerrard, Rooney and both Cole’s in my view. I would stick with five in midfield because Carrick was excellent, and Rooney did a good job up front second half.
P.S: I can assure you that English people do not pay a lot of attention to the Irish teams, this is in stark contrast to your fascination with English football!
‘Winning World Cup matches is a brilliant feeling, it’s as simple as that’
Spot on English.
It’s all about winning. And on that subject I didn’t see too many Irish people complaining when the ROI team has progressed at the World Cup after having played unattractively. All they cared about was that the ROI got to the next round. Some of the games that the ROI played in the Jack Charlton era were atrocious to watch given his tactics, yet they held the attention of the Irish people becuase it was the ROI that was involved.
It’s always a lot different when it is your team that is involved. That was true when Northern Ireland were at the 1982 and 1986 World Cups. You forgive a lot when your team achieves something.
I’d say many Irish people are having a go at England this time around because their own team isn’t there. So officially Irish people are neutrals this time, and feel free to comment on everyone else. But the old biases are often behind the criticism of England.
Let’s not forget that in 1966 England were in exactly the same position as they are today. 4 games played and not looking too impressive and in the last game they scraped through, having abandoned the formation that they used in the 3 group games. And of course the next game is against Portugal, just as it was in 1966. And many people are saying that England aren’t capable of beating Portugal, just as they did in 1966.
“It’s all about winning. And on that subject I didn’t see too many Irish people complaining when the ROI team has progressed at the World Cup after having played unattractively. All they cared about was that the ROI got to the next round. Some of the games that the ROI played in the Jack Charlton era were atrocious to watch given his tactics, yet they held the attention of the Irish people becuase it was the ROI that was involved.”
This is, of course, true. But the significant difference is that we:
1. Never kidded ourselves that we were playing brilliant football or that a World Calss performance was just around the corner.
2. Never kidded ourselves that we were realistically going to win the thing.
3. Never compared our half decent players to Pele.
4. Enjoyed ourseleves a hell of a lot more.
I have watched every match I can in this WC and would love it if England had played well (and still got beat
) for my enjoyment. Instead they’ve produced anti-football, matched only by Ukraine-Switzerland. Brazil haven’t played well either, but at lkeast they’ve made a hatful of chances in every game. I am under no obligation to lie and say they’ve been great. If you want support for the view they’ve been awful, go to any major sport website in the World. They are in it, and may just scrape past a weakened Portugal, but that is by no means guarenteed, and probably only putting off the inevitable.
On a more general England note, they are absolutely a second tier football power at international level. That is masked by the one World Cup on home soil but is totally apparent when you measure their Wins, Final appearances and Semi Final appearances in major cometition to true footballing powers like Brazil, Germany, Italy, France and Argentina.
Harpo,
I think you are being very unfair to assume criticism by Irish people of the England team is due to any prejudice.
The reason I feel I as Irish person can criticise the English team is because I know more about them than any other team at the World Cup.
I see their players week in week out and know they can deliver more. I also feel that this is the best English team of a generation and that they are wasting their talent.
That isn’t anti-English prejudice, that’s a sporting opinion. I think they are going to fail. If I am wrong your 1966 analogy and English’s opinion will hold sway.
On the Boys in Green. You are right about the performances. Eamon Dunphy sprang to fame for flinging his pen across the studio at halftime in the Egypt game at Italia 90 and saying he was ashamed to be Irish because of the performance.
Many football fans weren’t overly happy with Charlton and as soon as the success stopped he was gone. Many Irish football fans are still unhappy with his legacy to this day, especially what he did to Liam Brady, the greatest Irish player of his generation.
Now we have Eriksson playing Rooney as a single striker. Let’s see how he gets on.
If England are knocked out all they will have is a first half performance against Sweden.
This is, of course, true. But the significant difference is that we:
1. Never kidded ourselves that we were playing brilliant football or that a World Calss performance was just around the corner.
2. Never kidded ourselves that we were realistically going to win the thing.
3. Never compared our half decent players to Pele.
4. Enjoyed ourseleves a hell of a lot more.
Kensai,
Amazing comments, what paper (if any) are you reading with those opinions? To answer you points from an English perspective.
1. We are very average, not good, not bad, just average! All of my friends back home agree that we are average!
2. We are in the last eight, and have every right to be excited. Particularly as the other contenders also look pretty average compared to previous World Cups.
3. What?
4. I am having a great time, thankyou very much. Are you?
George,
You make some fair points, only time will tell if we raise our game. You are right to point out we have the players to do well in this World Cup. We probably won’t make the final, but you never know. If we can beat Portugal and the ageing French beat Brazil we just might if the players get going.
“1. We are very average, not good, not bad, just average! All of my friends back home agree that we are average!”
Average? That’s threee levels above where you’re playing. And that’s with a terribly easy draw. I’m watching the BBC, and even thoughj it acknowledges you are playing bad, it can’t help but slip into hype, talking about the performances, “England always pull out a result when needed” and generally talking about quarters and semis before you even got there.
“2. We are in the last eight, and have every right to be excited. Particularly as the other contenders also look pretty average compared to previous World Cups.”
Pfff. So are the Ukraine. Average opponents? Brazil played poorly yesterday but still could have had 7. Argentina look awesome. Germany impressed against Sweden. The quality is certainly up on the previous world cup.
“3. What?”
Rooney = Pele. Surpised you haven’t heard that one.
“4. I am having a great time, thankyou very much. Are you?”
Yes. Unfortunately, my enjopyment dips everytime I watch England. If only FIFA could declare Mexico the winner of the England-Ecador match, and Australia the victors of Ukraine-Switerland, my life would be improved.
‘This is, of course, true.’
Thank you kensei.
‘But the significant difference is that we:
1. Never kidded ourselves that we were playing brilliant football’
Who has claimed that England IS playing brilliant football? People like me haven’t, the English media hasn’t, football commentators haven’t, English fans haven’t, the English players haven’t and the England coach hasn’t. And folks like you haven’t.
The players have admitted that they haven’t been playing brilliant football. And most people in England are admitting that the team isn’t playing brilliant football – that has been a major complaint from actual England fans and the media.
Could you point out even one person who has made this claim?
I’ve said that it is effective football, not that it has been brilliant.
‘I am under no obligation to lie and say they’ve been great.’
Again, who has been lying and sying any such thing? I haven’t and English fans haven’t. They want better performances, but are like me willing to settle for results as opposed to pretty football.
’2. Never kidded ourselves that we were realistically going to win the thing.’
True enough, but that was just being realistic. In the same way England do have a realistic chance of winning the whole thing. If England do start playing brilliant football – and given the talent on the field they could do so – they have a better chance of winning the whole thing, but the fact remains that they could also still grind their way to a win, even if they continue to play this unattractive stuff.
Think 1966 – all people remember is that England won the World Cup. They forget that (or don’t care that) most of that campaign was grinding performances by a workmanlike team. Like this time, the first 4 games were ugly football, and they were led by a coach who was still trying to decide what the best tactocs and formation was.
‘If you want support for the view they’ve been awful, go to any major sport website in the World.’
Again, in terms of style, who is arguing with you? They have been ugly but effective. I’m not arguing that.
‘On a more general England note, they are absolutely a second tier football power at international level.’
OK. So what? This is a general rule and I would agree with you. They average out as World Cup quarter finalists. That means on the odd occasion they are capable of winning it, and on the odd occasion they fail to qualify for it.
As for your first tier teams I agree with 4 of the 5. I don’t think France are up there. They are with England in the second tier. They only won their World Cup on home soil, and fail to qualify on occasion. France are in the second level lot with England, Netherlands and Spain.
The big 4 you mention I agree with.
But being second tier on average doesn’t mean that you can’t win on a specific occasion if things go well. England and France have both shown that. And both teams are capable of winning this time too. You seem to think that teams that are second tier on average can’t win competitions. That’s wrong. They can. And this World Cup is just such an occasion.
BTW
If tiers are determined by the (say) 4 teams in them, where does that place the ROI? About 14th tier on average?
If it does then your statement about not kidding yourselves is accurate. A 14th tier team can’t possibly win the World Cup. But a 2nd tier team like England can if things go well.
‘They are in it, and may just scrape past a weakened Portugal’
Warming up the excuses in case England beat Portugal are you? Say England play really well on Saturday and easily defeat Portugal. Will you give them credit for playing well, or will it be a round of ‘well they might have looked good, but that was only because Portugal were weakened’?
In other words, could you ever give England some credit?
‘I see their players week in week out and know they can deliver more. I also feel that this is the best English team of a generation and that they are wasting their talent.’
George:
I agree with you, but as you say, you are disappointed at the way they are playing, knowing that they are capable of doing better.
But you know as well as I do that many people simply want England to lose, simply because it is England. Such people are usually not sports or football fans and just jump on the anti-England bandwagon. So for every considered opinion like yours there are plenty from people who don’t care if Lampard is doing as well as he could or not, and just want to see the English lose.
If England get to the semis say and lose 2-1 to Brazil again in as uninspired a fashion in 2002, there will be plenty of people who will say that this great generation of talent was wasted by Sven, and maybe that will be so. But what if England had played barnburners of games and looked great in the matches so far, and still lost to Brazil in a 5-4 end-to-end thriller in the semis, what difference will it have made? Is it really all about looking good and going down in glory playing well?
Jimmy Magee (great sports journo with a great turn of phrase) described Brazil’s progress as similar to that of an O’Brien trained racehorse the other day on RTE. A short head here, and little win there, and gradually letting him have his head little by little. The Ecudor game wasn’t brilliant, but… some things seemed to come together in the midfield that hadn’t been there before.
I’m still hedging bets on England. Portugal are not going to lie down for anyone. But it is a measure of the pessimism surrounding England that no one (except Harpo) sees a similar pattern emerging from them.
If they get past the Portuguese, they will then have to play two of the toughest games in their international history. But providing there is not a slew of injuries arising they look well set to look to their inner reserves, and play to their full capacity.
‘described Brazil’s progress as similar to that of an O’Brien trained racehorse the other day on RTE. A short head here, and little win there, and gradually letting him have his head little by little. The Ecudor game wasn’t brilliant, but… some things seemed to come together in the midfield that hadn’t been there before.’
Mick:
Err…Brazil didn’t play Ecuador. Were you referring to England’s midfield there, or Brazil’s?
I think the biggest thing that any team has to face is playing games against teams that don’t naturally attack. England seem to be running into a brick wall against such teams. I hope that England’s true capabilities will show from now on, given that they will be facing teams that are prepared to try to win, instead of just wanting not to lose. Of course all of that could be done away with by Portugal who are going to be several of their best men down. They may revert to trying to hold England off, resulting in another ugly looking game.
For all this talk of going for it with attractive football and playing an open game, the England games from the past that people mention as having been good involved opposition that was prepared to have a go to win. Cameroon and the Germans in 1990. The Netherlands and the Germans again in 1996. Those teams didn’t put 10 men behind the ball and hope to outslug England and score on a break. They all tried to win, leaving space and opportunity for an open game, so that England did have breakaways and there was open play in an exciting game.
So far England have only faced teams that played cautiously. Sweden aren’t what they once were. It takes 2 teams to make a game attractive, yet only England gets blamed for how their games turn out. Why is that? Of course you aren’t going to see breakaways and open play in games like the T&T one, since T&T didn’t push up en masse to try to win, leaving wide open spaces behind them. Ghana did try that against Brazil, and that’s why you saw all that open play and breakaways by Brazil etc.
I still think that when England meet those who are really trying to win there will be much more open play and the opportunity for Gerrard, Lampard and Rooney and Joe Cole to play the way they can. Then you might see the sort of game like that 5-1 win by England against Germany a few years back.
‘English’, i don’t have a fascination with English football. English football is simply the topic of the thread. I have been very careful to not criticise the English too much but to be constructive and optermistic for their chances. In a sporting manner i wish you guys all the best. That should be what sport is about.
As i said previously, it’s sport, not religion. And again, i may be in a minority (admitted) but I do like to see attractive football first and foremost.
When Ireland were knocked out against the Spanish my first emotion wasn’t dissappointment, it was relief and pride that they played much better than previous world cups.
I don’t think winning is the most important thing. If Argentina are knocked out i would still admire their football over other teams who are still there.
I don’t like the way the Italians play but their style adds to the tournement and they are very competitive. Similarly i’m sure, like other posters here feel (at the moment) with England.
People like different styles of play. If some people on this thread like the English style and some don’t then so be it. Some people like opera, some pop, some blues, some Irish traditional. I can understand you having the shits with other people criticising your team.
Fair enough.
With Dako out for Portugal (unfairly IMHO) and Rooney on the up then i think England have a more than decent chance of progressing to the semi finals. If that was Ireland then sure it would be great, i hope you enjoy the tournement and England continue to build on their performances.
By the way, if this thread was about Brazil, then in that non-politically charged forum, i would feel more free to criticise them for not being as good as they could be. I wouldn’t say that makes me have a fascination with Brazilian football either.
Go Argentina !
You omitted Gerrard as a world class diver. Did you see the one against Portugal?
The problem with the England game is as simple at this, they are 11 individuals, they are not a team. They get a win and start to believe their own hype. Gerrard and Lampard on the same field doesn’t work, Owen has no place being part of England until he can play a few matches for his club and the FA ignored more able men and chose a clueless yes man, how much pride must he have swallowed to recall Beckham who is the only England player playing for his shirt. It doesn’t help that of the best teams in the Premiership there are very few native players.
English I saw your precious team humbled at Windsor Park and they looked ordinary bordering on dull, I’ve seen better football at Ibrox. The English team are cocky and arrogant thinking they just have to turn up to get a result and still act this way despite being humbled again and again.