Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Football] Getting rid of Rooney was the start of all of this



Harry Wilson's tackle

Harry Wilson's Tackle
NSC Patreon
Oct 8, 2003
49,331
Faversham
Ok. This is coming down to being able to read.

The OP that I replied to said that the "golden generation" teams would have beaten the same teams that we've played this year. And would have put his house on it.

I was just pointing out that they didn't.

As for Sven, he played a rigid 442 and picked basically the same team every time. We were found out in 2002 when playing against 10 men and he didn't have a clue how to make a difference. He was crap.

And, to add, a piss-taking psychopath chancer, for whom anything to grab should be grabbed. Stole a living. I work with people like this.
 


dangull

Well-known member
Feb 24, 2013
5,105
Seeing as that German team was shit and their performance in that game and the ensuing tournament was the catalyst for them totally overhauling their national team setup, yes we probably would be capable of a result like that. Why not?

But that's a totally irrelevant argument anyway. Flawed logic? You seem to be a master of that. Well that and not actually reading what someone has written.

I'm not going to repeat myself again as it's boring but I was originally replying to a very simple statement with a fact. That was all.
Actually, both teams managed to qualify after that famous result. Germany ended up getting to yet another final, but losing. England? well we all know our recent world cup history.
 


drew

Drew
Oct 3, 2006
23,007
Burgess Hill
Seeing as that German team was shit and their performance in that game and the ensuing tournament was the catalyst for them totally overhauling their national team setup, yes we probably would be capable of a result like that. Why not?

But that's a totally irrelevant argument anyway. Flawed logic? You seem to be a master of that. Well that and not actually reading what someone has written.

I'm not going to repeat myself again as it's boring but I was originally replying to a very simple statement with a fact. That was all.

A shit German team that got to the final!! As I said, flawed logic.

Reading isn't the problem. You can't compare the quality of a teams based on the countries they have played in different eras.
 


LlcoolJ

Mama said knock you out.
Oct 14, 2009
12,982
Sheffield
Actually, both teams managed to qualify after that famous result. Germany ended up getting to yet another final, but losing. England? well we all know our recent world cup history.
I know. And they played Saudi Arabia, Ireland, Cameroon, Paraguay, USA and South Korea to get to that final. You win nothing with ****z.
 


LlcoolJ

Mama said knock you out.
Oct 14, 2009
12,982
Sheffield
A shit German team that got to the final!! As I said, flawed logic.

Reading isn't the problem. You can't compare the quality of a teams based on the countries they have played in different eras.
I'm not comparing them FFS. Please re-read the thread.
 




drew

Drew
Oct 3, 2006
23,007
Burgess Hill
My point was that you said that you'd put your house on that team despatching the teams that this current England team has beaten. Fact is that they didn't, they couldn't beat Sweden, plus in 2010 they couldn't beat worse teams than those we've beaten this year.

Sven reckons the 2002 team was in no way ready to win the World Cup. Not that I agree with him, that was a very good side.

I still rate the 98 squad as the best we had in my memory, and it would have been even better if the moron in charge had picked Gazza. With a bit of luck and a better manager we would have had a serious chance.

What I don't like is all this "we've just been lucky with who we've played" crap. To win a tournament you need a bit of luck. How many times have we been really unlucky? Loads. You also have to BEAT the "lesser" teams that you play. Something that previous England teams were generally incapable of.

Oh and the comments about "Croatia etc beat Argentina". So what? Argentina were ****ing shit. [emoji23]

The Golden Generation that couldn't win a group consisting of Algeria, Slovenia and USA in 2010 you mean?

Or the same one that couldn't beat Sweden in 2006 having scraped past the mighty Paraguay and Trinidad and Tobago?

You'd have lost your house.

I'm not comparing them FFS. Please re-read the thread.

So someone expresses an opinion that the 'golden' generation, had they played in this world cup, would have beaten the same teams that Southgate's team have. ie. an opinion. Yes it's a fact that the golden generation didn't beat them because they never played them. You merely said they didn't and referred the fact they didn't beat Sweden in a different era!!! I would suggest most people would infer from what you stated that you were comparing the teams based on the simple fact Southgate's team beat 2018 Sweden and Sven's team couldn't beat the 2002 or 2006 Swedes! If that's not what you meant when you wrote Fact is that they didn't, they couldn't beat Sweden, plus in 2010 they couldn't beat worse teams than those we've beaten this year. then perhaps you could make it clearer!
 


LlcoolJ

Mama said knock you out.
Oct 14, 2009
12,982
Sheffield
So someone expresses an opinion that the 'golden' generation, had they played in this world cup, would have beaten the same teams that Southgate's team have. ie. an opinion. Yes it's a fact that the golden generation didn't beat them because they never played them. You merely said they didn't and referred the fact they didn't beat Sweden in a different era!!! I would suggest most people would infer from what you stated that you were comparing the teams based on the simple fact Southgate's team beat 2018 Sweden and Sven's team couldn't beat the 2002 or 2006 Swedes! If that's not what you meant when you wrote Fact is that they didn't, they couldn't beat Sweden, plus in 2010 they couldn't beat worse teams than those we've beaten this year. then perhaps you could make it clearer!

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and presume that you're Scottish.
 






OzMike

Well-known member
Oct 2, 2006
12,891
Perth Australia
What crap! Do people really don’t get what Sterling brings to the team? His running off the ball as well as when he had it caused the Swedes all sorts of problems! Yes he isn’t a natural striker but he helps create space and chances for others.

In your opinion, which it seems is undoubtedly correct.
 




dejavuatbtn

Well-known member
Aug 4, 2010
7,128
Henfield
Bottom line is that Southgate will, like Ramsey, make his own mind up up what TEAM he wants to put out. Individually they may not be considered by everybody to be the best we have but a lot of that is uninformed opinion. Ramsey left out Jimmy Greaves who scored 44 goals in 57 appearances for England - who knows what would have happened if Hurst hadn’t played. I am very happy with Southgate’s selections - he seems to know what he’s on about.
Hasn’t it been refreshing for the news from Russia to be positive about Engalnd instead of the usual list of WAGS and misdemeanours. Success in Russia will give us all such a boost for the new season.
 






spring hall convert

Well-known member
Nov 3, 2009
9,608
Brighton
Here's my main beef with Rooney.

When he and Ronaldo were both at United as youngsters it was Rooney who looked the better prospect of the two. One of the two players is the consumate professional and has gone on to be the best player of his generation, even at 33 while one always seemed to be carrying a bit too much weight and have a bit too much liking for the drink and is washed up at 32.

Us Brits have a habit of excusing these guys (cf. Flintoff) who underachieve and shortened their careers because they don't look after themselves. Whilst people that have a single minded pursuit of excellence, say Andy Murray, are considered boring.
 






Weststander

Well-known member
NSC Patreon
Aug 25, 2011
63,388
Withdean area
Here's my main beef with Rooney.

When he and Ronaldo were both at United as youngsters it was Rooney who looked the better prospect of the two. One of the two players is the consumate professional and has gone on to be the best player of his generation, even at 33 while one always seemed to be carrying a bit too much weight and have a bit too much liking for the drink and is washed up at 32.

Us Brits have a habit of excusing these guys (cf. Flintoff) who underachieve and shortened their careers because they don't look after themselves. Whilst people that have a single minded pursuit of excellence, say Andy Murray, are considered boring.

Photos of Rooney opening smoking at pool sides during his summer holidays over the years, bears out your comment.

Players such as Cruyff smoked 45 years ago, but football now is far more physically demanding and Rooney was competing with players who looked after themselves 12 months of the year.
 


LlcoolJ

Mama said knock you out.
Oct 14, 2009
12,982
Sheffield
Here's my main beef with Rooney.

When he and Ronaldo were both at United as youngsters it was Rooney who looked the better prospect of the two. One of the two players is the consumate professional and has gone on to be the best player of his generation, even at 33 while one always seemed to be carrying a bit too much weight and have a bit too much liking for the drink and is washed up at 32.

Us Brits have a habit of excusing these guys (cf. Flintoff) who underachieve and shortened their careers because they don't look after themselves. Whilst people that have a single minded pursuit of excellence, say Andy Murray, are considered boring.
Very true.
 


Farehamseagull

Solly March Fan Club
Nov 22, 2007
13,767
Sarisbury Green, Southampton
He peaked at 18. He was absolutely frightening in Euro 2004, I honestly think he would have single-handedly won us that tournament if he hadn't got injured. He never quite hit those heights afterwards and was always judged against them which is why his excellent career is maybe not as appreciated as it would ordinarily be.

I do think this England squad is benefiting from him not being there. Not just because of the the ego/superstar thing but more his style of play and lack of pace. This side is far more fluid and dynamic than we've had for years.
 


Triggaaar

Well-known member
Oct 24, 2005
49,987
Goldstone
Here's my main beef with Rooney.

When he and Ronaldo were both at United as youngsters it was Rooney who looked the better prospect of the two. One of the two players is the consumate professional and has gone on to be the best player of his generation, even at 33 while one always seemed to be carrying a bit too much weight and have a bit too much liking for the drink and is washed up at 32.
I'm sure there's some truth in this, but it's harsh to compare him to Ronaldo. I don't think Rooney would have been as good as Ronaldo if he'd just been more professional.

Us Brits have a habit of excusing these guys (cf. Flintoff) who underachieve and shortened their careers because they don't look after themselves. Whilst people that have a single minded pursuit of excellence, say Andy Murray, are considered boring.
We do seem to enjoy the laddishness of Freddie, but it's not like Andy Murray is not popular - he seems more appreciated by the public than England's top scorer is.
 




LlcoolJ

Mama said knock you out.
Oct 14, 2009
12,982
Sheffield
We do seem to enjoy the laddishness of Freddie, but it's not like Andy Murray is not popular - he seems more appreciated by the public than England's top scorer is.

Well Andy Murray does actually seem like a decent bloke. Wayne, not so much.
 


Saunders

Well-known member
Oct 1, 2017
2,292
Brighton
With regards to Rooney he could only score against what was in front of him. Lets remember Bobby Charlton scored most of his goals when we were sticking 9 past Scotland

Charlton was a midfielder and Scotland used to beat us back then. He didnt get to play the likes of Andorra and San Marino.
 



Paying the bills

Latest Discussions

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here