BensGrandad
New member
It is rather ironic that when a player is overlooked by England they start digging into their ancestors to see if they are eligible for one of the home country teams.
I have no faith in the F.A selecting the right man(whoever that may be) for the job.
There is clearly something wrong with the England set up. Previously we've blamed our failures and inadequate showings on several reasons, namely:
1) Players don't care enough, not enough pride.
2) They're over paid and too pampered.
3) They're not technically good enough.
4) Mentally not strong/good enough.
The success of Wales is a unique scenario that leads to some really interesting questions(IMO!). The Welsh team is made up of players who, like their English counterparts, have grown up with and in the premier league and football league. In the case of nine of those players they're even born and raised in England.
With that in mind we can't really put Wales's success and England's failure down to a question of innate national pride. If there is a difference in pride it must be down to something other than nationality. Which leads onto the over paid and over pampered claim. Wales star player is the most expensive footballer on Earth and plays for Real Madrid. That trumps any of the England squad and yet he is the exact opposite of the stereotypical over paid and over pampered prima donna. Wales's best performing player at the Euros has been Aaron Ramsey. Who plays for Arsenal. He should be a prime candidate for cruising through the tournament.
Numbers three and four can be put together. Seeing as the Welsh and English squads are drawn from the exact same pool there can be no real difference in technical or mental ability. In terms of technical ability with the exception of Bale and Ramsey you can argue that as a team and squad England are comfortably stronger.
So, Wales doing so well seems to disqualify our usual arguments why England fail. What else can it be? The manager? That seems unlikely. Coleman was hardly a stellar manager before the ales job and England have failed repeatedly under a succession of more qualified managers.
S what exactly is it that makes England such a basket case. What turns perfectly decent players into lethargic, uncoordinated serial losers when they play for England? How can Wales, with a group of players chosen from the exact same pool play with freedom and purpose while England look as if they'd rather be anywhere else but on the pitch. Is it an F.A cultural thing? Is it the press? The fans? What is it?!
The one constant in the endless stream of failure and misery has been the F.A. They have 'thorough reviews' after every tournament and nothing changes other than millions of pounds are wasted. That's why I don't trust them to get it right. They haven't done it before and I doubt they'll start doing it now.
I take it you're joking? We have played decent football in the past, and will again. We should not be trying to mimic Bolton.
Then we don't ****ing want him! We want to be world beaters.
I don't care if we're embarrassed. All or nothing - I'll take some embarrassment followed by winning, rather than guaranteeing being 'ok'.
But in the Premier League, those England players are surrounded by quality players from all nations, and they are playing in a familiar system with direction and leadership from the manager as well as leaders on the pitch. What happens when they turn up for duty with Hodgson ? Nobody knows where they're playing, nobody knows if they're playing, the system changes from game to game (half to half sometimes), they're given roles they're not familiar with. Now I accept that good players should be able to adapt, but I get the impression that ours are all a bit...thick. They need to be DRILLED, and you just don't get that with England.
Its a team without a system, and without an identity. Which means its not really a team at all. Its a collection of interchangeable players selected by a man who, at the end of 4 years, still had no real idea what his best lineup was, and as a consequence, no idea what system to play them in.
Are you Alanis Morissette?It is rather ironic that when a player is overlooked by England they start digging into their ancestors to see if they are eligible for one of the home country teams.
Smug Eddie is in his comfort zone at "plucky little Bournemouth" - look what happened when he stepped out of that little pond and tried his hand at Burnley. The very notion that he could take on the England job is ridiculous.
Allardyce is the best of a (mediocre) bunch for me. A pragmatic no-nonsense manager who would pick a squad and instill a defined playing style and shape whereby everyone knew their JOBS. We would play to our strengths. Its time to accept we are not Spain, or Italy, or Germany, or whoever the current flavour-of-the-month football team is to try and mimic. We our England. Our footballers are thicko's who need instruction and direction, and if anyone in Allardyce's team is not cutting it, he would NOT be indulged because of his big name and Nike sponsorship deals.
England are a shambles on and off the pitch. Muddled thinking has got us where we are now. We need a manager with clarity of thought and the authority to impose it on this shower of shit - get Allardyce in this afternoon. NOW.
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
So we need to spend some of the F.A's money, and more importantly the premier league's, on the mental development of our players. What are the chances of that happening? Minimal, I'd guess.
A few times. We played well in '90, '96, '98, ok in '02 and '04. It's not good enough, I agree, but let's not give up hope of ever being a decent team, and settle for playing like Bolton.Seriously, how often have we played "decent football" ?
I agree with your basic point, but (as I seem to be the only one who remembers) we did beat Spain. We've also had a few good results in the group stages.We've beaten absolutely NOBODY in a tournament match when it really matters in living memory. Nobody.
I wasn't suggesting we play tippy-tappy, that's not us, but we could play like Germany.Its this strange snobbery that decrees we must somehow be like Spain or Barcelona and pass teams to death playing the clever, tactical, tippy-tappy football that it holding us back.
Agreed.We can't play a patient possession game like Spain.
I disagree, sometimes we are.We're not as good technically as the Germans.
A few times. We played well in '90, '96, '98, ok in '02 and '04. It's not good enough, I agree, but let's not give up hope of ever being a decent team, and settle for playing like Bolton.
I agree with your basic point, but (as I seem to be the only one who remembers) we did beat Spain. We've also had a few good results in the group stages.
I wasn't suggesting we play tippy-tappy, that's not us, but we could play like Germany.
Agreed.
I disagree, sometimes we are.
I actually think the opposite. vs Germany in '90 we were excellent, we battered Holland in '96 (were 2nd best against Spain, but won thanks to the linesman), were excellent against Germany again, then excellent against Argentina in '98 despite going down to 10 men etc.Unfortunately ALL the times we play like Germany are in games that don't matter, when the chips are down we play like a Sunday League team.
Decent against Portugal twice - Rooney injured in one, sent off in the other, back when he was really good) - 5-1 vs Germany 2001, otherwise the games I already mentioned. It's been a while.If you disagree please let me know the last meaningful game against decent opposition that England looked like a good team.
I actually think the opposite. vs Germany in '90 we were excellent, we battered Holland in '96 (were 2nd best against Spain, but won thanks to the linesman), were excellent against Germany again, then excellent against Argentina in '98 despite going down to 10 men etc.
Decent against Portugal twice - Rooney injured in one, sent off in the other, back when he was really good) - 5-1 vs Germany 2001, otherwise the games I already mentioned. It's been a while.
Why would you choose Allardyce over Klinsmann?
Allardyce has no meaningful international experience to speak of, either as a player or a manager. That means no tournament experience. He's never worked abroad, only in this country. Therefore, he'll not be able to give any international insight or inspire by his achievements, he'll not be able to give any of the squad an edge or a technical advantage and, once again, he's an English manager who has always been passed over for the big jobs.
If you're being kind then his football style is - at best - pragmatic. Why would you want to watch an England team that lumps it? Allardyce has been successful at keeping teams up partly because he's good in the transfer market, but he can't improve England by "bringing in a Defoe" and upgrading what we have.
I actually think the opposite. vs Germany in '90 we were excellent, we battered Holland in '96 (were 2nd best against Spain, but won thanks to the linesman), were excellent against Germany again, then excellent against Argentina in '98 despite going down to 10 men etc.
Decent against Portugal twice - Rooney injured in one, sent off in the other, back when he was really good) - 5-1 vs Germany 2001, otherwise the games I already mentioned. It's been a while.
We've been pretty bloody awful (vs Portugal was less than 15 years ago, beat Argentina in 2002). Managers like McClaren haven't helped.15 years since we last played well against a decent team in a meaningful competition. That is jaw dropping isn't it?
We've been pretty bloody awful (vs Portugal was less than 15 years ago, beat Argentina in 2002). Managers like McClaren haven't helped.
But giving up and assuming we have to play like Stoke is not the answer. We do produce talented players at times, and we are capable of decent football with the right manager. That's what we all want.
Yep.But its the same old hard luck story isn't it.
Well, 2 games, both at home, but I agree with your point.Only 1 of the games you mention did we actually win (and we happened to be at home).
And thanks to dodgy decisions.Our record in knockout games is nothing short of humiliating. Embarrassing. Spain is the only team of any note we've ever knocked out in living memory, 20 years ago, and that was at Wembley on pens.
Well it seems to be deeply embedded in you (and many other fans). I agree we've been crap, but we have also been decent at times, and yes we have been unlucky at times.There is something deeply embedded in the english psyche that dictates failure.
I do understand your defeatist attitude, it's why I had little hope this year and could manage no more than a sigh when we were beaten by Iceland, but it can change. Other teams have awful periods, and they change. Holland didn't even qualify for Euro 2016, but they'll be back. Germany lost 5-1 against us at home, then they got to the WC final. France (World and Euro champions) lost every game in the group stage of 2002, knocked out of 2004 by Greece, then WC final 2 years later.WHOEVER we bring in is not going to be able to change that any time soon, thats for damn sure.
I agree, but I don't think that system has to be like Stoke. Man U played with English players, and that wasn't like Stoke - even Spurs can play decent football with English players.But a start would be to get a manager in who will select a core group of players, have them playing to a system that we are comfortable with, and sticking with it.
Such as whom?Countries with far less talent available to them manage to do it, why can't we ?
Agreed, that's a good starting point. I didn't come up with Stoke, Icy-gull did - which team were you thinking we'd play like?You see again, its just taken to an extreme to say that we'd just "play like Stoke" under Allardyce. Its nonsense. If it means we're actually well drilled, well organised and tough to beat, then thats not a bad starting point.
I do understand your defeatist attitude, it's why I had little hope this year and could manage no more than a sigh when we were beaten by Iceland, but it can change. Other teams have awful periods, and they change. Holland didn't even qualify for Euro 2016, but they'll be back. Germany lost 5-1 against us at home, then they got to the WC final. France (World and Euro champions) lost every game in the group stage of 2002, knocked out of 2004 by Greece, then WC final 2 years later.
I agree, but I don't think that system has to be like Stoke. Man U played with English players, and that wasn't like Stoke - even Spurs can play decent football with English players.