England Team Thread

[Team Andromeda]

Thing is when they changed the systems to 4-4-2 England looked like much the better side, they all played pretty well. Then when it was 2-2 the manager decided to play defensive and they let another goal in. So if you are gonna blame the players then you have to say it was that they dont work well as a team when a defensive system is in place, they are all far too attacking minded and it just becomes a big mess. I still cant blame them for being attacking minded when the the manager did not realise their potential correctly though

Very true you did look a much better side under 4-4-2 , but you were still 2nd best . Fact is England haven't looked like wining anything since Euro 96 . Other teams have moved on, England gone backwards and not of all that, is down to a Manager .

England are a average side , its high time people woke up to that fact

[MarioMark]

Say what?!?! Sven was paid supermegabucks to be a winner and he was a massive loser. He played negative awful in tournaments which were there for the taking. Lets not all get misty eyed over that cretin.

Oh yeah, forgot about that part.

But my point's still valid. Who'd want the job? They get so much stick and no support from the press.

[rmoxon]

Hargreaves still isn't fully fit. He has had injury problems for a while.

He's been playing for man u for their last few games so cant be far off 100%

At 50% fit hed have been more useful than gerrard anyway.

[RBelmont]

imo the england team smacks in the face of........"serious lack of good training grounds tactics"

in all the hype and roar of the second half, when england were showing some urgancy..they never seemed to know where to go, what play to make etc. and instead opt for the silly long game thats as good as giving away posession against an organised team.

why on earth would anyone change the GK to a guy thats questionable anyways, on a wet evening, on a battered field(american footy one week before ffs fifa) in such a crucial game. i mean all mclarren has done is make wrong desicions, the ones he has made on his own back have been ****e, and the whole gerrard/barry midfield slipped in to place conveniently as he had no choice but to play them together at one point........and it became "oh we have found a great midfield"

lampard is always at best a ****ing ghost on the field(i heard commentators mention him maybe twice the whole game), gerrard was dissapointing(cant say he plays that bad all the time tbh), joe cole at least went by some mans, crouch was best by a mile. richards, bridge(worst on the pitch by a mile),wright phillips, lampard, bent(played like one) .....were all utterly dire.

i mean i like Dawson(spurs) as a defender, and already richards has proved his usefulness in a RB position............so why leave bridge on? because teh guy didnt know what the **** he was doing, and that is just one small example.

sol made some nice moves in defense but aint a leader, beckam did what he does, crouch wasted a lot of flick ons but played well in the main.

What we need is a first and foremost "charismatic" manager. ironically as far back as venebles in 1996 (whom fielded the best england team since 66) we have had nothing but cardboard cut outs who have the persnoality of a farmfoods xmas card.

then we need some continental style(looks like in the large scale of things old sven did a good job)

and someone who can kick some ass in the dressing room(mclarren looks like the kind of guy who would get mugged leaving a grease convention).

scolari would have been perfect, but this country is its own worst enemy when it comes to football, and has been for years now.

England is simply a place where you get paid a lot, for playing in our english teams...................AIR.

[EJG1980]

Seems our dismal form in the Euro qualifiers is going to have a knock on effect. We've dropped out of the top group of seeds for the 2010 World Cup qualifying draw. Means we could end up with someone like Italy, France or Germany in our group! BBC story.

Hopefully a new manager will have us sorted out a bit by then otherwise it could be very tough (especially as only top spot gets you through, second places go into two legged playoffs).

[Red Hogg]

I thought WC qualification seeding was linked to previous WC qualification/ finals performances, and were a separate issue from Euro's?

[toythatkills]

It looks like it's based on current world ranking, and obviously our failure to qualify directly affects that. We're gonna need a bit of luck in this draw or we may well risk missing the 2010 World Cup too.

[saif]

RBelmont.

Terry Venables WAS involved this time. This man has always had his Fleet Street cronies and so the public think much higher of him than they should. We did well in 96 but, had no qualifiers so he could practise for two years and we did not even play that well except against Holland and Germany. We won two games out of five in Euro 96 AT HOME. That is not that impressive. Also, what about his post 96 record? Really really bad.

TV is style over substance and a sneaky ****er to boot.

[RBelmont]

RBelmont.

Terry Venables WAS involved this time. This man has always had his Fleet Street cronies and so the public think much higher of him than they should. We did well in 96 but, had no qualifiers so he could practise for two years and we did not even play that well except against Holland and Germany. We won two games out of five in Euro 96 AT HOME. That is not that impressive. Also, what about his post 96 record? Really really bad.

TV is style over substance and a sneaky ****er to boot.

involved my ass, venables was nothing more than a sweetner to soften the mclarren blow. he probably had little or no influence in the final proceedings in terms of gameplay.

they put him as assistant as many(myself included) felt he was a good coach.

[saif]

It is/was well reported that the Croatia away game, with the different formation, was TV's plan.
Who would TV be a sweetener for exactly? Only someone as incompetent as Second Choice Steve would think he could help after his truly woeful record post 96.

[RBelmont]

It is/was well reported that the Croatia away game, with the different formation, was TV's plan.
Who would TV be a sweetener for exactly? Only someone as incompetent as Second Choice Steve would think he could help after his truly woeful record post 96.

look man we were unquestionably a strong side in 96 and around that period(even in 98 when sven first took over), whether the formation was venables plan or not is besides the point, mclarren is the man responsable for training ground practises right? also i very much Doubt TV would have chosen carson in goal, lescott in defense(wtf) etc. i mean crouch on his own up front could well have worked if the side had played competantly....i mean players like gerrard and lampard etc should love the idea of many forward runs in support of the lone striker, but there was just no idea of what to do next.

i blame mclarren for that.

[saif]

Sven took over in 2000/1. We were a very good, professional side 96-98 imho.
TV drew a LOT of meaningless friendlies trying stuff out, he stuck with Sheringham and Shearer even though it did not work for two years basically. Quick Wiki search shows Shearer did not score for England from 9/'94 to 6/'96. The media may have you believe that we were great then but, 94-96 we were "OK". We did well in 96 but no better than a host nation should expect.
After 96, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Venables
Australia - failed to get them to WC98 (really badly messing up against Iran)
Crystal Palace - messed up
Leeds - Ooops
Middlesborough - mediocre.

I have a feeling that McClaren, as manager may be less involved in training ground stuff than the coach but not sure how it works at England, I assume they were both involved with McClaren leading.

Carson is a good keeper, played better than Robinson for a long time. He should have dropped PR before. It was a mistake.
Lescott is a defender and the best option we had since Carragher said bye bye after the regular shafting he got. At least it was not Wes Brown! The Carragher situation was a mistake. These were earlier mistakes biting him on the arse imho.

Saying TV is not as **** as SM is hardly a recommendation though!

[RBelmont]

Sven took over in 2000/1. We were a very good, professional side 96-98 imho.
TV drew a LOT of meaningless friendlies trying stuff out, he stuck with Sheringham and Shearer even though it did not work for two years basically. Quick Wiki search shows Shearer did not score for England from 9/'94 to 6/'96. The media may have you believe that we were great then but, 94-96 we were "OK". We did well in 96 but no better than a host nation should expect.
After 96, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Venables
Australia - failed to get them to WC98 (really badly messing up against Iran)
Crystal Palace - messed up
Leeds - Ooops
Middlesborough - mediocre.

I have a feeling that McClaren, as manager may be less involved in training ground stuff than the coach but not sure how it works at England, I assume they were both involved with McClaren leading.

Carson is a good keeper, played better than Robinson for a long time. He should have dropped PR before. It was a mistake.
Lescott is a defender and the best option we had since Carragher said bye bye after the regular shafting he got. At least it was not Wes Brown! The Carragher situation was a mistake. These were earlier mistakes biting him on the arse imho.

Saying TV is not as **** as SM is hardly a recommendation though!

nice research lol!

anyhow, did venables not manage continental sides you missed out?

well why not play dawson? a really strong reliable defender, imo better choice than lescott....that way richards could have winged it(instead of attempting to push on anyways as a cb) and lescott could have taken over from the dire wayne bridge.


wether anyone thinks carson is a good goalie is realy missing the point lol........wet field, bad grouund, most important international all year.........and lets try a brand new goalie, who is a nervous wreck.

yeah thats a good idea, i'll go as far as saying if robinson/james had played....we'd be at europe next year.

[Shoju]

Largely comes down to that old chestnut of too many foreign players in the Premier league. England's first XI is quality, but the squad is wafer thin on quality once we get a few injuries. Look at the players who were playing today, how many games have the 3 strikers out there played this season between them?? Two of them can't even get in the Spurs side for christ sake, and this is the best we have?!
Too many foreign players is without doubt damaging the national game, not enough English players are getting the chance to play regularly at the top level. Just look at Arsenal's squad ffs, Gooner supporters might as well follow Lyon and be done with it.

But then this raises the argument as to whether English players are good enough, if they're not forcing their way in. I've always thought there should be a cap on foreign players in domestic team's squads, the EPL stands for the English Premier league after all...

Totally agree. This is one of the reasons I couldn't take club football seriously. Some of those teams should be called world elevens.

Weren't they trying to bring back a limit on overseas players in clubs? Didn't it use to be 4 players per club?

[Shez]

Our players are not good enough - End of debate