England Team Thread

[nakamura]

I cant see it carrying on for any length of time...it never lasts with sturridge.

Well as this is the first time he has really got going, that remains to be seen.

[PaTaito]

He had loads of play time at chelsea.

[DeathAdder]

I would not say we were awesome in euro 96. It was a great result against Holland, even if they were in disarray. And England were the best side against Germany.

But we certainly weren't awesome in the Switzerland or Scotland game, even if they did win the latter. And if I remember correctly, we were outplayed by Spain.

[PaTaito]

Modern day we are never really going to be better than the inconsistency of euro 96.

We won the world cup in the old days of football, and as part of a nation who had come through WW2 against the finalists...

[Nu-Eclipse]

He had loads of play time at chelsea.

When put into perspective, he really didn't. 41 appearances in 2 seasons is nothing when you consider that Chelsea were contesting for trophies on all fronts. And that's not even mentioning the fact that he was played out of position or coming off the bench (under unfair pressure to try and put on performances in order to try and get first-team football) for the majority of his time there.

[Nu-Eclipse]

I would not say we were awesome in euro 96. It was a great result against Holland, even if they were in disarray. And England were the best side against Germany.

But we certainly weren't awesome in the Switzerland or Scotland game, even if they did win the latter. And if I remember correctly, we were outplayed by Spain.

Correct. Spain had two perfectly good goals wrongly ruled offside.

[Baseley09]

Uri Geller moved the ball with his mind as McAllister took the pen.

[Leon Retro]

It doesn't matter if England are great, average, or ranked 100th in the world; any team can choose to try their best to play attractive football and give their public something that isn't a complete slog to watch (as most England matches have been in the past ten or so years).

Yeah, if England played positive football, then even if they lost, you could feel satisfied that the players tried. Of course, the manager also has to be positive.

What we have is England players who seem quite negative, play negative football, and a manager who looks like a nervous wreck, and is obviously not enjoying the job. For a long time now, there have been excuses, excuses, excuses, as to why England play negatively, and why the managers "need time" etc..

If England played positive, confident football, and the manager was really up for the job, I'm sure that England would get better results and their world ranking would be okay.

So, at the end of the day, it's better to be positive and lose, than play negatively and lose. The players probably hate how negative things are, and the fans who go to the matches must feel sick. The FA are a disgrace for constantly keeping the England team shrouded in a fog of negativity. We need positive people to inject some life into the England team.

[EJG1980]

An interesting idea to shake up international football; the matches might be a bit more interesting to watch than the average friendly:

England ready to play in new Nations League as revolutionary Uefa plan earns unanimous backing

England will take part in a new Nations League from the 2018-19 season after all 54 of Uefa’s members agreed to back the revolutionary competition at its annual Congress this week.

Telegraph Sport has learned that a resolution giving European football’s governing body permission to devise a third major international tournament is expected to be waved through in Kazakhstan this week, paving the way for the biggest shake-up in the football calendar in years.

The precise format of the competition has yet to be confirmed but it is understood that there is almost unanimous support for a biennial event which would replace friendly games and run in parallel with the World Cup and European Championship from 2018.

As it stands, Uefa wants to divide the event into three or four divisions, with promotion and relegation between them.

England would qualify for a 16-team top flight, which would be split into four groups of four, with home and away fixtures taking place alongside qualifying matches for the World Cup and European Championship. Germany, Spain, Italy, France, Holland and Portugal are all likely to join England in the top division.

The winners of each of the four groups would then advance to a ‘Final Four’ tournament at a neutral venue, with two semi-finals and a final taking place over several days during the summer of odd-numbered years.

As well as the carrot of promotion, winners of the lower divisions could be rewarded with wild-card places at future European Championships.

The concept of a Nations League was first proposed by Uefa last year as Michel Platini, the European governing body’s president, sought to restore the prestige of international football.

The success of the Champions League, in particular, sparked concern that what was traditionally considered the highest level of the game had been overtaken by elite club competition.

Uefa’s expansion of the European Championship finals from 16 to 24 teams was also criticised for diluting the quality of its flagship international tournament.

The draw last month for the 2016 European Championship threw up a particularly unattractive set of fixtures for England, who can finish third in Group E and still qualify for the finals.

Greg Dyke, the Football Association chairman, reacted enthusiastically this month to the possibility of playing the likes of Germany, Spain and Italy on a regular basis.

He said: “In principle, we’d be quite interested. The hard thing about that is the detail but I think a Nations League where we played the top nations would be very attractive.”

The FA faces a huge challenge to drum up interest in England’s Group E fixtures and will endeavour to secure a series of glamorous friendlies in the coming years to entice fans to Wembley, on which it still owes ?277  million.

[VR46]

So, friendly tonight, lowest new Wembley International attendance expected, could be as low as 35,000 people they reckon.
Going to take a while to pay back that FA debt with attendances like that. Really don't know why they don't make kids a quid or something to bump up numbers and at least make some money from the food/drink/merchandise etc.

The Rooney being "Captain Fatso" headline did make me laugh first thing this morning though.

[EJG1980]

I'm going to be a traitorous dog and watch the Germany vs Argentina friendly. Might switch back and forth between the two matches if Ger vs Arg doesn't live up to expectations.

Speaking of attendances, the commentator just said that they had a bigger crowd to the Germany open training session the other day than England expect at Wembley tonight.

[Nu-Eclipse]

So, friendly tonight, lowest new Wembley International attendance expected, could be as low as 35,000 people they reckon.

A mediocre team led by an inept manager off the back of their worst post-war World Cup performance, a performance that the manager has somehow managed to escape any blame for.

Is poor attendance for tonight really any wonder?

[VR46]

40,181 the attendance.

Least Arsenal have some sense, tickets for the League Cup game against Southampton, tenner an adult, fiver a child.

http://www.hotukdeals.com/deals/arsenal-vs-southampton-capital-one-cup-arsenal-for-only-10-for-adults-5-for-kids-1992043

[nakamura]

Nothing on the pitch screams good, barely even average. Sterling and Oxlade aside, I wouldn't pay to watch any of the other players.

[VR46]

Six goals in the Germany v Argentina game, was much more exciting. Sterling aside really.

Sure the next England game is our first 2016 qualifier.