why are england so sh1te?

scruff321

this is an old topic but its insane really?! how the hell could they not qualify for the euros and why have they bottled so many tournaments? look at all the class players they have,2 english teams in the champions league final,there were 6 or 7 english players playing in that match, is it just down to bad management?players bottling it under the preassure because really the quality they have is unreal...

estebancambias

This should create some good debate.

Pigman II

It's a connundrum one alright.

If you look at their last 12 competitions it breaks down like this:

2 did not even qualify
3 eliminated at group stage

however for the other 7...

3 lost on penos in knock-out stage
4 lost to the team that eventually won the tournament itself (one of which was a peno shootout 1990).

Clearly this is a team that has the ability to be at least getting to the final of tournaments.

Personally I think the reason for their shortcoming is that they play the "English style" too much. Irregardless of the players they have they have an inability to dictate and change the pace of games and to more importantly hold onto the ball for any significant amout of time. If they can address this then I'm confident they could be a match for anyone.

estebancambias

Pigman II wrote: »

It's a connundrum one alright.

If you look at their last 12 competitions it breaks down like this:

2 did not even qualify
3 eliminated at group stage

however for the other 7...

3 lost on penos in knock-out stage
4 lost to the team that eventually won the tournament itself (one of which was a peno shootout 1990).

Clearly this is a team that has the ability to be getting to at least be getting to the final of tournaments.

Personally I think the reason for their shortcoming is that they play the "English style" too much. Irregardless of the players they have they have an inability to dictate and change the pace of games and to more importantly hold onto the ball for any significant amout of time. If they can address this then I'm confident they could be a match for anyone.

Eirebhoy made a great point about Spain. He said that mosty all they do is play short passes to feet.....any person can do this if they have proper co-ordination. However what makes them different is their movement.

This is not thought to English/Irish players. In junior football its a crime to pass the ball around midfield...god forbid you pass it around in defence.

There should be no focus on results in Junior Football until 16. Youngsters should be told its not a sin to lose the ball ''in their own half'', and instead be told what they can do differently in that situation. There is so much nonsense in youth football here which is why I packed it in. The only proper passing team I have ever seen were Lourdes Celtic, and to be fair my manager and coach at Wayside Celtic were amazing. Home Farm were pretty good as well but too results driven.

Our game is based around giving it to the left back who smacks it down the line in hope of a throw in. If you watch the Irish Natonal team and english team they might pass it around the back for a laugh but rarely do the defenders look to the midfield for a pass or have any sense of vision.

I have more to say but my laptop is banjaxed.

mayordenis

it's absolutely a failing in the theory of the game thought to youths,

brilliant technical players who shine in teams with players from all over the world ie Lampard at chelsea plays great with players from all over the world,
same for rio at utd, gerrard at pool etc etc.
but combined there failings are shown up it's ok to have a player or 2 with the wrong set up in their mind of how to play football,
but a full team will mostly fail regardless of their athleticism and I suppose their talent.

also egos :P

Charlie

They need more players like Gascoigne or at least players with his mindset. i.e. a player not afraid to think outside 'the box' and who loves the ball at their feet.

I also think the whole media setup in England, that follows the national team, is counter productive. They put the team and every match on a pedestal which fudges any real perspective. Also, they have a habit of hounding out any body who was half decent at the job e.g. Venables and Hoddle.

Mr Alan

a more interesting question may be.....

Why are the Irish so bitter against the English?

eirebhoy

Pepe LeFrits posted this a few months ago:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/columnists/martin_samuel/article2910642.ece

This morning I would like to challenge Sir Trevor Brooking, and everybody involved in the organisation of youth football in this country, to a game. One condition: new rules.

The goal will be 3.057 metres high, which equates to more than 10ft, roughly one and two thirds the size of Paul Robinson, making it physically impossible to touch the bar from a standing jump. (When the Australian security forces erected a fence to protect the world leaders attending the APEC conference in Sydney this year, it was three metres high.)

The goalline will be 9.174 metres long (about 30ft) or almost five Scott Carsons laying head to toe. A goalkeeper standing in the middle would have to dive almost five metres to get his body behind the ball and adequately protect inside his posts; the present width of the whole goal is 7.32 metres.

The length of the pitch will be 150.4 metres (165 yards), placing the halfway line at 75 metres. Using these dimensions, for a goalkeeper to get the ball out of his half from a grounded goal kick, he would have to clear, without bouncing, to the midway point of the opposition half with pitch measurements as they are now. The edge of the penalty area will be extended to 20.68 metres (23 yards), almost a third again on the present space, and the width of the pitch will be 112.80 metres (124 yards), which is a greater expanse than the length of most present pitches. Everything else will be the same, including the number of players and the duration of the match.

And when this travesty of a game is finished, when everybody is exhausted and fed up and utterly frustrated with demands that are at odds with the strength of the human body and the fundamental skill-based nature of the sport, then, and only then, will we comprehend what it is like to play football as a ten-year-old in England.

At this point we may begin to realise why Blame Steve McClaren or unmotivated players for England’s shambolic path to Euro 2008 if you like, but the reason standards in English football are in decline stems directly from what we see on our parks and school fields every weekend: ten-year-old boys on a full-size pitch.

That is the problem. Not John Terry’s £135,000 a week or McClaren’s 3-5-2. You want to talk numbers, I’ve got some crackers right here: the average height of a ten-year-old boy is 4ft 7in and the height of Petr Cech, the Chelsea goalkeeper, is 6ft 5in and they are required to guard the same target and kick the same distance. And we wonder why we can’t play like the Brazilians.

The pitch dimensions for my challenge match with Brooking were not plucked out of the air. They were expanded, by ratio, so that adults could enjoy the same competitive experience as children. The idea came from a friend of mine, Ray Lee, who has worked in youth football all his life. His suggestion was to take an average ten-year-old, place him on a full-size pitch and then expand that space in proportion, to equate to the size of the average man. The playing surface filled an area of 16,800 metres. What do they say about a good midfield player covering every blade of grass? A good polo pony would struggle with that space.

In most counties, seven-a-side mini-soccer ends in the final year of junior school, at which point the under11 age group converts to football as it is played by grown-ups. Team numbers are the same and, most importantly, so are pitch measurements. As in discount clothing stores, one size fits all. The reason English football has a tradition of brick outhouse central defenders who cannot pass and perpetual motion machines in midfield without an ounce of the class of Cesc Fàbregas is because our youth football is geared to little else.

If you are big you go at the back because you can kick it a long way and on an adult pitch, unless someone can hoof it to safety, a team can get boxed in defending their penalty area with no end in sight until the inevitable goal is scored. The ability to cover a ludicrously vast distance, box to box, is obviously essential for a midfield player, so the game favours long-legged cross-country runners, not tidy little ball players.

And then every two years, when the national team exit a tournament after losing to the first good technical team they play, we go into anguished inquests about our lack of skill and talk about quotas of foreign players and pride and passion, and all of those other red herrings, and never once think that the answer is under our noses and it is 4ft tall standing in an 8ft goal.

I watched an under11 district game on Saturday that was everything that is wrong with youth football in England. Brent versus Redbridge in the cup. There were some lovely players on both teams. Good, skilful boys with good, basic technique and some bright ideas about passing and movement, too. At half-time the score was 1-0 to Brent and Redbridge had been slightly the better team, but as the game wore on conditions took their toll.

When youth football is warped by its adult setting, over time it favours the strongest physical players and Brent had some very athletic boys. Tall, physically imposing and nice footballers. Redbridge could not get it out of their half. At this age, a goal kick is an advantage to the opposition; better than a corner, really, because all the defenders have their back to the play, all the attackers are facing it and the goalkeeper cannot clear the 30-metre distance to safety.

The game becomes a siege (and this is before the really wet weather hits, when it becomes as much fun as the retreat from Moscow). And as the goals go in, which they will do because anything high or near a post is impossible to save, which is why Michael Owen scored 79 goals in one season at the age of 11, so one side become more dispirited. Final score: Brent 6 Redbridge 0. And it started off a close game. Brent would probably have shaded it, whatever the location, but why such a huge difference by the end? The size of the task. It wears them down. It saps the strength, it strangles their skill. My lad can’t make it this week. He has an 11-plus examination. I’m hoping he’ll get more enjoyment from it.

I have another lad playing under12 football. This season a new team joined his competition. Massive kids, lots of attitude. I had them marked down as the league winners before a ball was kicked and after seven games they are two points clear. It is a power game for the preteens. And then, later in life, when everybody can wallop the ball a long way and chase it down, the sport becomes skill-based once more, except by that time we are lagging behind as a nation because we have focused all our efforts on the art of a panic-stricken clearance into touch to release the pressure.

Bring in the pitch boundaries, make the goals smaller and compulsorily cut the number of players in each team to nine until the age of 14. Games of this nature produce more scoring chances, more passes, more goals, better dribbling and more opportunities one on one. Better skill all round, in fact.

When youth coaches at Ajax first assess groups of young players, they make them dribble a ball around a square. Gradually the perimeter of the area is reduced until they can see who really knows how to control it. Then they make their selection and begin to look at other attributes. At our district trials, 75 youngsters played a series of games on a full-size pitch.

The FA is awash with money, we are told, so let it spearhead this revolution. It can be done. It is argued that schools and parks do not have the space to construct separate nine-a-side venues, but that is a weak, lazy excuse. They do not need more land. Paint the markings of the children’s pitch inside the adult pitch in a different colour (red would stand out in all seasons). No confusion there. Children and adults regularly play on ball courts and in indoor gyms that contain the field boundaries for several sports (basketball, netball, hockey, tennis), without becoming disoriented.

Brooking, the FA’s director of football development, continues to talk a good game, but where is the action? Skills programmes with supermarket sponsors do not even scratch the surface. It is the match that is the problem, not the training. There was plenty of raw talent in that district game, plenty of tricks and flicks and eye-of-the-needle passes. English children are not born with less skill than those in Spain or France. It is battered out of them by the circumstances in which they are forced to play.

If you want to know why we are a nation on tenterhooks about tonight’s match against Croatia, go to the park with a few mates, mark out an area the size of a modern hypermarket, including service and delivery space, with a bungalow at each end to act as the goals and away you go. Then you will see football through the eyes of a ten-year-old. And you may rather want to spend the weekend in front of Nickelodeon, too.

shane86

Mr Alan wrote: »

a more interesting question may be.....

Why are the Irish so bitter against the English?

tbh the cockyness of the media, fans etc etc has alot more to do with our sudden allegiance to the likes of Ecuador and Trinidad in 06 then 800 years, Norn Iron etc etc.

From my memory a team which tbh would be 2nd in the EPL if they were a club have always struggled through qualifiers before miracalously making it, and have stumbled through quite a few tournaments to the knock outs despite some awful performances. They always have luck with the group they draw. Even this time they would have. Assuming they took Russias slot, they would have been hammered by Spain in the opener, played out a dull nil all draw against Sweden and progressed on 2 or 3 goals against Greece, before going out on penos to the unexpectantly sluggish Dutch in the quarters. England play like a team punching above their weight but getting far, like Turkey, even though they have alot of players that should make them the big fish.

Pigman II

Mr Alan wrote: »

Why are the Irish so bitter against the English?

Jealousy mainly. They're a bigger and better nation than us when all is said.

Bubs101

First of all, England are not ****e. The only reason they didn't qualify is that Russia got ridiculously lucky in Israel when the score was tied at 1-1 and Israel smashed it against the post and the rebound fell right into a Russian's feet and they scored at the death (I remember this well because i had money on Israel). Anyway, not qualifying doesn't make you a crap team. Were France in 94 crap? No. Holland in 2002? no. Sometimes you get a hard group and given the way both Russia and Croatia played in the Euro's it's hard for anybody to say England got an easy one. It also doesn't help when McClaren is your manager.

Secondly, England lack a regular goalscorer. Rooney isn't that good at international level. Lampard doesn't score nearly as much. Gerrard doesn't score every time England need a goal like the way does for the Pool and Crouchy doesn't get his game so it's hard to justfy starting him for his Country.

They have some gaping weak points. Terry, Ferdinand and Cole are all world class defenders but recently they have had problems at right back and in goal. In the middle, when they had Becks at his peak they had so much trouble finding somebody for the left, and now that Cole has come to the fore and Becks has deteriorated they have failed to find his successor at the right.If you look at the last 2 teams to win major competitions, Spain and Italy, they have been real complete teams without glaring weaknesses . They've also had problems forming a partnership up front. Heskey and Owen worked really well, but (even though I like him) it's hard to justify starting Heskey.

Also, the media circus surrounding them is ridiculous. Even in the other countries where football is so prevelant in the media (like Italy for example, 3 dedicated sports/football newspapers) they don't have the kind of crap that went on at the World Cup for England, i.e. a reporter standing outside their training camp for three weeks when lines like this were not out of place on Sky News' breaking news line
"Rooney in odd sock shocker"
I could see how that would affect them

Jivin Turkey

Why are England sh1te? They've never had a world class manager.

Enter right Fabio Capello.

Certainly worth a punt for WC2010.

JimiTime

estebancambias wrote: »

Eirebhoy made a great point about Spain. He said that mosty all they do is play short passes to feet.....any person can do this if they have proper co-ordination. However what makes them different is their movement.

This is not thought to English/Irish players. In junior football its a crime to pass the ball around midfield...god forbid you pass it around in defence.

There should be no focus on results in Junior Football until 16. Youngsters should be told its not a sin to lose the ball ''in their own half'', and instead be told what they can do differently in that situation. There is so much nonsense in youth football here which is why I packed it in. The only proper passing team I have ever seen were Lourdes Celtic, and to be fair my manager and coach at Wayside Celtic were amazing. Home Farm were pretty good as well but too results driven.

Our game is based around giving it to the left back who smacks it down the line in hope of a throw in. If you watch the Irish Natonal team and english team they might pass it around the back for a laugh but rarely do the defenders look to the midfield for a pass or have any sense of vision.

I have more to say but my laptop is banjaxed.

I've bin saying this for years. I remember my schoolboy coaches at CIE Ranch and Cherry Orchard being the same. Too much emphasis on results, and not 'playing about in your own half'. If, god forbid, you tried something that didn't come off, you were shot down in flames. Its the biggest failing of youth football. I' glad there are others who se this.:)

leninbenjamin

eirebhoy wrote: »

Pepe LeFrits posted this a few months ago:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/columnists/martin_samuel/article2910642.ece

this is exactly why, i had a post prepared earlier to say similar.

basically if you look at England's line up they are gifted with strong athletic players but there's only a hint of creativity in the team. Gerrard's a great player but he's not a playmaker. neither is Lampard. or anyone for that matter with the possible exception of Rooney. if you compare the club lineups to the England lineup there is something missing. Gerrard for example plays along side Alonso and basically needs that type of player behind, they string the passes through he gets on the end. when the **** gets tough they can't play themselves out of danger. only lump it long and hope someone gets on the end of it. there's no Xavi, no Arshavin, no Van Der Vaart, no Pirlo in their side.

this is where the youth setups in the UK and Ireland are hopeless for. at no stage are these type of players cultivated and rewarded. I know this first hand because as a big f*cker growing up I muscled myself a starting position in many youth sides where there were actually much better technically gifted players with a lot more potential than I had who were completely dropped from the team. it's ridiculous tbh.

and note; England's failing as a national team are almost identical to ours. it's a grass roots thing. and it could be fixed if we were arsed.

cournioni

My opinion is that they are very average. The hype that the British media lead many to think that they are actually world class players...

allybhoy

Bubs101 wrote: »

First of all, England are not ****e. The only reason they didn't qualify is that Russia got ridiculously lucky in Israel when the score was tied at 1-1 and Israel smashed it against the post and the rebound fell right into a Russian's feet and they scored at the death (I remember this well because i had money on Israel). Anyway, not qualifying doesn't make you a crap team. Were France in 94 crap? No. Holland in 2002? no. Sometimes you get a hard group and given the way both Russia and Croatia played in the Euro's it's hard for anybody to say England got an easy one. It also doesn't help when McClaren is your manager.

Secondly, England lack a regular goalscorer. Rooney isn't that good at international level. Lampard doesn't score nearly as much. Gerrard doesn't score every time England need a goal like the way does for the Pool and Crouchy doesn't get his game so it's hard to justfy starting him for his Country.

Are you for real?? Israel scored an injury time goal against Russia to draw 1all, if they hadnt England would have been knocked out with a game to spare, How is that lucky? They were beaten by both Russia and Croatia away and also drew with Macedonia and Israel. Croatia also bet them at home, so how can you possibly say they were unlucky? They scraped by Macedonia 1nill away and finished level points with Israel in 4th place?? Am I missing something here?

Also how can you possibly say they dont have a goal scorer???? Rooney,Owen,Walcott,Defoe,Bent,Crouch??? Are these not top strikers in the English Premiership? I mean Rooney must be worth 30million plus on his own, how can you say that "he isnt that good at international level" He has nearly the exact same ratio for England as he does for utd. So is he not that good for utd either??? They also have 2\3 of the most attacking midfielders in the world.

Think before you type tripe

mayordenis

Mr Alan wrote: »

a more interesting question may be.....

Why are the Irish so bitter against the English?

nearly every football fan I know supports england when Ireland aren't involved so its a waste of time of a question.

shane86

Jivin Turkey wrote: »

Why are England sh1te? They've never had a world class manager.

Enter right Fabio Capello.

Certainly worth a punt for WC2010.

pfft. He holds grudges and allows it to interfere with the best interests of the team. He hardly approached learning English with any great enthusiasm (surely in this day and age an international manager needs a decent command of it even before taking on work for an English speaking country). He is arsing about with his descision on who to make captain. In Trinidad he couldnt even get the amount of subs allowed correct.

I cant see him being liked by the players in the long run. And the only team that performed well for a manager they dislike that I recall are Spain!

mayordenis wrote: »

nearly every football fan I know supports england when Ireland aren't involved so its a waste of time of a question.

Dont know of any bar one unless there is money involved tbh. Ireland is full of Man U fans who hate Gerrard, Scousers who hate Rooney and everyone who hates Ashley Cole (I dont mind, he done no better/worse then half the players in the PL.)

tbh I cant think of a player I personally hate. At a push Woodgate, Dyer, Barton.

But I do hate the media. And the fan cockyness. And the manager.

Therefore, cmon Croatia!

Mr Alan

PORNAPSTER wrote: »

My opinion is that they are very average. The hype that the British media lead many to think that they are actually world class players...

Rooney,Gerrard,Ferdinand,Cole,Cole,Scholes,Shearer,Scholes,Gazza,Robson,Adams,Beckham,Neville,Owen....England have had, and still have, the players, that is beyond doubt for me.

Look at the CL final this year....Hargreaves, Ferdinand, Carrick, Terry, Cole, Cole, Rooney, Brown, Scholes, Lampard....add in Gerrard, Crouch and Carragher from the semis.

mayordenis wrote: »

nearly every football fan I know supports england when Ireland aren't involved so its a waste of time of a question.

you must know quite exceptional football fans, i still find it massively rare for anyone to cheer for England.

shane86 wrote: »

pfft. He holds grudges and allows it to interfere with the best interests of the team.

Kind of like he did with Beckham.......oh hold on.....:rolleyes:

MisterAnarchy

eirebhoy wrote: »

Pepe LeFrits posted this a few months ago:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/columnists/martin_samuel/article2910642.ece

Superb article.
A former youth coach of mine always used to say
'The ball is round ,its meant to go round'
Wise words.

allybhoy

Yes but in fairness over here all underage football, up until 12's I think play 7aside football on an astro sized pitch with smaller goals etc, and have done in for at least the last 6years, maybe more. Well thats the case in dublin\leinster I cant comment on anywhere else. I would agree though that there is too much emphasis in this country (at underage level) on winning at all costs and just hoofing the ball up field without letting young players express themselves.

Jivin Turkey

shane86 wrote: »

pfft. He holds grudges and allows it to interfere with the best interests of the team. He hardly approached learning English with any great enthusiasm (surely in this day and age an international manager needs a decent command of it even before taking on work for an English speaking country). He is arsing about with his descision on who to make captain. In Trinidad he couldnt even get the amount of subs allowed correct.

I cant see him being liked by the players in the long run. And the only team that performed well for a manager they dislike that I recall are Spain!

For all your effort in your first paragraph you kind of shoot yourself in the foot in your second.

As regards youth training techniques, previously the only thing stopping England winning something was the lack of leadership on the bench, now that they've got someone in the top bracket there they'll fail because of how they coach their youngsters. Something tells me this won't effect their current crop.

When it comes down to it England have some of the best players in Europe in every position bar GK and perhaps out and out striker. Incredible value from a gambler's point of view for WC2010 IMO.

SantryRed

allybhoy wrote: »

Yes but in fairness over here all underage football, up until 12's I think play 7aside football on an astro sized pitch with smaller goals etc, and have done in for at least the last 6years, maybe more. Well thats the case in dublin\leinster I cant comment on anywhere else. I would agree though that there is too much emphasis in this country (at underage level) on winning at all costs and just hoofing the ball up field without letting young players express themselves.

You start playing 11-a-side when you turn Under11s. It's a joke. I'm a keeper and will never forget my first season in 11-a-side, the games used to end up mad scores because if you kicked the ball high enough, it was an instant goal.

allybhoy

Yeh that sounds a bit silly, but I have to say I watch a lot of underage games now (not in a michael jackson way, just waiting for my own game to start) and have to say the coaching and approach to the game certainly has improved since I was a nipper. They also use smaller balls instead of the big fecking Mitre 5's we used to use.

Incidentally what do you think of the grading two tier system in place at most of the bigger clubs at underage now. In my day every1 was just lumped onto the one team regardless, but know they seem to vet out talented lads from a much younger age.

scruff321

Bubs101 wrote: »

First of all, England are not ****e. The only reason they didn't qualify is that Russia got ridiculously lucky in Israel when the score was tied at 1-1 and Israel smashed it against the post and the rebound fell right into a Russian's feet and they scored at the death (I remember this well because i had money on Israel). Anyway, not qualifying doesn't make you a crap team. Were France in 94 crap? No. Holland in 2002? no. Sometimes you get a hard group and given the way both Russia and Croatia played in the Euro's it's hard for anybody to say England got an easy one. It also doesn't help when McClaren is your manager.

Secondly, England lack a regular goalscorer. Rooney isn't that good at international level. Lampard doesn't score nearly as much. Gerrard doesn't score every time England need a goal like the way does for the Pool and Crouchy doesn't get his game so it's hard to justfy starting him for his Country.

They have some gaping weak points. Terry, Ferdinand and Cole are all world class defenders but recently they have had problems at right back and in goal. In the middle, when they had Becks at his peak they had so much trouble finding somebody for the left, and now that Cole has come to the fore and Becks has deteriorated they have failed to find his successor at the right.If you look at the last 2 teams to win major competitions, Spain and Italy, they have been real complete teams without glaring weaknesses . They've also had problems forming a partnership up front. Heskey and Owen worked really well, but (even though I like him) it's hard to justify starting Heskey.

Also, the media circus surrounding them is ridiculous. Even in the other countries where football is so prevelant in the media (like Italy for example, 3 dedicated sports/football newspapers) they don't have the kind of crap that went on at the World Cup for England, i.e. a reporter standing outside their training camp for three weeks when lines like this were not out of place on Sky News' breaking news line
"Rooney in odd sock shocker"
I could see how that would affect them

man that is absolute rubbish,obviously i dont mean the team as individuals are crap but c.mon plenty of champions league finalists in the team and still cant qualify??my whole point is that they have a squad full of talent and yt they under achieve regualrly!obviously the hype doesnt help but htere proffessional footballers at the end of the day!having problems at RB and in goal boohoo thats down to bad managment i suppose

Slash/ED

Their players simply aren't that good.

Xavi6

allybhoy wrote: »

Also how can you possibly say they dont have a goal scorer???? Rooney,Owen,Walcott,Defoe,Bent,Crouch??? Are these not top strikers in the English Premiership? I mean Rooney must be worth 30million plus on his own, how can you say that "he isnt that good at international level" He has nearly the exact same ratio for England as he does for utd. So is he not that good for utd either??? They also have 2\3 of the most attacking midfielders in the world.

Think before you type tripe

No they are not top strikers in the Premiership.

Rooney - Not an out and out goalscorer. Never was, never will be.

Owen - Injury prone. Small bit of form returning but he's effectively finished as a force in the game.

Walcott - Like Rooney, not a goal scorer. More of a winger.

Defoe - Decent form towards the end of the season but was a bench warmer at club level before that which is no use to an international team.

Bent - Lol top striker? One good season, now a bench warmer.

Crouch - Loads of international goals.....against the Jamaica's of the world.

So no they don't have a world class striker capable of guiding them to a World Cup win. The only team that has successfully done it without a proper striker was France in 98 and it's unlikely to be repeated.

scruff321

Xavi6 wrote: »

No they are not top strikers in the Premiership.

Rooney - Not an out and out goalscorer. Never was, never will be.

Owen - Injury prone. Small bit of form returning but he's effectively finished as a force in the game.

Walcott - Like Rooney, not a goal scorer. More of a winger.

Defoe - Decent form towards the end of the season but was a bench warmer at club level before that which is no use to an international team.

Bent - Lol top striker? One good season, now a bench warmer.

Crouch - Loads of international goals.....against the Jamaica's of the world.

So no they don't have a world class striker capable of guiding them to a World Cup win. The only team that has successfully done it without a proper striker was France in 98 and it's unlikely to be repeated.

i suppose it seems to come down to hype,hype,hype! but at the end of the day should have had enough good players to qualify for the euros regardless of manager

Bounty Hunter

Englands "Best players" also dont tend to compliment each other very well: Gerrard/Lampard as the CM pairing for example or Rooney/Owen up front, its no wonder that G.Barry has gotten such acclaim since he recently has been starting for england, he compliments Gerrard perfectly while maybe not being as good a player, and def not as much of a goal threat as Lampard.

allybhoy

Xavi6 wrote: »

No they are not top strikers in the Premiership.

Rooney - Not an out and out goalscorer. Never was, never will be.

Owen - Injury prone. Small bit of form returning but he's effectively finished as a force in the game.

Walcott - Like Rooney, not a goal scorer. More of a winger.

Defoe - Decent form towards the end of the season but was a bench warmer at club level before that which is no use to an international team.

Bent - Lol top striker? One good season, now a bench warmer.

Crouch - Loads of international goals.....against the Jamaica's of the world.

So no they don't have a world class striker capable of guiding them to a World Cup win. The only team that has successfully done it without a proper striker was France in 98 and it's unlikely to be repeated.

Im not saying they have amazing world class strikers, but what Bubs was saying is that they didnt have decent enough strikers to get out of their group, which IMO is bull. Your telling me that Rooney and co are that bad that they cant score at home against Macedonia? Of course they can, but they didnt. The strikers are not the reason they did not qualify for the euros.

Also How about Italy in 2006? You could hardly say that at the time they had one world class striker in their squad, except for maybe Totti and sure he was past it by then. They didnt win the WC with their attack, they won it with their defence.

Xavi6

allybhoy wrote: »

Im not saying they have amazing world class strikers, but what Bubs was saying is that they didnt have decent enough strikers to get out of their group, which IMO is bull. Your telling me that Rooney and co are that bad that they cant score at home against Macedonia? Of course they can, but they didnt. The strikers are not the reason they did not qualify for the euros.

If they were good enough then they would have done it.

You listed players and asked if they were top Premiership strikers. They aren't. Simple as that.

English defenders - Amongst the best in the Prem

English midfielders - Amongst the best in the Prem

English strikers - Not amongst the best in the Prem

They just don't have it up front.

allybhoy wrote: »

Also How about Italy in 2006? You could hardly say that at the time they had one world class striker in their squad, except for maybe Totti and sure he was past it by then. They didnt win the WC with their attack, they won it with their defence.

Lol in 2006 a 29 year old Toni who had just scored 31 goals (5 more than Batistuta's best ever tally btw) that season for an average Serie A team was past it? Seriously?

allybhoy

Your joking me now arent you? Your telling me Rooney and Owen arent good enough to score against a Macedonian defense at home? Well if you think that then your as mad as a bag of brushes mate. Its not a simple thing to say if they were good enough they would have. So by your logic then Gerrard and Lampard arent good enough to score against Macedonia either?

In how many of the 7 games did Toni score in in that world cup?? 1.
He scored twice against the Ukraine in the last 8. Hardly the performance of a world class striker now is it?
And going by your logic Toni is muck aswell because he couldnt score against all the other teams that year. Or any of the teams he played against in the euros this year.

Bounty Hunter

Individually the English players are grand (quality infact), collectivley the english team are ****e. its been this way for a long time

allybhoy

Bounty Hunter wrote: »

Individually the English players are grand (quality infact), collectivley the english team are ****e. its been this way for a long time

Agreed, there are too many ego's, too many players fighting for the captains armband believing they would make a better captain than whoever currently is captain. Too few of them seem to want to run themselves into the ground for the good of the team and very few of them seem to take real pride in pulling on their national jersey, the way im sure most of would if we ever got the privilege of playing for our country. Its that desire and hunger to go that extra mile, to keep tracking your man deep into extra time, or to keep making the same run into the box that youve been making all night, when your legs are aching with cramp etc that wins you trophies, or at least gets you out of the group!

Xavi6

allybhoy wrote: »

Your joking me now arent you? Your telling me Rooney and Owen arent good enough to score against a Macedonian defense at home? Well if you think that then your as mad as a bag of brushes mate. Its not a simple thing to say if they were good enough they would have. So by your logic then Gerrard and Lampard arent good enough to score against Macedonia either?

Of course they are potentially good enough but they weren't at the time and that's all that matters.

And yes everyone knows Gerrard and Lampard aren't good enough...when they play in the same, which, and correct me if I'm wrong, they did in most of England's group games.

allybhoy wrote: »

In how many of the 7 games did Toni score in in that world cup?? 1.
He scored twice against the Ukraine in the last 8. Hardly the performance of a world class striker now is it?
And going by your logic Toni is muck aswell because he couldnt score against all the other teams that year. Or any of the teams he played against in the euros this year.

Lol you made a ridiculous statement that Toni was past it in 2006. 31 goals in your domestic league does not equal past it by anyone's standard.

allybhoy

No reread my post, I never said anything about Toni being passed it, I said Totti was past it. Toni was muck though in that competition, like he was in the competition just gone by.

I asked did they have any world class strikers when they won the WC?? The answer to that question is no.

Xavi6

allybhoy wrote: »

No reread my post, I never said anything about Toni being passed it, I said Totti was past it. Toni was muck though in that competition, like he was in the competition just gone by.

I asked did they have any world class strikers when they won the WC?? The answer to that question is no.

Then your definiteion of world class must be very tight. I would have thought that at the time, having scored 31 goals in one of Europe's top four league's and winning the European Golden Boot, Toni would have done enough to have been considered world class going into the tournament.

allybhoy

Xavi6 wrote: »

Then your definiteion of world class must be very tight. I would have thought that at the time, having scored 31 goals in one of Europe's top four league's and winning the European Golden Boot, Toni would have done enough to have been considered world class going into the tournament.

Not as tight as yours seeing as though you dont think Rooney is world class when he plays up front week in week out for the best team in europe.And I support liverpool.

And in relation to Toni I would say only scoring in one game out of 7 for your country in the world cup and not scoring at all in the preceeding euros after countless chances does not make you world class. My definition of World class is that the player in question would be in the top 10 strikers in europe, and IMO Toni wouldnt even come close to being in the top 20.

Xavi6

allybhoy wrote: »

Not as tight as yours seeing as though you dont think Rooney is world class when he plays up front week in week out for the best team in europe.And I support liverpool.

Show me just one quote where I said Rooney isn't world class. I'll take just one.

I said Rooney isn't an out and out goalscorer, which he isn't. He is never going to be the man to lead the line, it's not his game.

Here's exactly what I said in relation to Rooney -

Rooney - Not an out and out goalscorer. Never was, never will be.

You're saying that's wrong?

allybhoy wrote: »

And in relation to Toni I would say only scoring in one game out of 7 for your country in the world cup and not scoring at all in the preceeding euros after countless chances does not make you world class. My definition of World class is that the player in question would be in the top 10 strikers in europe, and IMO Toni wouldnt even come close to being in the top 20.

But he WAS in the top 20 pre World Cup 2006, probably even the top 5 going into that tournament having won the European Golden Boat. I don't see how you can argue against that.

International level -

Luca Toni - 38 caps, 15 goals

Wayne Rooney - 43 caps, 14 goals

Toni's record ain't that bad.

MagicMarker

Xavi6 wrote: »

having won the European Golden Boat.

Where do i get me one of those bad boys?

And i concur with the majority, quality individual players that can't play together.

It's a shame, as i would love to see England win the WC again, i think it would be awesome. However i don't think my opinion is shared.

Xavi6

MagicMarker wrote: »

Where do i get me one of those bad boys?

Lol



:pac:

allybhoy

Xavi6 wrote: »

If they were good enough then they would have done it.

You listed players and asked if they were top Premiership strikers. They aren't. Simple as that.

English defenders - Amongst the best in the Prem

English midfielders - Amongst the best in the Prem

English strikers - Not amongst the best in the Prem

They just don't have it up front.



Lol in 2006 a 29 year old Toni who had just scored 31 goals (5 more than Batistuta's best ever tally btw) that season for an average Serie A team was past it? Seriously?

Look were diversing from the original point here but, you said there that their Strikers are not amongst the best in the Prem. Well if Rooney starts every game for the the best team in the premiership, then surely there strikers are amongst the best in the premiership. Look at their other strikers, Owen\Walcott\Defoe\Crouch\Agbonlongname. Most countries (inc Ireland) would love to be able to play these players.

Like in fairness any front two England field out of those 5 or 6 combined with their midfield, should be hammering the likes of Macedonia and Israel, and getting results against Croatia and Russia, but theyre not. Which is precisely the OP's point. Why are they such perenial underachievers when they have such a great squad. Everyone knows they are overhyped, but they are still decent players who should be getting better results than they are? why?


Toni's record is ok but Owens is better :-
89 caps 40 goals!
I also never said he was past it, but he turns slower than that boat

Xavi6

allybhoy wrote: »

Look were diversing from the original point here but, you said there that their Strikers are not amongst the best in the Prem. Well if Rooney starts every game for the the best team in the premiership, then surely there strikers are amongst the best in the premiership. Look at their other strikers, Owen\Walcott\Defoe\Crouch\Agbonlongname. Most countries (inc Ireland) would love to be able to play these players.

You can't compare Ireland to England to be fair. They have much bigger and greater resources. There is no parallel there.

Rooney is not a goalscorer in the conventional sense. He plays well at club level because he suits the United 4-3-3 system and because he has Ronaldo there to do half of the donkey work. With England he is expected to stay right up top in either a 4-4-2 or unbelievably in a 4-5-1. That is not his game.

allybhoy wrote: »

Like in fairness any front two England field out of those 5 or 6 combined with their midfield, should be hammering the likes of Macedonia and Israel, and getting results against Croatia and Russia, but theyre not. Which is precisely the OP's point. Why are they such perenial underachievers when they have such a great squad. Everyone knows they are overhyped, but they are still decent players who should be getting better results than they are? why?

That's the crux of my argument. They're decent up front, not great.

allybhoy wrote: »

Toni's record is ok but Owens is better!
89 caps 40 goals!
I also never said he was past it, but he turns slower than that boat

Like the golden boat above?!

allybhoy

Xavi6 wrote: »

You can't compare Ireland to England to be fair. They have much bigger and greater resources. There is no parallel there.

That is exactly my point, they have bigger and greater resources. So should they not be beating the likes of Macedonia,Israel and Russia with their much bigger and better resources? Can you blame the front two like a previous poster here has for not qualifying out of that group?? No, you cant, now that shud be the end of our argument as far as Im concerned.

Xavi6 wrote: »

Like the golden boat above?!

Yes, he turns slower than UHT Milk.

Xavi6

allybhoy wrote: »

That is exactly my point, they have bigger and greater resources. So should they not be beating the likes of Macedonia,Israel and Russia with their much bigger and better resources? Can you blame the front two like a previous poster here has for not qualifying out of that group?? No, you cant, now that shud be the end of our argument as far as Im concerned.

You can't blame the front two individually no, and I never did. If someone isn't good enough but still gets picked then it's not their fault per se.

The fact is England have an abundance of world class players in pretty much every position, except up front. (also left wing). That has been, and will continue to be, their downfall since Shearer retired and Owen became a crock.

One Cold Hand

Xavi6 wrote: »

(also left wing).

Nah they have Ashley Young. Best left winger in the Premiership;)

MagicMarker

allybhoy wrote: »

Yes, he turns slower than UHT Milk.

Yeah, but there's no demand for that cos it's shoite!

allybhoy

Fooking hell man your as stubborn as me. Can you not concede the fact that their front two ARE GOOD ENOUGH to score against the likes of Macedonia?? And dont say if they were they would have, because you have already said that their midfield is world class, but they didnt score against them either, nor did they create the chances for the strikers.

The simple fact is if they had of beaten Macedonia at home they would have qualified for the Euro's but they didnt, they only drew. You cant blame this continual under achieving on the strikers, its not the strikers fault its the team as a whole.

allybhoy

MagicMarker wrote: »

Yeah, but there's no demand for that cos it's shoite!

Ya have to be up very early in the morning to catch me father......very early in the morning!

MagicMarker

Actually, i'd like to ask... I moved away after Capello was hired but before any games were played under him, so i have literally seen nor heard anything about their performances...

Has there been ANY improvement?

Xavi6

allybhoy wrote: »

Fooking hell man your as stubborn as me. Can you not concede the fact that their front two ARE GOOD ENOUGH to score against the likes of Macedonia?? And dont say if they were they would have, because you have already said that their midfield is world class, but they didnt score against them either, nor did they create the chances for the strikers.

The simple fact is if they had of beaten Macedonia at home they would have qualified for the Euro's but they didnt, they only drew. You cant blame this continual under achieving on the strikers, its not the strikers fault its the team as a whole.

If me Aunty had balls she'd be me Uncle.

Of course a whole team is to blame. Playing Lampard and Gerrard cost them as much as anything.

However, this thread asks why England are so shite. IMO it's because they don't have a Torres.