Not sure where I'd start with England. We're so far behind it's unreal.
The front players need to be versatile. The defenders need to be comfortable on the ball and willing to start attacks from the back. The full backs need to play as wingers essentially.
I'm completely biased as I'm a City fan.....but breakdown our best XI and look at what the nuts and bolts are.....
Kompany.....everything you could want in a centre half. Could probably play up front if he wanted, unbelievably gifted. Zabaleta and Kolarov.....basically play as wingers. Fernandino......has the engine, discipline and positional intelligence. Covers both the full backs and Yaya, but is also no slouch going forward as well. Toure.....a beast of a player. Just don't forget his birthday innit.
Then take your pick from Aguero, Silva, Nasri, Dzeko, Jovetic, Negredo. Only one will play as the 'lone forward'. The others don't have designated positions as such; they roam free, creating pockets of space. Traditionally it's Dzeko up top, Aguero in behind him, and Silva and Nasri causing havoc in that final third. An absolute nightmare for defenders.
For too long, England played a rigid 4-4-2. Other teams experimented (Spain not playing a striker springs to mind). The most one sided game I've seen in recent times is Bayern Munich winning at Eastlands 3-1. MP made the mistake of going with 2 up front that day, whereas Bayern barely played with 1 forward, Muller being their most advanced player. But with Lahm pulling the strings, and Ribery and Robben causing chaos, we were battered.
I,ve already had my moan in football corner so i,ll keep it short.
Just been reading the thread and a bit bemused why ppl kept thinking it was in our own hands if we got the draw against Uruguay. To keep it in our own hands we always had to get the win as Italy and Costa Rica could always finish on 6pts . Couldn,t understand why Roy Hodgson was even talking about the draw before the game and the pundits who said we should have defended the 1-1 including Andros Townsend
Ps - I was also bemused as to why Roy Hodgson would play players who wern,t even going to Brazil in their final warm up games in the states. I thought they were preparing for the humidity and heat . Can,t see any of that in France or Russia
Just for clarity, a draw against Uruguay would still have seen England have a chance of qualifying in the final game.
England and Uruguay would be on one point and Italy, three. So England would be relying on Uruguay not losing to the Italians and would then need to beat Costa Rica and better the goal difference of whichever of the other two was on four points.
I'm not going to comment on the England players (in this tournament) because opinions are what they are and nobody ever wants to be convinced. The only thing I'll say is that Beckham was ridiculously overrated and Gerrard ridiculously underrated throughout their international careers. Only one player can be the focus of attention. If you want to build a team around Rooney/Beckham/Gascoigne or whoever, you can't complain when Gerrard/Scholes/McManaman don't perform to the same standard as they do for their club. At their clubs, they are the focus so obviously do more.
England didn't play that badly. They just didn't defend well enough or take the chances that came their way. Fine margins have seen them out. This England team is better than it has been for quite a long while... but results oriented thinking is predominant in football.
I,ve already had my moan in football corner so i,ll keep it short. Just been reading the thread and a bit bemused why ppl kept thinking it was in our own hands if we got the draw against Uruguay. To keep it in our own hands we always had to get the win as Italy and Costa Rica could always finish on 6pts . Couldn,t understand why Roy Hodgson was even talking about the draw before the game and the pundits who said we should have defended the 1-1 including Andros Townsend Ps - I was also bemused as to why Roy Hodgson would play players who wern,t even going to Brazil in their final warm up games in the states. I thought they were preparing for the humidity and heat . Can,t see any of that in France or Russia Posted by MP33
A draw would have kept it in our hands on Tuesday providing Costa Roca didn't win yesterday. Since thy were 7/1 with most bookies this was very unlikely. Bit fair play to them. Even with a draw and Costa Rica winning we would still have every chance of qualifying on Tuesday.
However now we are out. God job we didn't draw right tho Aussie ?
In Response to Re: England loss to Uruguay is not so bad... : A draw would have kept it in our hands on Tuesday providing Costa Roca didn't win yesterday. Since thy were 7/1 with most bookies this was very unlikely. Bit fair play to them. Even with a draw and Costa Rica winning we would still have every chance of qualifying on Tuesday. However now we are out. God job we didn't draw right tho Aussie ? Posted by 1267
1267, do you just want to argue?
you were wrong when you said, lose or draw, it was "in our hands", it simply never was. my email was about the difference between draw and lose being negligible, and it has proven to be the case.
it is clear that you are not hot on logic or mathematics.
As for the post about EAMMON DUNPHY, the guy is an anti English p***k.... but worth watching for the c**p he comes out with... http://youtu.be/-HN5Bi1O6cY
There is a consoling line of thought that helps. Had Suarez not scored that second goal, or had England scored again, it is really of little consequence. Here's why... Italy must beat Costa Rica, that hasn't changed England must beat Costa Rica, that hasn't changed We don't want Italy in position not to care about losing to Uruguay on Tuesday. Uruguay now with 3 points have to beat Italy on Tuesday, yet this could see Italy eliminated Uruguay with 1 point (had England drawn last night) could not eliminate Italy So now Uruguay v Italy is a crucial game for both. Had England drawn, Tuesday would be of little importance for Italy, who might wish to lose to miss Brazil and/or The Netherlands in the quarter-finals. So, it's quite good we didn't score a late equaliser. Posted by aussie09[/QUOTE
You were right. It's great to be out. Rofl. Sick logic. Good work.
Id personally prefer that we scored and were still in the World Cup tbh. Obviously that's bad logic tho ...
In Response to Re: England loss to Uruguay is not so bad... : 1267, do you just want to argue? you were wrong when you said, lose or draw, it was "in our hands", it simply never was. my email was about the difference between draw and lose being negligible, and it has proven to be the case. it is clear that you are not hot on logic or mathematics. Posted by aussie09
If you really think the difference between being out of the World Cup and in it is negligible then you really shouldn't bother watching.
In my humble opinion the issue with English football is the amount of foreigners in the premier league and also in all the academys. YES it makes for an exciting league but does nothing for the National team. My 2nd point is that our English players who play in in the National squad are surounded by quality foreign players who make intelligent runs and pass and move and make space for our English players. This doesnt happen in the England team we are all to static. Our defence requires a centre half to lead by example. HARD and No Nonsense. Butcher, Adams and dare i say it Terry tho i would never have had him back in the squad.
Give youth a chance but are they going to get enough game time at their clubs to develop at the speed they should. Will the OX play every game i doubt it. Possibly same with Sterling and Barkley may still be used only 75% of time at Everton. If Luke Shaw goest to Man Utd will he play week in week out.
In my humble opinion the issue with English football is the amount of foreigners in the premier league and also in all the academys. YES it makes for an exciting league but does nothing for the National team. My 2nd point is that our English players who play in in the National squad are surounded by quality foreign players who make intelligent runs and pass and move and make space for our English players. This doesnt happen in the England team we are all to static. Our defence requires a centre half to lead by example. HARD and No Nonsense. Butcher, Adams and dare i say it Terry tho i would never have had him back in the squad. Give youth a chance but are they going to get enough game time at their clubs to develop at the speed they should. Will the OX play every game i doubt it. Possibly same with Sterling and Barkley may still be used only 75% of time at Everton. If Luke Shaw goest to Man Utd will he play week in week out. Any way need to get back to work now. Posted by ALFIE123
I like how you blame foreign players, then in the very next sentence suggest that the top quality imports in the league improve English players.
In my humble opinion the issue with English football is the amount of foreigners in the premier league and also in all the academys. YES it makes for an exciting league but does nothing for the National team. My 2nd point is that our English players who play in in the National squad are surounded by quality foreign players who make intelligent runs and pass and move and make space for our English players. This doesnt happen in the England team we are all to static. Our defence requires a centre half to lead by example. HARD and No Nonsense. Butcher, Adams and dare i say it Terry tho i would never have had him back in the squad. Give youth a chance but are they going to get enough game time at their clubs to develop at the speed they should. Will the OX play every game i doubt it. Possibly same with Sterling and Barkley may still be used only 75% of time at Everton. If Luke Shaw goest to Man Utd will he play week in week out. Any way need to get back to work now. Posted by ALFIE123
We failed to even qualify for the 1974 1978 and 1994 world cups there wasnt many foreigners playing in the English leagues then. At the moment we just arnt good enough we wern't then and arn't now but with this crop of playersi belive we will be able to compete with the best in the next few years!
Well said Spinky. Future looks promising indeed. But to blame foreign players for our shortcomings is just plain lazy and wholly inaccurate. Posted by hhyftrftdr
+1, blaming the foreign players is just soo lol.
If our youngsters are good enough they break through.
My issue with this squad is that they where great going forward but defensively we are now in a worse position than for many years. Traditionally England have always had world class defenders.
A bit of hindsight but perhaps Ashley Cole should have been picked for his defensive qualities and the fact that glenn johnson is our best right back just shows how bad things are.
Cahill is no slouch, but his reading of the situation for Uruguay's second goal was poor. Suarez anticipated where the ball would go and knew he couldn't be off side, Cahill just stood there.
In Response to Re: England loss to Uruguay is not so bad... : +1, blaming the foreign players is just soo lol. If our youngsters are good enough they break through. My issue with this squad is that they where great going forward but defensively we are now in a worse position than for many years. Traditionally England have always had world class defenders. A bit of hindsight but perhaps Ashley Cole should have been picked for his defensive qualities and the fact that glenn johnson is our best right back just shows how bad things are. Cahill is no slouch, but his reading of the situation for Uruguay's second goal was poor. Suarez anticipated where the ball would go and knew he couldn't be off side, Cahill just stood there. Posted by ACEGOONER
To be fair Kyle Walker was injured.
I think the foreign players do have an impact. In balance its fine. Young players come through etc. But even if some top shot talent comes through at a club, the manager has to justify spending £18m on that guy he brough in from wherever just 5 months before hand in the same position.
Injuries have cost other problems.
I also have evidence of forgien players causeing problems.
In the late 90s early 2000s Scotland had an aging team, virtually every player at the top clubs (in scotland) bar a few where brought in from Aboad. Scotland haven't qualified for a tournament since 98.
Around the mid 2000s we did change things and the national team has improved. 2 near misses, and one of the most shocking free kick decisions ive ever seen. The issue we have now is we're in tougher qualifying groups thus we have to play better teams to get there. England (with all due respect) have qualifying groups far, far easier to make these competitions. They earnt their ranking, but even in the terms of this world cup we seemed to get draw with the better teams in each seed bracket.
If IMO forgien players keep stunting the growth of young English talent, you will end up in the same cycle as we did.
Donald, England have been woeful for years. Not a bean since '66. It's just too easy to blame foreign players these days.....there were hardly any foreign players in the 70's and 80's, and yet we won nothing in those decades. Ditto early 90's.
The sooner that people realise (media, general population etc) that this is our level these days the better IE; getting beat by Uruguay, getting beat by a decent but not amazing Italian team, getting beat by Chile in that friendly.
We have zero world class players. We have zero real game changers. Not at international level. Rooney/Gerrard etc might be able to do that at club level, but it's a different ball game at World Cups when you're facing well organised, well drilled international teams. Our tactical nous is years behind the WC favourites.
The premium that comes with English players doesn't help. If we wanted to sign Barkley, probably looking at a package close to, if not more than, £30m.....we signed David Silva for £24m.
Oh and Don, Scotland haven't qualified for a tournament since '98 because they're cr@p
Donald, England have been woeful for years. Not a bean since '66. It's just too easy to blame foreign players these days.....there were hardly any foreign players in the 70's and 80's, and yet we won nothing in those decades. Ditto early 90's. The sooner that people realise (media, general population etc) that this is our level these days the better IE; getting beat by Uruguay, getting beat by a decent but not amazing Italian team, getting beat by Chile in that friendly. We have zero world class players. We have zero real game changers. Not at international level. Rooney/Gerrard etc might be able to do that at club level, but it's a different ball game at World Cups when you're facing well organised, well drilled international teams. Our tactical nous is years behind the WC favourites. The premium that comes with English players doesn't help. If we wanted to sign Barkley, probably looking at a package close to, if not more than, £30m.....we signed David Silva for £24m. Oh and Don, Scotland haven't qualified for a tournament since '98 because they're cr@p Posted by hhyftrftdr
+1 to that, obv...
Anyway, everyone seems to have their one favourite bug-bear that is "responsible" for England not winning. There isn't one single reason, there are lots of them. Here are a few:
i) England has far fewer properly trained coaches than most of their European rivals. Kids are coached mainly by P.E. teachers and untrained volunteers.
ii) Too many 'old school' folks still hold sway. Running with the ball is "selfish play" and flair is considered a "luxury" in too many teams. We train kids out of having good technique and making adventurous decisions, in favour of playing it safe.
iii) We have our kids playing competitive football at a very young age. Winning is too important and developing your ability is not the prime concern. In the great scheme of things, do we want kids to care only about winning at 11 years old, or is improving themselves more important?
iv) Kids still play on full size pitches, with full size balls. Why? If you want them to develop close control, don't put them on a pitch where they can't get near each other to put real pressure on. The first touch of English players doesn't touch some of the better players in the world.
v) We have a population of around 3 million British Asians but only a handful of British Asian players. This is a huge 5% of the population that seem to have no interest or prospect in football. The brains trust of the latest FA commission included nobody with any history or expertise of reaching this group. If football wants to exploit and encourage this section of the population, it needs to learn lessons from cricket. The commission panel was made up entirely of football insiders.
vi) English players command a huge premium, as has been mentioned. The example of Wilfried Zaha is a very good one: Manchester United paid £15 million for a player who had never played in the top fight, who wasn't even the top performer in the Championship. That price was so high because he was English.
Perhaps a better example is a lad called Dean Bowditch. He was wanted by Liverpool in his late teens and Ipswich were apparently asking for £6-8 million. Bowditch was not the finished article and Liverpool were looking to bring him to the club in the hope that they could aid his development. Ipwich stood in the way of that and the last I heard of Bowditch, he was playing for Yeovil or MK Dons.
Young kids being signed to long-term contracts in the hopes that their clubs might get a big fee for them one day is good news for the club involved but dreadful news for the individual players. Agents and the PFA need to be more responsible in the advice they give to their young clients.
I could go on and on with other points including the standard of playing fields, the availability of funding for youth clubs, the relative wealth of our people compared to those countries where a ball is the primary source of entertainment and many, many other issues...
Needless to say, the presence of a high number of foreign players in the professional leagues is not a significant cause of England's long-term problems. It's more of a symptom. Blaming the foreigners and the Premier League's power is en vogue. It's not such a narrow issue.
With that said, I maintain that England did not play too badly at all, lost to two good teams by narrow margins and, if they'd taken their chances or not been a bit dim at the back, they could already have booked their place in the last sixteen. It's not been all that bad and the team is better than they have been for a long time. The problems aren't all that bad in English football, in reality. They are one of the top 20 - perhaps top 10 - teams in the world and will still be in twenty years time. There are marginal improvements that can be made in many, many areas to close the gap on the top 5, but it's not something that requires a major revolution in this country.
Comments
The front players need to be versatile. The defenders need to be comfortable on the ball and willing to start attacks from the back. The full backs need to play as wingers essentially.
I'm completely biased as I'm a City fan.....but breakdown our best XI and look at what the nuts and bolts are.....
Kompany.....everything you could want in a centre half. Could probably play up front if he wanted, unbelievably gifted.
Zabaleta and Kolarov.....basically play as wingers.
Fernandino......has the engine, discipline and positional intelligence. Covers both the full backs and Yaya, but is also no slouch going forward as well.
Toure.....a beast of a player. Just don't forget his birthday innit.
Then take your pick from Aguero, Silva, Nasri, Dzeko, Jovetic, Negredo. Only one will play as the 'lone forward'. The others don't have designated positions as such; they roam free, creating pockets of space. Traditionally it's Dzeko up top, Aguero in behind him, and Silva and Nasri causing havoc in that final third. An absolute nightmare for defenders.
For too long, England played a rigid 4-4-2. Other teams experimented (Spain not playing a striker springs to mind). The most one sided game I've seen in recent times is Bayern Munich winning at Eastlands 3-1. MP made the mistake of going with 2 up front that day, whereas Bayern barely played with 1 forward, Muller being their most advanced player. But with Lahm pulling the strings, and Ribery and Robben causing chaos, we were battered.
Rip it up and start again England.
1267, do you just want to argue?
you were wrong when you said, lose or draw, it was "in our hands", it simply never was.
my email was about the difference between draw and lose being negligible, and it has proven to be the case.
it is clear that you are not hot on logic or mathematics.
As for the post about EAMMON DUNPHY, the guy is an anti English p***k.... but worth watching for the c**p he comes out with... http://youtu.be/-HN5Bi1O6cY
My 2nd point is that our English players who play in in the National squad are surounded by quality foreign players who make intelligent runs and pass and move and make space for our English players. This doesnt happen in the England team we are all to static.
Our defence requires a centre half to lead by example. HARD and No Nonsense. Butcher, Adams and dare i say it Terry tho i would never have had him back in the squad.
Give youth a chance but are they going to get enough game time at their clubs to develop at the speed they should. Will the OX play every game i doubt it. Possibly same with Sterling and Barkley may still be used only 75% of time at Everton. If Luke Shaw goest to Man Utd will he play week in week out.
Any way need to get back to work now.
Future looks promising indeed. But to blame foreign players for our shortcomings is just plain lazy and wholly inaccurate.
The sooner that people realise (media, general population etc) that this is our level these days the better IE; getting beat by Uruguay, getting beat by a decent but not amazing Italian team, getting beat by Chile in that friendly.
We have zero world class players. We have zero real game changers. Not at international level. Rooney/Gerrard etc might be able to do that at club level, but it's a different ball game at World Cups when you're facing well organised, well drilled international teams. Our tactical nous is years behind the WC favourites.
The premium that comes with English players doesn't help. If we wanted to sign Barkley, probably looking at a package close to, if not more than, £30m.....we signed David Silva for £24m.
Oh and Don, Scotland haven't qualified for a tournament since '98 because they're cr@p